Index 
Verbatim report of proceedings
PDF 7201k
Tuesday, 13 September 2011 - Strasbourg OJ edition
1. Opening of the sitting
 2. Debates on cases of breaches of human rights, democracy and the rule of law (announcement of motions for resolutions tabled): see Minutes
 3. Directive on mediation in the Member States (debate)
 4. European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (FRONTEX) (debate)
 5. Voting time
  5.1. Request for waiver of Mr Hans-Peter Martin's parliamentary immunity (A7-0267/2011 - Tadeusz Zwiefka) (vote)
  5.2. European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex) (A7-0278/2011 - Simon Busuttil) (vote)
  5.3. Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items (A7-0256/2011 - Vital Moreira) (vote)
  5.4. Obsolete Council acts in the field of the common agricultural policy (A7-0252/2011 - Paolo De Castro) (vote)
  5.5. Repeal of certain obsolete Council acts (A7-0257/2011 - Vital Moreira) (vote)
  5.6. Repeal of Regulation (EEC) No 429/73 and Regulation (EC) No 215/2000 (A7-0250/2011 - Vital Moreira) (vote)
  5.7. Effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (A7-0272/2011 - Sajjad Karim) (vote)
  5.8. Public regulated service offered by the global navigation satellite system established under the Galileo programme (A7-0260/2011 - Norbert Glante) (vote)
  5.9. International Tropical Timber Agreement (A7-0280/2011 - Vital Moreira) (vote)
  5.10. EU-Switzerland agreement on the protection of designations of origin and geographical indications for agricultural products and foodstuffs (A7-0247/2011 - Béla Glattfelder) (vote)
  5.11. EU-Norway agreement concerning additional trade preferences in agricultural products (A7-0276/2011 - Helmut Scholz) (vote)
  5.12. Extension to Liechtenstein of the EC-Switzerland agreement on trade in agricultural products (A7-0248/2011 - Béla Glattfelder) (vote)
  5.13. Convention on the Conservation and Management of High Seas Fishery Resources in the South Pacific Ocean (A7-0274/2011 - Carmen Fraga Estévez) (vote)
  5.14. EU-Brazil agreement on civil aviation safety (A7-0259/2011 - Silvia-Adriana Ţicău) (vote)
  5.15. Agreement between the EU, Iceland and Norway on the surrender procedure between the Member States of the European Union and Iceland and Norway (A7-0268/2011 - Rui Tavares) (vote)
  5.16. Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking (A7-0261/2011 - Herbert Reul) (vote)
  5.17. Audit policy - lessons from the crisis (A7-0200/2011 - Antonio Masip Hidalgo) (vote)
  5.18. Situation of women approaching retirement age (A7-0291/2011 - Edit Bauer) (vote)
  5.19. Directive on mediation in the Member States (A7-0275/2011 - Arlene McCarthy) (vote)
  5.20. Voluntary modulation of direct payments under the common agricultural policy (A7-0203/2011 - Britta Reimers) (vote)
  5.21. Officially supported export credits (A7-0364/2010 - Yannick Jadot) (vote)
  5.22. An effective raw materials strategy for Europe (A7-0288/2011 - Reinhard Bütikofer) (vote)
  5.23. EU counter-terrorism policy: main achievements and future challenges (A7-0286/2011 - Sophia in ’t Veld) (vote)
  5.24. Black Sea fisheries (A7-0236/2011 - Iliana Malinova Iotova) (vote)
  5.25. Safety of offshore oil and gas activities (A7-0290/2011 - Vicky Ford) (vote)
  5.26. Women entrepreneurship in small and medium-sized enterprises (A7-0207/2011 - Marina Yannakoudakis) (vote)
 6. Address by Bronisław Komorowski, President of the Republic of Poland
 7. Welcome
 8. Explanations of vote
 9. Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes
 10. Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting: see Minutes
 11. Interpretation of the Rules of Procedure: see Minutes
 12. Documents received: see Minutes
 13. Delegated acts (Rule 87a): see Minutes
 14. Energy market integrity and transparency (debate)
 15. Annual report on monitoring the application of EU law (2009) - Better legislation, subsidiarity and proportionality and smart regulation - Public access to documents 2009-2010 (debate)
 16. Activities of the Committee on Petitions 2010 (debate)
 17. Question Time (Commission)
 18. Internationalisation of European SMEs (debate)
 19. EU homelessness strategy (debate)
 20. A comprehensive approach to non-CO2 climate-relevant anthropogenic emissions (debate)
 21. Agenda for next sitting: see Minutes
 22. Closure of the sitting


  

IN THE CHAIR: RODI KRATSA-TSAGAROPOULOU
Vice-President

 
1. Opening of the sitting
Video of the speeches
 

(The sitting opened at 09.00)

 

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

3. Directive on mediation in the Member States (debate)
Video of the speeches
MPphoto
 

  President. – The first item is the report by Arlene McCarthy, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, on the implementation of the directive on mediation in the Member States, its impact on mediation and its take-up by the courts (2011/2026(INI)) (A7-0275/2011).

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Arlene McCarthy, rapporteur. – Madam President, firstly, I would really like to thank my colleagues and the committee staff for supporting my work on this report on mediation. This report was drawn up to check on how the 27 Member States are implementing the 2008 European mediation law and its guidelines. When we drafted this law in 2008, I know that some Members were not convinced of the need for a European directive, but I believe that the hearings and consultations we conducted demonstrated that we do need EU-wide guidelines on mediation.

I am receiving an increasing number of requests for assistance from my constituents who are involved in cross-border disputes: family disputes over custody, access to children and maintenance payments, property, housing problems, and businesses chasing payments they are owed in another EU Member State.

Going to court is costly; in fact, 45% of small businesses said they would not pursue a claim in another EU court if the money owed was less than EUR 50 000, because they would end up paying more in costs. What a massive loss for our small businesses across Europe.

Our findings in drawing up this report demonstrated that mediation is a very valuable tool for consumers and businesses. I think that the message to Member States today is that they need to do more to promote the benefits of mediation. They should provide more training for mediators and encourage the drawing up of voluntary codes of conduct. I believe this is the case because best practice in mediation shows that across Europe, there is a 70% success rate with mediation cases and, in fact, this rises to 80% if the parties voluntarily choose mediation.

However, still only 1% of parties are taking up mediation in Europe. Again, the figures speak for themselves: going through the courts took, on average, an extra 331 to 446 days, involving extra legal costs of between EUR 12 000 and EUR 13 000 to settle the case. The experience in my own Member State is that litigation worth EUR 200 000 took 333 days, costing on average EUR 51 000, where mediation would have taken a mere 87 days and cost a fraction at EUR 9 000.

One mediator told me that last year, he mediated 115 disputes in the UK. He had solved them within one week, and 30 were cross-border. Mediation is therefore a flexible, speedy and cost-effective way to resolve disputes; it allows the parties greater control; it gives them more responsibility in resolving their disputes; and I believe it is especially beneficial in family disputes concerning children, because it can dramatically shorten the period of time required to reach agreement, and this is better for children’s well-being and reduces anxiety, conflict and stress in the family.

To quote another very convincing case: a dispute over an estate and will worth GBP 10 million, involving four parties, three jurisdictions – the UK, Switzerland and France – was solved by a mediator in one day. But by the time they reached mediation, EUR 5 million had already been swallowed up by the courts and lawyers across three different states, and it would have taken another two years to try and solve that problem in court.

So today I want to encourage the Commission and Member States to continue to strengthen and implement the EU law and give consumers and businesses an alternative to costly legal disputes. Given the number of disputed property cases we have in the EU, I would also like to use today as an opportunity to ask the Commission and the Member States to make more use of mediation systems to assist our constituents in disputes such as the numerous cases we have in Spain and Cyprus. Establishing a mediation procedure to bring an end to these costly and lengthy disputes will, of course, increase these citizens’ access to justice.

To conclude, we are largely satisfied with the work of the Member States in implementing this law, even though at the time of drafting, only 17 Member States had transposed the legislation. And we welcome, Commissioner Reding, the fact that you are starting infringement proceedings against nine Member States. We note that some Member States have gone further than the EU guidelines, but we hope that our committee report, based on practitioners’ and users’ views, will provide useful input so that we can better serve our citizens with an affordable and efficient system for access to justice.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the Commission. – Madam President, I would like to thank the rapporteur. She has presented a very comprehensive report on something which I believe could be a wonderful alternative to court cases.

Access to justice is a cornerstone of the European area of justice, but mediation offers an important alternative to going to court in a cross-border dispute, as well as helping us to reach amicable settlements. As the rapporteur so rightly says, it saves time and money and also spares the parties involved in family cases the additional trauma of going to court.

Ms McCarthy’s report provides a political assessment of the way in which some Member States have implemented the provisions of the directive. I agree with the rapporteur that we have to aim for a strict application of the provisions. I am pleased that, through this report, more Member States will probably go for a smooth application.

The rapporteur is correct that not all Member States have put in place measures to transpose the directive. Nine countries have not yet notified the national measures needed to fulfil the implementation of the directive. That is why, in July this year, the Commission began infringement proceedings by sending letters of formal notice to these nine countries. They have two months to reply. We will follow up these nine cases and also follow up the way in which the other Member States have already implemented the directive. We will check the conformity of national implementation.

In 2012, I intend to present a communication on the way this directive has been implemented. It will focus on the effect of the directive with regard to the promotion of mediation. I absolutely agree with Parliament that it is not enough merely to have a directive: you must make people aware that this possibility exists. I would like to add that nothing in the directive should prevent Member States from applying similar provisions to internal mediation processes at home. It is not intended only for cross-border cases – where it is obligatory – but also for national purposes.

I would like to thank Ms McCarthy, her collaborators and teams and the other parliamentarians very much. The proposal which is on the table is a great help in pushing for mediation to become more popular and more widely taken up.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Paulo Rangel, on behalf of the PPE Group.(PT) Madam President, Commissioner, Ms McCarthy, I should like, naturally, to begin by greeting the rapporteur and congratulating her, since I believe that this report is extremely useful and that it, in fact, enables us to take new steps in the field of mediation. The report presents an overview, a selection of the solutions adopted by the various Member States in the implementation and application of Directive 2008/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters.

We all know the benefits of mediation. On the one hand, it is an extrajudicial means of dispute resolution, which contributes to decongestion of the courts and the streamlining of the justice system, whilst, at the same time, providing the parties with the chance to reach an amicable solution that is faster, less costly and less burdensome than the disputes in which they are engaged. It is therefore appropriate to reaffirm the objective of Article 1 of the directive, which calls for the adoption of measures encouraging the use of alternative means of dispute resolution, particularly mediation.

Promoting access to and the use of extrajudicial means of dispute resolution contributes to improving and simplifying our justice system, and to making it more accessible. It is, therefore, a very important challenge for the European Union and for the establishment of the area of freedom, security and justice; and even for the concept of rule of law within the European Union.

That is why, in this context of crisis too, I consider it very important, as the report says, to be able to increase understanding of this area amongst the public and those involved in the judicial system, and I call here on the Commission, and on you, Commissioner, for a legislative proposal on alternative dispute resolution to be tabled quickly.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg, on behalf of the S&D Group.(PL) Madam President, cross-border mediation in legal disputes can be effective only when Member States enact appropriate legislation at national level. The European Commission reiterated this again on 20 August this year, because at present, EU legislation on mediation has still not been implemented in every country, although the deadline for transposition passed on 21 May this year.

By promoting and facilitating access to alternative forms of justice for ordinary people, we are giving the citizens an instrument which is both effective and cheap. Recent research financed by the European Commission estimates that the amount of time wasted in the EU by not using mediation in disputes comes to between 331 and 446 days, and that the average extra legal costs associated with this reach a level in excess of EUR 13 500 per case.

In Poland, mediation in civil cases was introduced to the national legal system as long ago as July 2005 by amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure. The changes made concur with the directive in the main objectives and the method of creating a separate institution of mediation in procedural law, as well as in the need for doing so. Unfortunately, the statistics from my country show that mediations are attempted in only a tiny percentage of all court cases – it is estimated that on average, only anywhere from 20 to 40 mediations are undertaken in civil cases each year.

The inadequate education of society and the lack of promotion of this relatively new form of justice are hindering its development. Most citizens do not know of the existence of mediation and simply do not make use of it. Therefore, in the interests of the citizens, the Member States should intensively develop programmes which promote this form of resolving disputes. The benefits of mediation, both in financial terms and in terms of reducing the burden on the justice system, as well as the time savings involved, are invaluable.

Finally, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur, Ms McCarthy, on her excellent work.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Diana Wallis, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, I wish to thank Mrs Reding for her words. It is so good to see Parliament doing a report on implementation, especially at this stage in the life of a directive – almost contemporaneous with the moment that it comes into force. I would like to pay tribute to the work that Mrs McCarthy has done. Parliament has shown itself at its best in looking at what has happened in the various Member States and highlighting what needs to be done, and also what has been done well.

I have to admit that I was one of those sceptics that Mrs McCarthy referred to. I was nervous when a directive was first proposed, because Parliament, when looking at the Green Paper, had said first of all that we did not want legislation because we were concerned that this would threaten the diversity and experimentation which we saw taking place in mediation across the Member States. I have to say we have seen, through our workshop and through this report, that nothing could be further from the truth. The directive has done a good job in providing a framework – a framework which allows experimentation and the diversity of approaches to flourish across the Member States. It is not a straitjacket, but it does provide sufficient legal certainty.

There are problems. Clearly not everybody has implemented as they should; some practitioners mutter about problems to do with the confidentiality of the process. However, we should take heart from the fact that mediation is now seen as a method which is much more modern, and more contemporaneous, in providing access to cross-border justice. If one looks back at medieval ways of providing answers to legal disputes – trial by battle, trial by ordeal – traditional justice looks almost as medieval by comparison to mediation, which provides an easier solution, with less stress to the parties and to society as a whole.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Raffaele Baldassarre (PPE).(IT) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the successful implementation of Directive 2008/52/EC shows that mediation is a viable alternative to the traditional adversarial approach, in that it allows for the amicable settlement of disputes and thus reduces the workload of the courts. This is confirmed by the various initiatives taken by some Member States, which are encouraging, where possible, the use of mediation through financial incentives or legislative provisions.

In view of that, I should like to draw attention to certain aspects that I believe deserve further thought and consideration, starting with the issue of costs: we should follow the example of Member States that have tackled this problem by providing financial incentives to use mediation.

I also believe that we need to explore other possibilities, such as the use of awareness campaigns to promote the use and understanding of alternative forms of dispute resolution, especially on the part of businesses. In order to achieve this objective, it is necessary also, and above all, to involve members of the legal system, who must see the added value of mediation as something that enhances, rather than competes with, their work.

Lastly, looking ahead to the forthcoming Commission communication on the implementation of the directive and, in particular, to the imminent legislative proposal on alternative dispute resolution, I should like to emphasise the way in which mediation complements other reforms of EU law, in particular, the approach to forms of collective redress and to contract law.

Indeed, as a preliminary measure, mediation can be an excellent alternative to forms of collective redress and can make an important contribution to the future instrument on contract law, significantly reducing the use of dispute resolution mechanisms.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Kinga Göncz (S&D).(HU) Madam President, I am pleased to see that the European Parliament is paying special attention to alternative dispute resolution mechanisms and the implementation and transposition of the directive. A key feature of democracy is that it allows for conflicts to be resolved within a regulated institutional framework. After their interests have been identified, the parties involved can reach agreements which they will be likely to adhere to, and which can preserve their relations despite their prior involvement in conflict. Mediation is one means of achieving this, and has proven itself effective in numerous areas: from family and child custody disputes to issues of child custody litigations and out-of-court settlement of judicial affairs. Moreover, economic and financial, or community and minority disputes also often find effective resolution in this way.

Despite all this, it appears that mediation is not known widely enough among European citizens; maybe the current debate and the current report can contribute to a broader awareness and application of this mechanism. Perhaps one of the most important aspects of mediation is that it is accessible to vulnerable persons who would otherwise have difficulty asserting their rightful interests. Of course, the points mentioned here, such as relieving courts, shortening the duration of civil actions, saving on costs and so on, are all important. The report also reveals that there are considerable differences between individual Member States as to the progress made in transposing and applying the directive.

In my opinion, there are many areas where further integration is necessary. While we must obviously maintain diversity, it would still be useful if Member State practices in the field of educational accreditation could be coordinated, and the same goes for confidentiality rules and the agreement becoming final. These are some of the reasons why we are looking forward to the communication the Commission has promised for 2013.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Alexandra Thein (ALDE).(DE) Madam President, securing better access to justice is one of the main objectives of the European Union’s policy of creating an area of freedom, security and justice. In a modern, globalised and digital economy, the confidence of the citizens in justice is a crucial factor. The Mediation Directive represents a milestone in this connection.

Now, every judge in the EU has the opportunity to ensure, in every phase of the process, that two parties to a dispute voluntarily and on their own responsibility strive, with the assistance of a mediator, to settle their differences amicably. The directive ensures that utilisation of the mediation process will prevent the expiry of limitation and prescription periods. Moreover, the agreements reached as a result of limitation and prescription could be given the status of enforceable official documents. Also important are sound training of the mediators in the field of quality assurance and the strengthening of citizens’ trust in this system.

Most Member States announced transposition after the deadline for transposition had already passed. However, it is not only the fact that transposition takes place that is important – how transposition is effected is the most important thing. To that end, specialists and legal practitioners must be consulted in order to ensure the greatest possible improvement of the directive.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE).(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I should like to thank the rapporteur for her work. As the European Parliament Mediator for International Parental Child Abduction, I particularly welcomed paragraph 14 of the motion for a resolution, which emphasises that parties are more willing to consider the other party’s position and to work on the underlying issues of the dispute through the mediation process, and that this often has the added benefit of preserving the relationship the parties had before the dispute, which is of particular importance in family matters involving children.

As well as preventing lengthy court cases, the use of mediation, where practicable, actually results in an agreement between parties – and personally I hope that this practice can be extended as much as possible, including for family mediation.

As Commissioner Reding pointed out, mixed marriages are on the increase in Europe: every year in the EU, there are more than 350 000 cross-border marriages and 170 000 divorces, which equates to 20% of all divorces in the European Union. When a marriage ends, the children can become the subject of dispute. Often the parent who has custody keeps the children without the consent of the other parent, or the parent who does not have custody of the children abducts them or refuses to give them back after a scheduled visit.

Unfortunately, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of international parental child abductions in recent years. In many cases, however, the mediation process has enabled those children to resume contact with both parents. An agreement reached between parties through a mediation process can actually stop children from suffering unnecessarily and enables parents to address all their family issues without having to face long, costly and painful court proceedings.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Oldřich Vlasák (ECR). (CS) Madam President, I firmly believe that mediation, just like other forms of alternative dispute resolution, is a useful thing. Its benefits are undisputed. I would like to emphasise the main advantage of mediation, which is to bring about amicable, and therefore mutually acceptable, solutions. On the other hand, however, there are a number of disadvantages associated with mediation. Its chief characteristic, in other words, its voluntary nature, can also work in a negative way. The other party cannot be forced to complete the process until it has reached its final form.

In my opinion, the adoption of the directive on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial cases by the European Parliament and the Council in 2008, following four years of tough negotiations, broke another taboo of European integration. Although this directive did not have the aim of harmonising or even of creating the uniform regulation of mediation throughout the EU, it does regulate the field of mediation. At the same time, it exerts indirect pressure on states that lack any regulation of the mediation process. Article 5 of the directive also provides for the mandatory use of mediation, which, in my opinion, is contrary to the fundamental principle of mediation, which is its voluntary nature. Just like mediation itself, the European directive does not bring only positive results.

All EU Member States should have introduced measures by now implementing the EU legislation into their law. Nine countries, however, including the Czech Republic, have yet to announce all of the internal measures necessary for full implementation of the directive. Why is this? Mediators are, in fact, already operating in the Czech Republic, but they work on the basis of a trading licence as advisers. A mediation act was debated by Parliament some years ago, but the bill was not passed by MPs. They were unhappy about a passage under which couples unable to reach an agreement would have to use the services of a mediator. In mid-June this year, the government passed a bill on mediation in non-criminal cases. Controversial points in the act included, for example, insurance for mediators, the method for testing them and the qualification requirements they would have to fulfil. We must therefore wait a while longer for the statutory regulation of mediation in non-criminal cases in the Czech Republic. We ought to consider whether it is really necessary to put pressure on states through a European regulation to adopt something which is already working in those states and which should rather, as a matter of principle, be of a voluntary nature.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Salvatore Iacolino (PPE).(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, what Ms Reding said just now is undoubtedly correct and a step in the right direction: charging non-compliant States with failure to notify their implementing measures and potentially launching infringement proceedings against them suggests that in a single market such as the European market, we should have common legal rules, too.

Making mediation compulsory is certainly an important objective but, at the same time, we should acknowledge the role of cost in the mediation process. There is no doubt that mediation costs can add to the costs of a court case if mediation itself does not work out, and this is another particularly relevant issue. It is also important for mediators to be skilled, capable and knowledgeable, just as it is clear that the poor take-up of mediation is probably due to insufficient information from the Member States themselves.

Mediation means relieving congestion in the courts, especially with regard to civil cases, and it is equally important that it should have the scope to become a key instrument in matters involving children, which are obviously of particularly great interest to us.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jaroslav Paška (EFD). (SK) Madam President, the practice of dispute resolution in the civil and commercial sphere through mediation under the EC directive of 2008 is bringing its first results, as it helps to resolve disputes without burdening the courts directly. Substantial reductions are being achieved in the burden on courts, particularly in those countries where dispute resolution via mediation is also supported by a system of incentives. The fact that agreements on the recognition of disputes via mediation are given equal weight in most countries to court rulings, and that the mediation process is far cheaper for the parties involved in the procedure from a financial perspective, gives this practice good prospects for further expansion. In the future, we should perhaps, as well as promoting this method of dispute resolution, aim for a proper definition of the requirements for access to the profession of mediator, particularly in terms of the necessary professional training and qualifications and the relevant accreditation within an EU framework.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Andrew Henry William Brons (NI). – Madam President, I am in favour of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms being available to the parties in a civil dispute. Indeed, I am in favour of incentives with regard to the cost of using them and disincentives for those refusing to use them. However, I am not in favour of the European Union passing legislation, even in the form of a directive. It is for Member States to decide on procedural law as well as substantive law.

I prefer the use of arbitration to mediation. Arbitration inevitably leads to a decision, whereas mediation simply might facilitate a negotiated settlement – but if it does not, it will simply add to costs. Nevertheless, in matrimonial and custody cases, I believe mediation is suitable, largely because in such cases, negotiated settlements are desirable in themselves, as they are more likely to be observed.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the Commission. – Madam President, I would again like to thank the rapporteur for her good work and for the very objective and constructive discussion we have had in this plenary.

I agree with you that mediation is a good example of modern justice. This directive is not a straitjacket for Member States, but a framework under which they can develop their own systems. It is very important in dealing with the hugely complicated area of cross-border affairs, which we are trying to solve with one European measure after another.

Mediation is also very important for the parties involved because it is a win-win situation, as compared to lengthy court procedures – most of all (as has been said several times in this Chamber) for family affairs. We need to have a broad information campaign in order to inform citizens that mediation is possible and to train the mediators so that they can be very efficient in carrying out mediation between the parties.

There have been questions about alternative dispute resolution (ADR). I would like to inform the Chamber that in March 2011, a public consultation on commercial transactions took place. The responses we received show very strong support mostly for ADR schemes in consumer disputes and also many demands for ADR in online disputes. As a reaction to this, my colleague, Commissioner Dalli, will, by the end of this year, prepare a legislative proposal on ADR in B2C and then, in the context of the digital agenda, there will be a regulation on online ADR in 2012.

I have asked my services to examine the issue of ADR in B2B (business-to-business) questions, and here legislation is foreseen in 2012. Because there is a lot of interest in the House with regard to family affairs – and rightly so – a working group on family mediation has been set up as a follow-up to the ministerial conference on family mediation held under the Belgian Presidency in December 2010 and a discussion in the Council. We are taking this very seriously and are trying to bring the matter forward. You are absolutely right: particularly in the case of children, mediation is a much better solution than a court procedure.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Arlene McCarthy, rapporteur. – Madam President, I want to thank my colleagues for their comments. In response to Mr Brons, I would just say this: you clearly have no idea of the numbers of cross-border disputes that are eating up your constituents’ savings and time in court. You would rather cling to an anti-European ideology than see your citizens actually benefit from EU guidelines. Perhaps I will put you in touch with some UK mediators who will help you understand the value of European guidelines in this area.

I would like to say to Mrs Reding that we look forward to receiving the Commission proposal on ADR and, of course, your communication on the implementation of the Mediation Directive. I also want to stress the point Mrs Wallis made that we need to maintain the diversity and differences between Member States, and so I would encourage you in drafting both this communication and the directive to look at and talk to practitioners and users. They know best what works, and they can help us create a very effective and useful legislation which, I believe, will give our citizens better access to justice.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place at 11.30 on Tuesday, 13 September 2011.

 

4. European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (FRONTEX) (debate)
Video of the speeches
MPphoto
 

  President. – The next item is the report by Simon Busuttil, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 establishing a European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (FRONTEX) (COM(2010)0061 - C7-0045/2010 - 2010/0039(COD)) (A7-0278/2011).

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Simon Busuttil, rapporteur. – Madam President, this is the most important overhaul of the law which established Frontex in 2004, and Parliament greatly welcomes it.

The establishment of the agency in 2004 coincided with the start of a massive flow of migration towards Europe via different routes. First via Spain, and, in particular, the Canary Islands; then via Italy, and the Italian island of Lampedusa, and Malta; later via Greece, and so on and so forth. So, in a way, this agency was asked to start running before it could walk. Therefore, all in all, our assessment of the first six years of experience of the agency is that it needs to be strengthened and made more effective because, despite all good intentions, it has not lived up to expectations so far.

This proposal to change the law was presented by the Commission, and already in the Commission proposal we had extremely good ideas which were certainly good steps forward. I hope that Parliament has improved on this proposal with the help of the Hungarian Presidency, in particular, and the Council of Ministers continues to build on these good points.

If I had to synthesise the contribution of Parliament, I would divide it into four points. I will say something about each.

The first point is that we tried to increase the visibility of the agency. We did this, in particular, by giving the border guards engaged in Frontex missions the name they really deserve. They should be called ‘European border guards’, and therefore we have given this new name to people who, fair enough, will be national border guards coming from national services, but will be participating in European missions under Frontex. For that reason, they should be called European border guards, rather than unintelligible phrases such as ‘Frontex joint support teams’ or, worse, ‘rapid border intervention teams’: ‘RABITS’!

Within one year, the Commission has promised to look at the feasibility of actually going that one step further along the path towards the establishment of European border guards proper.

The second area where we have made a contribution relates to strengthening the effectiveness of the agency; here, we focused on compulsory solidarity. This means that once a Member State decides – and commits itself – to pool a number of border guards or make some equipment, such as vessels, planes or helicopters, available to the agency, it will now be legally obliged to honour its promises. That was not previously the case, which explains to a large extent why the agency was not deemed to be effective in its missions, because when it turned to the Member States, they did not deliver.

The agency will also be able to purchase, lease, own or even co-own its own equipment from now on. Of course, we do not expect it to have an army of sorts by any means, but we want the agency to have basic equipment which will enable it to engage in missions, especially in emergencies. We will also give the agency the power to process personal data – under strict conditions – if this can help it in the fight against crime.


On human rights – which was a key point for this Parliament – we have agreed on important improvements to the Commission proposal. For instance, any Frontex mission where a violation of human rights occurs will now be suspended or terminated. We will also appoint a fundamental rights officer in the agency and a consultative forum on human rights, and we will monitor return operations in terms of human rights.


Finally, we will also increase the democratic scrutiny of the agency, which will therefore be held increasingly accountable to Parliament. Madam President, that is already a mouthful, and I will stop my introduction at this point. I very much look forward to this debate and, hopefully, I will come back to some points later.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jerzy Miller, President-in-Office of the Council.(PL) Madam President, Commissioner, honourable Members, the Council welcomes the agreement which has been reached on amendment of Council Regulation No 2007/2004 establishing a European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union, or Frontex.

The European Parliament and the Council have called several times in the last few years for Frontex to be strengthened. Recent events in North Africa and the resultant increased influx of immigrants across the European Union’s southern maritime borders have also demonstrated the great importance of strengthening the agency’s operational capabilities. In a declaration adopted on 11 March this year, the European Council called for agreement to be reached quickly on strengthening Frontex’s capabilities, and in the conclusions of 25 March, it called for agreement to be reached by June this year. The fact that it has been possible to meet this deadline for completion of this work is the result of intensive efforts both in the Council and in Parliament and also of the negotiations between our two institutions. Both institutions had to compromise in many areas to achieve a satisfactory result. I should like particularly to call attention to and express my thanks for the efforts of the Hungarian Presidency and the European Parliament’s negotiating team under the leadership of the rapporteur, Mr Busuttil.

Following its establishment in October 2005, Frontex quickly began operations, and currently plays a key role in leading operational cooperation at the European Union’s external borders. The agency coordinates a number of joint operations and pilot projects at the EU’s external borders, concentrating, in particular, on several high risk areas, such as the Union’s southern maritime borders.

Amendment of the regulation is an important step. It significantly extends the agency’s responsibilities. In a number of areas, it puts the agency in a better position to be able to carry out both its current and its new roles in better ways. This includes setting up European border guard teams – previously named ‘joint support teams’, and Rabits, or ‘rapid border intervention teams’ – as a joint resource available for use in all Frontex operations. It also contains improved provisions on funding and ensuring the availability of appropriate technical crew and staffing resources. Frontex will also be mandated to pay special attention to Member States which are experiencing specific and disproportionate pressures on their asylum systems. The amended regulation contains improved provisions on the protection of fundamental rights, including the establishment of a consultative forum on fundamental rights and the designation of a fundamental rights officer. The code of conduct will guarantee respect for fundamental rights, and in cases of human rights violations, Frontex operations will have to be suspended or terminated.

In addition, provisions will be introduced concerning processing by the agency of personal data collected in the course of its operations. The agency’s capacity to carry out risk analyses will be improved, to enable a faster reaction to new and emerging situations. Furthermore, new provisions will be introduced on training and research. The agency’s coordinating role has been strengthened in relation to joint return operations and the possibility of launching technical assistance projects and delegating liaison officers to third countries.

The Presidency is in no doubt that the change in Frontex’s mandate will significantly strengthen its operational capabilities. I would like to express my profound satisfaction that the European Union’s external borders are to be managed with greater efficiency. I am pleased, too, with the Commission’s commitment to conduct a feasibility study on the creation of a European system of border guards. This will allow the process of strengthening European Union policy on border management to develop in the next few years. Permit me, Madam President, to conclude by thanking Parliament again for its constructive approach to this resolution. I am counting on confirmation of the outcome of our negotiations at today’s vote. Thank you very much.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Cecilia Malmström, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, I would like to start by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Busuttil, for his work, as well as the shadow rapporteurs, and also the last troika – the Spanish, Belgian and Hungarian Presidencies – for the efforts made so that we can come to a vote today on this very important matter.

Without effective border management, the Schengen system cannot function effectively and the security of the EU may be put at risk. We have seen increasing challenges in recent years. Some Member States have been exposed to considerable migratory pressures at their external borders, and this must be dealt with in a spirit of solidarity and common responsibility. At the same time, of course, we must make sure that people who turn to Europe seeking protection are dealt with in a way that is in compliance with our values and with international laws and standards.

The effective management of Member States’ external borders must be continuously improved to respond to the new challenges. Weaknesses at some sections of the border must be tackled. Our citizens need to be reassured that external border controls are working properly. This is, of course, primarily the Member States’ responsibility, but Frontex and the European Union can contribute substantially to achieving these goals, and we have seen increased demand by Member States for the services of Frontex since its establishment in 2005. Frontex has also been involved in many very important projects and operations lately in Greece and also, with the Hermes operation, in Italy, where Frontex is helping to assist the authorities as well as actually saving lives at sea.

Based on a number of evaluations, but also on the desire of the European Council and the European Parliament to improve and strengthen the legal framework of the agency, we at the Commission identify proposals, and submitted one almost 18 months ago now. It was also important for the Commission to be very clear on the human rights responsibilities of Frontex to ensure its continued legitimacy.

The strengthening of Frontex had different connotations for different stakeholders. Member States are looking to increase financial resources, while Parliament wanted to improve the availability of technical resources and strengthen respect for fundamental rights, so it took us some time to negotiate this. But now we have reached a high-quality compromise that, I think, stresses the correct balance between the different interests in play. I am confident that the new regulation will enhance the work of the agency, especially through the European border guard teams, which will consolidate the EU character of this work.

The requirement for Member States to honour their promises regarding human rights is being strengthened. I would like to thank the rapporteur and Parliament for their support in ensuring that Frontex should only carry out joint operations if the necessary guarantees are provided regarding absolute respect for fundamental rights and freedoms and the right to international protection of those in need. I think the requirement for Member States to honour their promises regarding the human and technical resources they put at the disposal of the agency will also enable the agency to better plan and conduct joint operations.

In addition, Frontex-funded return operations will be monitored to ensure objective and transparent criteria. To that end, the Commission is providing today, for inclusion in the minutes, a Commission declaration on the monitoring of return operations. The monitoring of returns, the clauses allowing the agency to suspend or terminate joint operations, and the creation of a consultative forum and a fundamental rights officer, are all major steps forward.

The strengthening of the operation and capability of the agency, including the possibility for the agency to acquire its own equipment, will put it in a position to cope in a cost-effective manner with the ever-increasing demands of Member States for it to coordinate border control activities and return operations. Furthermore, the changes mean Frontex will also have a mandate to process personal data obtained during operations coordinated by the agency to use in the fight against crime and human trafficking.

Controlling external borders is only one aspect of border management. Cooperation with countries of origin or transit is another. This regulation will enhance cooperation with the relevant authorities in third countries, and the agency will have the possibility of providing technical assistance to relevant third countries to increase the level of cooperation.

If a decision is taken today, I think all three institutions can be proud. We have achieved a framework and laid the ground for a more effective, more operational, more visible and more legitimate Frontex Agency. I would like to thank everybody involved.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Barbara Lochbihler, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.(DE) Madam President, we in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, in particular, in the Subcommittee on Human Rights, have worked intensively on the report and on improving Frontex. We have tabled a highly comprehensive catalogue of measures for how Frontex’s work can be designed and improved in conformance with human rights.

As Commissioner Malmström stated, things could not go on as before. Too little was known about how Frontex works, and the agency did not enjoy a good standing in the media and in the individual Member States. It was very often asked how it can be that thousands of people are drowning and no one comes to their rescue. A few journalists and refugee organisations have also documented failures to even render assistance.

I think it should be viewed in a positive light that we have now nonetheless achieved a situation, at Parliament’s proposal, whereby Frontex staff are to be given human rights training, we have obtained a fundamental rights officer, there is an agreement with the Agency for Fundamental Rights in Vienna and a report will have to be filed in the event of misconduct or certain other occurrences. These are all positives.

I would like to point out, however, that we have not managed to get a majority behind the idea of Frontex having an independent observer who could also monitor these new rules and who could, for example, participate in individual missions. The question of whether what we have achieved will actually be applied will thus remain, and I believe that we continue to need independent monitoring by non-State actors.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra, on behalf of the PPE Group.(ES) Madam President, I offer my sincere congratulations to Mr Busuttil, to the Commission and to the Council.

The creation of an area of freedom, security and justice is one of the Union’s greatest achievements, enabling almost 500 million people to move freely within its territory.

The removal of internal borders meant that the peripheral countries were obliged to strengthen their border controls, a function which, as you will recall, falls within the exclusive competence of the countries concerned. The land-locked countries benefit from the free area, but occasionally they forget that this situation is largely due to the effort made by Member States with external boundaries, an effort which is bound to increase in situations where there is a migration crisis.

To an ever-increasing extent, these situations require the intervention of Frontex. However, the agency’s ability to react is limited as it lacks the necessary resources. This lack of resources is due in large part to the lack of real commitment on the part of certain Member States.

Thus, it was necessary and appropriate to strengthen the Frontex Regulation, clearly defining the agency’s role and providing the legal instruments enabling it to be equipped with the necessary means and resources needed to carry out its goals in full accordance with fundamental rights. The provision of economic, material and human resources cannot depend on the good will of only some Member States, since solidarity should be binding and general.

Frontex should also coordinate its activities with Europol and Eurojust to fight organised crime.

Cooperation with the European Asylum Support Office is an essential element in ensuring access to international protection. The creation of a system of border guards is an interesting proposal which may be brought about if it is implemented through the compulsory solidarity clause.

In short, approval of the proposed regulation will make it possible to manage migratory flows better, fight the mafias more effectively and improve the common asylum system.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Sylvie Guillaume, on behalf of the S&D Group. (FR) Madam President, I, too, should like to start by congratulating the rapporteur on the results that he has managed – with no little difficulty – to achieve on a particularly sensitive and thorny issue in the negotiations with the Member States.

Clearly, it is important to mention a number of positive points that can be described as definite progress, even though I admit that my group and I would have appreciated the opportunity to have gone a little further in this reform. We have managed to ensure, then, that the agency will take more care to respect fundamental rights when carrying out its missions. This seems obvious, but it still needed to be established in clear terms. A specialist officer will therefore have access to all information relating to fundamental rights and will perform his or her tasks independently. The agency will have to assist the Member States in situations involving humanitarian emergencies and rescue at sea – and we have seen how important this is in recent months. Operations will be suspended in the event of a fundamental rights violation. Agreements made by Frontex with third countries will have to meet European fundamental rights standards. The principle of non-refoulement, or non-return of migrants, will be upheld in all cases. All of this is along the right lines.

The new regulation is also intended to make Frontex more efficient. To this end, the Member States will have to make a firm commitment to equip the agency with personnel and resources.

The third acknowledged step forward concerns the increased democratic scrutiny of Frontex. The European Parliament will have a very direct involvement in this, even though future amendments to this regulation will, I hope, strengthen MEPs’ right of scrutiny. Three topics, three types of progress that sound obvious but that were, nonetheless, very difficult to obtain.

Two final ideas before I finish. Frontex is, and must continue to be, seen for what it is, namely, a tool to help the EU’s external border surveillance strategy. Frontex is neither a perfect alibi nor a tool for the Member States to use in support of their own migration policies. This is an issue that we will have to work on and which I believe will continue to raise questions with regard to respective responsibilities.

Furthermore, while we are talking about Schengen, we should all remember that European migration policy has many other challenges to address apart from that of Frontex, in the areas, for example, of integration and resettlement, and of access to fair and equitable protection. We hope that the EU as a whole will demonstrate the same political will on these issues, too. In this way, we will be able, I believe, to talk about progress in relation to a Europe of asylum and migration.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Cecilia Wikström, on behalf of the ALDE Group.(SV) Madam President, during this part-session, Parliament is to vote on a revised and strengthened mandate for Frontex. I am proud and very pleased to have been able to be part of the team that has been led in such an excellent manner by Mr Busuttil. I would like to express my thanks for everyone’s constructive cooperation.

As we all know, Frontex is a new authority that has only been operating for six years, and when something is new, there is reason to review operations in order to be able to improve them further for the future. In this report that we now have here, we demonstrate how we can make further improvements to the high-quality work that Frontex does.

I welcome the fact that the authority will now have a clearer mandate and I see it as a positive development that Member States will now contribute by providing both human resources and equipment in order to provide Frontex with the conditions it needs to do a really good job. It is very good that we have succeeded in ensuring respect for human rights in the work of Frontex. This means, among other things, that operations can now be suspended or terminated if violations of human rights are suspected. We are also setting up a body within the authority that will have the specific task of monitoring whether human rights are being respected. I am very pleased to say that it is solely down to Parliament that this has come about. I am very proud of that.

I also welcome the fact that, in a statement, Parliament is sending a very important political signal by choosing to speak of ‘irregular migrants’ instead of ‘illegal migrants’. No person is ever illegal. I look forward to the day when this term is also amended in our treaties. That will take time, but we must always dare to believe that that day will come. In an EU where we have eradicated the internal borders, it is important for our external borders to be respected and controlled in a proper and effective manner. This report will help us to start to see a development along these lines and we can have well-functioning border management without it requiring us to build ‘Fortress Europe’. I would like to thank the rapporteur once again for his excellent work, and everyone else, too. My group will support the report in its entirety.

 
  
  

IN THE CHAIR: ROBERTA ANGELILLI
Vice-President

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Hélène Flautre, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group.(FR) Madam President, the Frontex Agency is an agency that has been untouched by the crisis, given that its budget has increased from just over EUR 6 million in 2005 to more than EUR 80 million today. In other words, Frontex has grown without facing any awkward questions for many years.

Ultimately, the Member States saw something to be gained from this: firstly, the availability of resources for their own internal operations; secondly, the opportunity to turn to Frontex when faced with countries that were seen to be failing to control their borders; and thirdly, the increase in Frontex’s powers and resources, which everyone was calling for. This also enabled the Director of Frontex, only two years ago, to tell MEPs in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, who were worried about human rights being violated, that it was not Frontex’s job to deal with that issue; it was the responsibility of the Member States!

Frontex has ultimately grown against this backdrop of irresponsibility with regard to human rights. I think that, today, it is really to the credit of Parliament and its rapporteur, Mr Busuttil, that the issue of fundamental rights protection was placed so high on the agenda of the negotiations. I say this, of course, because the Treaty of Lisbon has come into force and Frontex is now accountable for its actions to the Court of Justice, which is no small thing; and also because a number of reports show that the principle of non-refoulement has been violated several times during Frontex operations and that access to asylum application procedures, which is an inviolable and international right, has been somewhat mismanaged. We are also awaiting a report from Human Rights Watch, which will show that Frontex is responsible, to some extent, for the unfair detention of migrants.

We therefore had a real problem with regard to respect for human rights, and I believe that the negotiations have enabled us to make serious progress in this area. Nevertheless, this does not mean that my group will be voting in favour of this mandate, because we believe that independence – as mentioned by Ms Lochbihler in particular – independent observation, and reliable, impartial and independent procedures for combating human rights violations, have not been established. This is what will ultimately lead my group to abstain.

Moreover, I should like to take advantage of this debate in order to question the Commission and the Council on the results and the status of Operation Hermes, the most recent Frontex operation: boats, helicopters, 2 000 drowned in the Mediterranean since the NATO intervention in Libya. What did Frontex do during this time? I do not know.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Cornelia Ernst, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group.(DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, there can scarcely be another institution established by the European Union that is so controversial when it comes to human rights as Frontex is. This agency is associated with shameful images on the high seas where thousands of people have lost their lives, of land borders where people are kept in custody and where deep trenches are now being dug. At heart, Frontex embodies an erring policy towards refugees in Europe, refugees who leave their homelands not only as a result of political persecution, but also for economic reasons – simply to survive – as a result of hunger, civil wars and climate disasters.

The new Frontex mandate does incorporate real and substantial improvements – and for that I am particularly grateful to the rapporteur, Mr Busuttil – such as the obligation to respect human dignity, the right of non-refoulement, non-discrimination, the prohibition of torture, the respect of refugee minors, and the guaranteeing of data protection. Rescues at sea are now finally to be given stability and there is to be a code of conduct for border officials – but it is also true that the mandate does not lay down a principle of refraining from the use of violence. Furthermore, who is to be responsible for actually checking up on proportionality and appropriateness?

Frontex is having its competence clearly expanded as the lead body in border patrols and as the body that produces risk analyses, on the basis of which interventions and the return to their homelands of thousands and thousands more migrants will take place.

Heaven knows how hard Parliament struggled to obtain improvements, but they will make no difference to the fact that a wolf is still a wolf, even if it is dressed in sheep’s clothing. Frontex is not necessary either as a border agency – the national defence institutions serve that purpose – or to repel migration, as migration is not, in fact, repelled, but merely territorially displaced. Frontex is absolutely not suitable to act as custodian of human rights, given that, ultimately, it categorises people as legal or illegal. People cannot be illegal! I do not understand how that is not accepted.

In place of Frontex, what we need is a humanisation of the refugee situation, in Africa, for example, where almost a million refugees live in degrading conditions. That does not interest us, or only does so to a limited extent. We would rather take care of ourselves.

We need an asylum system that demonstrates solidarity, at European level too, of course, and we definitely need a new neighbourhood policy on an equal footing. That, too, still lies ahead.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Gerard Batten, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Madam President, there is indeed a massive problem with illegal immigration into Europe. The effects of this problem are especially felt in England and, in particular, in my constituency of London. England attracts immigration – illegal and legal – because of the possibilities for work and our generous benefits and housing systems.

The UK Independence Party would not be opposed to genuine cooperation between European nation states to counter the problems of illegal immigration – but this proposal is not about genuine cooperation. It seeks to change the legal basis on which Frontex operates and gives it more so-called competences. It will, for example, give Frontex the ability to cooperate with third-party countries on behalf of the EU. This proposal is yet another way of increasing the power and dominion of the European Union over its Member States.

The proposal is another step in introducing the European Union’s common immigration and asylum policy as enshrined in the Lisbon Treaty. As I will never tire of saying, the Lisbon Treaty was undemocratically imposed on the peoples of Europe without their consent. The Lisbon Treaty was illegal under existing English constitutional law, and everything that stems from it is therefore illegal in England.

There is another problem here, which is the European Convention on Human Rights. British courts are obligated to protect the human rights of foreign nationals in the UK. Once in the UK, they only have to claim that their human rights are likely to be at risk in their own country and the courts will not send them home. As a result of this, we have given refuge to all kinds of criminals.

If I heard him correctly, Mr Busuttil said that all operations would be suspended while a human rights issue was being considered. This is like baling out a boat with a bucket that has an enormous hole in the bottom. The UK Independence Party will vote against this proposal.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Andrew Henry William Brons (NI). – Madam President, Frontex is a border control agency that has been prevented from controlling borders. In the explanatory statement from the rapporteur, its function of preventing illegal migration is so understated as to become almost invisible. The need to ‘keep borders open for people who need protection’ and to work hand-in-hand with the European Asylum Office is stated boldly and confidently, placing that need at the centre of its concerns. This means that those who describe themselves as asylum seekers must be welcomed with open arms regardless of the reality of their status. Quite rightly, there is coverage of the need to cut cross-border crime, in which case why have a border-free Schengen area? Illegal migration, however, is mentioned only in hushed terms.

We are told that Frontex must respect fundamental rights. If that means that migrants must not be ill-treated, then that is absolutely right. However, what it means in practice is the principle of so-called non-refoulement, which means that illegal migrants from dangerous countries must not be returned to those countries even if they are not at any particular risk compared with other residents. The logic of that principle is that all of the populations of dangerous countries should be brought to Europe.

Frontex is quite rightly told to rescue illegal migrants in danger. However, once they have been saved, they gain asylum status and cannot be returned to the countries from which they come. The words ‘moral’ and ‘blackmail’ come to mind.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Carlos Coelho (PPE).(PT) Madam President, Mr Miller, Commissioner Malmström, I should like to begin by saying that in order for us to have freedom of movement and an area of freedom, security and justice, we need integrated and uniform management of the external borders ensuring a high and uniform level of control and surveillance; that is a vital prerequisite. In order for us to have an integrated system for managing borders, we require the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex) and it must play a fundamental role in this respect.

Taking account of the rise in migration pressures, which entail new threats and risks, I believe it is easy to understand why there was a need to strengthen Frontex’s role and to provide it with more resources and tools in order to make it more effective. Moreover, in the context of the new assessment system for Schengen that we are discussing, there is also a need for Frontex to have more competences and, therefore, more responsibilities.

In view of this, I believe it is only fair to congratulate our colleague, Mr Busuttil, on the fantastic work he has carried out in order to reach this agreement. I should like to highlight five points: firstly, the strengthening of provisions on fundamental rights, which several speakers have already mentioned and which is a significant milestone in this agreement; secondly, increased effectiveness, with the possibility of deploying Frontex experts for longer periods of time; thirdly, the creation of border guard teams; fourthly, the processing of personal data, which, besides being required for risk analyses, as Mr Busuttil has reminded us, must be regulated and fulfil specific conditions, and, these conditions must be provided for, specifically in terms of data retention and the depersonalisation of these data; and, finally, the creation of operational resources, or rather equipping Frontex with the means to acquire its own resources without having to depend directly on the Member States.

Madam President, I believe it is fair to say that we hope Frontex’s activities will now show it to be worthy of the faith that the European institutions have placed in it, in terms of human and legislative resources.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Kyriakos Mavronikolas (S&D).(EL) Madam President, it is a fact that improving Frontex was an important step. At the same time, the reform being put in place will help to improve Frontex operations. However, it would have been preferable to have achieved a better and more objective reform and, more to the point, a reform that would provide prospects for a solution to the major problems being encountered today.

Be that as it may, the introduction of special teams of border guards in 2011 and, more importantly, the new position of fundamental rights officer to ensure that the fundamental rights that everyone wishes to claim on entering the European Union are indeed respected, are important arrangements and they have been achieved in this report.

Finally, I trust that, for countries on the receiving end of large numbers of immigrants, such as Cyprus, which currently face demographic and economic problems, certain decisions will be taken, possibly within the framework of solidarity, to support efforts being made by countries such as Cyprus.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE). (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, the agreement that has finally been reached after months of wrangling will undoubtedly improve Frontex’s operations.

We believe that strengthening the agency’s capabilities is, above all, a way of strengthening fundamental rights. On this issue, as on the other very serious issues that are rocking the European Union right now, it is time to give expression to European responsibility and to solidarity among the States. For too long, Frontex has been too vague about the information, conditions and criteria applied to people rescued at sea, and therefore, in fact, about the fate awaiting them.

Of course, the States will be in charge from now on. This is one of the major breakthroughs of the regulation. However, the fact remains that thousands of people died at sea this summer in the Mediterranean, while battles – terribly hypocritical ones in many cases – were being fought between the States with regard to territorial waters.

For my part, following my visit to the island of Lampedusa and my meeting with the border officials manning that area and the people at the reception centre, this memory will be forever etched in my mind. It is time to address this situation at the borders of the EU, which affects the Member States of our Union.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Franziska Keller (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, much has been said about improvements in the human rights field, and it is true that there have been a number of improvements, such as the human rights officer, the consultative forum, the termination of operations in cases of human rights violations, more reports to the EP, and a few others.

Then again, the human rights officer will not be independent and the termination of operations will only happen in cases of severe human rights violations. Can somebody tell me where one draws the line between acceptable and unacceptable human rights violations? A few more reports to the European Parliament – which will not, by the way, be made public – will not give us greater control of Frontex.

Additionally, there are also agreements and cooperation with third countries, with the possibility for Frontex to process data. All those things open new windows of opportunity for combating human rights violations. Much will depend on how things are implemented and on how the human rights officer will be employed. Will it be somebody with lots of knowledge and experience in the field and somebody with a strong will, or somebody who does not want to harm his employer? What rights will she/he have? What rights will the consultative forum have and what rights to information? How detailed will the Commission’s reports on monitoring the fate of returnees be?

Much depends on how all this is done and on the consequences of all this reporting, etc., but you can be sure that we will continue to look very closely at how Frontex operates and at what the future developments will be. This new mandate solves nothing, and I would stress that I am deeply disappointed by the Council’s complete lack of commitment to human rights, which we witnessed during the negotiations. I really hope that there will be an improvement soon, and that these new small steps towards more human rights protection will be properly and fully implemented.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Timothy Kirkhope, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Madam President, the Arab Spring has once again highlighted the ineffectiveness and the weaknesses of current immigration arrangements across the EU.

Our response needs to be two-pronged. Firstly, we need to radically reform the Schengen Agreement, not to prevent EU citizens from having free movement across the bloc – something that has generally proven very successful – but so that national governments are able to manage major specific migratory pressures on their borders, if and when necessary.

However, we must also realise that, even if we do reform the Schengen Agreement, the EU’s borders will still not become hermetically sealed. That is why we must also tackle the issue at its source, which means giving Frontex the tools and resources that it needs to intercept migrants as they attempt to cross into the EU, and to deal with them appropriately. Political pressure should also be put on some of the countries which are particularly responsible – or should I say irresponsible – with regard to migratory flows to the EU.

Getting this right is in all our interests. My country, the UK, has, of course, not fully signed up to the Schengen Agreement yet. Many migrants who enter the EU will ultimately want to enter the United Kingdom, placing considerable pressures on humanitarian and local public services there and posing a threat to hauliers who pass through.

This is an issue that affects all of us, and we should all make an effort to tackle it, but we should do it jointly in a spirit of mutual cooperation, rather than effecting a spirit of confrontation, which we have unfortunately seen develop between Member States, and between Member States and the Commission, in recent months. That must be the way forward: reform, but also full understanding of the pressures which exist presently on our Member States.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL).(FR) Madam President, Frontex is a symbol: it symbolises the way in which the European Union wants its efforts to manage and control its borders to be perceived.

The European Parliament has tried, once again, to exert pressure so that the fundamental rights of people who try to reach the European Union, for economic or humanitarian reasons, are better taken into account. A few of our amendments, particularly those concerning rescue at sea, have been included, for which I am grateful to our rapporteur.

However, we are far from achieving the kinds of things we preach to the world. I shall cite just one example: rescue at sea. According to NGOs, since the start of the year, more than 2 000 migrants have been lost at sea. This summer, NATO ships finally reacted and rescued those who had been shipwrecked, but they searched in vain for a Member State to take them in. They returned them, once again, to Tunisia, the country in which the most effort has been made to support those who have fled the war in Libya, a war that was, nonetheless, backed by the European Union.

We do not want this Europe, this ‘fortress Europe’ that lectures others about human rights and democracy, but which is incapable of reaching out to a few thousand refugees. Border control and expulsion to third countries without any real guarantee of respect for the most fundamental rights remain the key words. Worse still, explicit permission is being given for joint returns via charter aircraft. The issue of data protection has not been resolved.

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe is currently conducting an inquiry into these deaths in the Mediterranean, and the European Union will have to account for its failings. There are still no cast-iron guarantees where human rights are concerned. Therefore, we shall not be voting for the mandate in its current state.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Sampo Terho (EFD). (FI) Madam President, I support the proposals made to expand the mandate and competence of the border management agency. Support for border management is one of the EU’s key tasks, in which failure is simply not an option.

No one country is to blame for its own geographical position or the migratory pressure that it is under as a result. That is why it is only right to share this burden, and we must cooperate in the area of border control and assist one another, and, furthermore, do so in difficult times, and especially then. For example, it is estimated that there are more than a million illegal immigrants in Greece, which only aggravates the country’s difficult economic situation.

More effective border management might sound harsh, but we have to remember that effective controls at external borders are vital for freedom of movement within the EU, and are one of the core issues of the entire European project. If the Union’s external borders leak, the pressure grows for Member States to increase the number of internal border checks that they conduct, and we cannot then blame national governments for any measures that they might take.

In short, borders are not controlled to limit freedom, but to safeguard it.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Barry Madlener (NI).(NL) Madam President, Commissioner Malmström is failing and leaving the external borders of the European Union wide open. I would therefore ask the Commissioner: when will you finally do what you have to do? How will you make a start in doing so? I call on you to ensure that the external borders of the EU are properly guarded. The citizens wonder where Frontex is, given that tens of thousands of North African fortune-seekers have entered the EU. They pass through these external borders without difficulty and then enter the asylum process or disappear into illegality.

I would also ask the Commissioner: when will you tackle the corrupt State of Bulgaria? At the Bulgarian border, anyone can buy a one-way ticket to the EU without documents. Yes, Commissioner Malmström, I did say ‘buy’. The Dutch ambassador in Bulgaria has revealed that just a EUR 500 payment to corrupt customs officials will get you into the EU. Clearly, border controls are simply pointless if they can be circumvented by means of corruption. What is the Commissioner’s position on this? What is she going to do about it?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Salvatore Iacolino (PPE).(IT) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there is no doubt that this result regarding Frontex, an agency that very much expresses the solidarity and the sense of responsibility of the European people, represents, more than any other, a true victory, a victory for legal civilisation.

We needed a stronger Frontex, Ms Malmström; we also need a new operational plan for Lampedusa and Pantelleria, which remain isolated while the inalienable rights of legal immigrants, which must be safeguarded, continue to be safeguarded and guaranteed.

At the same time, there is a new form of Schengen governance that provides for integrated border management. This must take due account of the fact that citizens’ safety also depends on their having a good quality of life, which cannot always be guaranteed, and is still not guaranteed in some cases.

Lampedusa and Pantelleria have so far received around 63 000 people from North Africa; cooperation with third countries is only right and it must be strengthened. I hope that the bilateral agreements, particularly the one with Libya, on which Ms Malmström has been doing some valuable work, but the rest of the agreements too, can finally be concluded: only in this way will they be able to tackle illegal migration as effectively as possible, and safeguard legal migration instead.

Frontex’s efforts will have to be examined and assessed. More resources are needed, as is certification of the quality of the results achieved and a new operational plan. A revitalised Frontex, more human, practical and technical resources, and a new operational plan, are what we are calling for, just as we are calling for the fulfilment of the fundamental objective contained in paragraph 1 of this important text, which says that Europe must show necessary solidarity with countries facing an excessive or disproportionate flood of migrants, and not just pretend to be supportive as it has done until now, when it has sometimes forgotten.

On that note, I hope that the Presidency and the Commission can work actively with the European Parliament, and I thank Mr Busuttil for his important work on this dossier.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D).(ES) Madam President, I would also like to acknowledge the work of our rapporteur, Mr Busuttil, and the proposal to amend the regulation establishing the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex). This regulation has been supported by the work of the Commission and the Polish Presidency right at a time when we are focused on an agency that is based in Warsaw itself, and which is vital for understanding the significance of an area of freedom, security and justice for a globally relevant Europe, now that we are experiencing so many events – particularly in the Mediterranean region – that highlight the importance not of strengthening internal borders but of jointly defending and managing our external border. This can be done by strengthening the operational dimension of Frontex, its material and human resources, and the mandate that the Member States should contribute by fulfilling the solidarity clause; above all, however, we must strengthen its humanitarian dimension, in order to know who is responsible for off-shore operations, and underline the importance of saving lives and of responsibility in the area of disembarkation and first aid given to those rescued.

This therefore sends out a positive message of commitment to the humanitarian dimension of Frontex and to the protection of vulnerable people and unaccompanied minors, and of respect for the rules of international humanitarian law, particularly the Geneva Convention and the principle of non-refoulement.

We therefore have an opportunity to highlight the external dimension of the European Union, its humanitarian nature, as well as its internal dimension, the mandate for solidarity, which is legally binding, positive law for all Member States based on Article 70 of the Treaty of Lisbon.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Sonia Alfano (ALDE).(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the amendment of the Frontex Regulation, on which we are voting today, is designed to strengthen the European Agency, endowing it with greater operational capabilities and strengthening the enforcement of the fundamental rights of refugees and asylum seekers but, above all, the ban on refoulement.

The creation of a fundamental rights officer role within the Frontex Management Board and the requirement for Member States to show solidarity with each other are steps in that direction. The reform of Frontex must enable us to tackle the real migration-related emergencies in Europe. Only today, the Financial Times reports that approximately 85% of the 104 000 migrants who entered the EU illegally in 2010 arrived via Greece, and not via Italy or Malta, and unfortunately the same will be true in 2012.

Only if Frontex fully respects migrants’ human rights and helps to prevent the huge number of deaths in the Mediterranean, which has now become a burial ground in which the lives and hopes of people fleeing poverty, oppression and desperation are extinguished, will we be able to say that we are on the right track. This must be Frontex’s goal, and the European Parliament will have to monitor the progress made in this regard.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Ulrike Lunacek (Verts/ALE).(DE) Madam President, Commissioner, in the past, we have seen quite horrible images of refugees who had lost their lives gruesomely in the Mediterranean. The images showed women, children and young men, who had been trying to get over here to us in order to live a better life, but, above all, also seeking protection against violations of their human rights in their homelands.

The proposal on the table is for a better mandate for Frontex than the existing one. Unfortunately, however, it is half-hearted, it has gaps and it is not what we in the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance had envisaged, namely, a mandate that strongly protects refugees and human rights. There is, for example, the question of responsibility, which is to say who is responsible, ultimately? Is it the Member State, or is it Frontex? That has not been clarified precisely. What we fear is that, in future, we will continue to hear each party saying ‘no, no, it is not us, it’s the others’. This passing of the buck will, I fear, continue.

What shape will cooperation with third countries take, specifically? What is the effect of us managing to get through a requirement for the legal situation in such States to be in accordance with EU law? There will clearly be no cooperation with dictators, but the detailed form of this requirement is likewise still unclear.

Finally, we would also have liked there to be much stronger democratic control. For the European Parliament, in particular, there is still a lot to be desired in this area. I hope, however, that this mandate will nonetheless help to protect some people from a gruesome death in the Mediterranean.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Angelika Werthmann (NI).(DE) Madam President, the external borders of the Union are the joint responsibility of the Member States. At the same time, each Member State is responsible for ensuring compliance with its obligations under international agreements. This report makes reference to the limited room to act that this EU agency has had since it was founded, and it proposes necessary changes that aim to facilitate the effective work of the agency as a tool to combat cross-border crime effectively.

Today, we are debating the revision of the framework for Frontex. Is this an opportune moment to go into the material deficiencies, such as the accusations of human rights infringements? The rapporteur has already presented amendments that aim to strengthen the provisions in relation to human rights and the European Parliament’s rights of democratic control. However, it must also be time to clear up the details of the substantive accountability of the agency.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE).(EL) Madam President, we constantly refer to the need for real solidarity between the Member States, in terms of our policies on immigration and in combating illegal immigration and in protecting human rights. We refer to security on the external borders, which is a prerequisite to the Schengen acquis, and, every time, we refer again and again to the concept of solidarity. The primary body for fostering this solidarity is Frontex, which is the subject of today’s debate.

As well as congratulating our rapporteur, I should like to thank the Commission and the Council for the fact that, thanks to the negotiations which preceded this report, we have achieved a constructive agreement. These decisions prove that we are up to the job, that we are responding to needs, and that we are strengthening Frontex, all of which is sorely needed.

Allow me to make two additional comments in connection with the future of Frontex and the need to promote it. The first concerns technical agreements with third countries. Commissioner, we have repeatedly debated, including here in plenary, the issue of the technical agreement with Turkey, which has dug its heels in and has stopped moving forward on non-technical issues. What will become of these agreements and what will happen now, following the changes in the Arab world and in North Africa?

My second comment concerns the local branches which Frontex may decide to operate. The first branch has been set up in Piraeus. Based on reports we have received in Greece, it would appear that the presence of Frontex in Piraeus is vital in monitoring operations and supervising the situation there and, as such, it is important that it should remain following the forthcoming evaluation. May I remind you that, to date, the branch in Piraeus has operated on the basis of a pilot plan. Will the branch stay, if the evaluation considers it worthwhile? We also need to consider if other branches are needed in other countries.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Carmen Romero López (S&D).(ES) Madam President, events in North Africa have been unfolding much faster than our debates and the solutions we have put forward. The European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex) has therefore been unable to respond to this humanitarian crisis, despite the fact that this situation has been going on for many months, and is not yet over.

It is clear that good intentions lie behind efforts to strengthen the operational and humanitarian dimensions and to establish a greater level of communitisation for this instrument. However, unfortunately, it is not enough for all the events we are currently witnessing. In this debate, I am not going to focus on what is happening and what we are seeing every day on the television.

This tragedy has an answer; it needs a stronger response from the EU, and there cannot be an effective system until those countries have established democracy and we have created a relationship of cooperation with those third countries.

Establishing trust is far more effective than pushing ahead with ‘Fortress Europe’, but it is obviously going to take some time. In the meanwhile, during that time, we have to find more effective solutions that meet the standards of our own values.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE).(FR) Madam President, Commissioner, first of all, I should like to thank our colleague, Mr Busuttil, for the outstanding work he has done. His deliberations have enriched the initial proposal, and we must congratulate him on that.

His report creates the blueprint for an agency with increased resources that are more appropriate to the tasks it is set. Recent events have shown us the need for closer cooperation between the European Union, the Member States and a strong agency that provides support. Frontex is finally being granted the resources to carry out its missions. By being able to purchase or lease its own equipment and by benefiting from the services of its own border guards, it will become more independent and very effective. It is also being entrusted with new tasks, such as organising voluntary returns and processing personal data, so that we can combat cross-border crime while protecting fundamental rights.

This extension of Frontex’s powers gives us the means to consider and deal with migration issues from a global perspective, without limiting ourselves to a mechanical approach to border management. I am in favour of the possibility of exchanging personal data with other European agencies, notably Europol.

Lastly, the human dimension is very much a part of this report. Strong recognition of human rights is guaranteed by the proposal to set up a consultative forum within the agency. I can only welcome this comprehensive proposal, which will enable us to take a step forward towards the sound and responsible management of our external borders, at a time of particularly strong and sustained migratory pressure.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Birgit Sippel (S&D).(DE) Madam President, the new mandate for Frontex is a contribution to bringing about the situation whereby, whilst our borders are given the necessary protection, human rights are observed and those seeking protection actually receive it. There are many areas where I would have liked to have seen something better, for example, when it comes to independent observers. Yet whatever you may think of this new mandate, the situation will remain a patchwork.

In all the criticism of Frontex – including the justified criticism – one point is often overlooked, and that is the participation and responsibility of the Member States in their collaboration with the agency. Unfortunately, they are not something that we can reform! It would be an important further step though, if we could finally, for example, put in place a uniform and improved European asylum system.

The new Frontex mandate may be a step in the right direction, but critical follow-up continues to be absolutely necessary. The discussion about protecting our borders and about the rights of refugees will not be concluded simply as a result of this new mandate.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Anna Maria Corazza Bildt (PPE). – Madam President, the strengthening of Frontex is very welcome in ensuring human treatment for the migrants coming to our external borders and, at the same time, in helping us fight irregular migration. I welcome, in particular, the improvements on fundamental rights, especially for unaccompanied minors, and better protection of data.

On joint European border guard teams, it is very clear that we are not creating a European police force. Subsidiarity stands and, Madam Commissioner, I can never underline enough how important it will be to have a very clear command and control structure.

On the special focus on Member States under special and disproportionate pressure, it is very important to clarify what this means if we really want to employ European solidarity. I hope, Madam Commissioner, that you will, in the implementing rules, give a clear definition that will help us avoid confrontation and conflicts. Cofinancing is to be preferred to financing for joint operations as it remains the primary responsibility of Member States to deal with external borders. Finally, I would like to say that Frontex has an important, supportive, operational and technical role to play, but it is a step towards the common asylum policy which we need to continue to work for in 2012.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Tanja Fajon (S&D). (SL) Madam President, European governments have thus far not shown enough solidarity with the Mediterranean countries in attempting to resolve the refugee crisis.

Hundreds, thousands of people have drowned over the past few months while trying to reach the shores of Europe. They were fleeing war and misery and lost their lives because of European indifference.

For a long time, Europe has been divided over the multiple waves of African refugees. It is therefore imperative that we take steps to help these disillusioned, sick and starving fugitives as they reach their destination.

It is imperative that we strengthen the functioning and effectiveness of Frontex. Otherwise, we shall witness new tragedies where refugees at sea are abandoned to their own devices.

I hope that the common European border patrols will make a tangible difference. All Member States must take responsibility and fulfil their promises regarding financial and technical support.

I salute the appointment of a special ombudsman who will ensure respect for civil rights. These immigrants are the victims of war, poverty and human evil.

Refugees are a challenge for the European Union as a whole. We all have a moral duty to provide assistance in securing a safe haven for legitimate asylum seekers when an unexpected wave of immigrants exceeds the capacity of the countries at the external borders of the Union.

Europe must not become a byword for indifference.

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

 
  
MPphoto
 

  William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD). – Madam President, the speaker referred to refugees several times in her speech. In the opinion of the speaker, are any of these refugees economic refugees?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Tanja Fajon (S&D). (SL) Thank you for your question, Mr Dartmouth.

This is a refugee crisis in every sense of the expression. These people are forced to flee to Europe because of war, poverty and misery. This is often the reason for their seeking refuge in Europe and I feel that our countries must help in tangible ways.

These are war refugees, people fleeing poverty and people who are the actual victims of human evil.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Csaba Sógor (PPE).(HU) Madam President, in line with the proposal of the European Commission, the report of my colleague, Mr Busuttil, points in the direction of enhancing the operation of Frontex. I especially welcome the intention to reinforce the provisions on fundamental human rights, because no European measure, not even the strengthening of our external borders, may disregard this aspect. I also agree with my colleague that the agency should pay special attention to Member States facing specific and disproportionate pressures. This is essential not only because recent events have revealed more strikingly than ever the difficulties Member States are facing in such situations, but also because this is what the idea of European solidarity calls for. This is what the success of the plan to build a common area of freedom, security and justice calls for.

I should like to note at this point that the abolition of internal borders, and the protection of our common external borders, is for the good of European citizens as a whole. That is why I hope that the citizens of Romania and Bulgaria will be able to enjoy the benefits of the Schengen area as soon as possible.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Ioan Enciu (S&D).(RO) Madam President, recent events have shown us that we urgently need a European approach to managing the Schengen borders. From this perspective, reforming Frontex is of fundamental importance and must be supported. One of the areas where Frontex experienced the most problems relates to the protection of fundamental rights and the guarantees ensuring the safety and protection of emigrants. I believe that the compromise text will produce significant improvements in this area. What matters most is that these new rules are applied properly. This is why Frontex’s actions need to be transparent to the European Parliament.

I also think it is important that Frontex will be tasked with carrying out risk analyses at external borders. At a practical level, these risk analyses will enable us to obtain accurate, objective data about the real problems prevalent in the Schengen area. This will help us avoid making subjective, strictly political assessments as is happening at the moment in the case of Romania and Bulgaria joining the Schengen area.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Antigoni Papadopoulou (S&D).(EL) Madam President, in the six years since it was founded, Frontex has faced numerous challenges due to waves of illegal immigrants from North Africa, the Middle East and Asia arriving in the Southern European countries, which are under disproportionate pressure and receive a disproportionate number of asylum applications and need real help. Today, however, Frontex needs a renewed mandate, more resources and funds and a better system for guarding the borders throughout the European Union, especially in Greece, Cyprus, Malta and Italy, with the use of border guards in accordance with the solidarity clause.

In this new regulation, we support Frontex, so that it can guard the external borders of the European Union better, can oversee working agreements between the European Union and third countries, and can help with the voluntary repatriation of illegal immigrants, with due respect for human rights. However, in addition to strengthening Frontex, the European Union should, on the one hand, put pressure on Turkey to stop channelling illegal immigrants via Greece and via my occupied country, Cyprus, and, on the other, give real support to the countries of Southern Europe.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jan Kozłowski (PPE).(PL) Madam President, Mr Miller, Commissioner, I share the opinion of the rapporteur and the European Commission calling for Frontex’s operations to be based on the principle of solidarity, albeit a compulsory solidarity. Amongst other things, I am thinking here of the setting up of European border guard teams and the provision of technical resources by different Member States. It is also imperative for Frontex to work together with Europol, Eurojust and other agencies and to step up operations in countries whose asylum systems are not working correctly.

In summarising the agency’s work to date and in planning its operation in the future, we should bear in mind its responsibility to protect the Union’s external borders, but also its duty to uphold fundamental rights. Every effort should be made to enable the agency to carry out its work properly.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Carlo Fidanza (PPE).(IT) Madam President, Minister, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to thank Mr Busuttil for the excellent work he has done in this report. Finally, after lengthy negotiations, the Council has reached a common position on the strengthening of Frontex, which is an ultimately positive political signal after a period of national egotism and operational uncertainties that lasted too long.

The creation of a pool of European border guards coordinated by the agency, a better definition of the rules of engagement for joint operations, the rescue of immigrants at sea and the strengthening of Frontex’s relationships with the other agencies are some of the most important measures envisaged by this agreement, but much still remains to be done: first and foremost, we must ensure that the European Union rather than individual coastal countries is now responsible for signing bilateral agreements with countries of origin, in order to carry out joint coastal patrols and curb migratory flows, right from the port of departure.

We must then work with those countries and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to set up offices on the ground that will actually assess whether or not migrants have the right to claim asylum and hence to cross our borders. Much still remains to be done, but we are on the right track.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Monika Flašíková-Beňová (S&D). (SK) Madam President, the Schengen area of free movement and the removal of internal borders has facilitated the free movement of citizens in an unprecedented way. At the same time, however, it also creates pressure for the better protection of our external borders.

It should be taken as read that the Union welcomes legal migrants and that it will also protect people fleeing oppression. At the same time, however, it is equally important to prevent the penetration of crime into our territory. The Frontex Agency has a very important role in this area. Despite some partial success, it has failed to achieve the desired effectiveness over the five years since it was set up. In the area of fundamental rights, the obligation to comply with fundamental rights under the Charter, and the obligation to comply with international agreements, including the Geneva Convention and commitments relating to the availability of international protection, have been enforced. Although posts and personnel for the area of fundamental rights and data protection have appeared in the institutional architecture of Frontex, there is nevertheless a whole range of deficiencies that we need to eliminate as quickly as possible.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Ioan Mircea Paşcu (S&D). – Madam President, one merit of the report is that it underlines the need for solidarity with the frontier countries of the EU. Better management is provided by strengthening the external borders of the EU through solidarity and trust, rather than by carving into those borders by denying access to Schengen.

The main handicap of this instrument seems to be its total dependence on the means provided by the Member States when needed, making it a prisoner to their scarcity, political calculus or simply goodwill. Rather, to be fully operational, Frontex would need a minimal permanent capacity to intervene, like a rapid reaction force supplied by the Member States through rotation.

Finally, with regard to involving Frontex in the processing of personal data, while linking Frontex up with other relevant institutions is inevitable, its role should be limited, strictly regulated and properly monitored.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Hubert Pirker (PPE).(DE) Madam President, Mr Miller, Commissioner, with this new Frontex Regulation and Mr Busuttil’s excellent report, we are bringing about a situation whereby the external borders can, in future, be even better monitored than hitherto. At the same time, this will also mean that freedom of movement – borderless travel within the European Union – will continue to be secured while also making it possible to more effectively combat international organised crime such as human trafficking or drugs-based crime.

For me, there are three particularly significant factors. First of all, in future, we must have European border protection teams available – with top-quality experts and state-of-the-art technology instantly available. Secondly, we must at long last also call the Member States to account for failing to deliver what they had promised. In other words, staff and equipment that the Member States made assurances they would provide must actually be made available. Thirdly, allowance must be made for the possibility of carrying out risk analyses and providing the Member States with the data for effective border surveillance.

All in all, this is a very, very positive instrument for greater security within the European Union.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Lena Ek (ALDE).(SV) Madam President, Frontex is a decision, a force and a phenomenon that makes very many people uneasy for several different reasons. This is the case, firstly, when it comes to solidarity with people outside Europe who want to seek a better future for themselves; secondly, with regard to respect for human rights, the Red Cross Conventions and the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees; and, above all, there is confusion surrounding the traditional definition of refugee. Whenever we discuss Frontex, I think that we all have a huge responsibility to preserve the content of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, the definition of refugee and the rights of refugees. The third area that causes concern is, of course, openness and transparency and respect for privacy.

Lastly, I would like to stress how important it is for us to initiate talks with the North African transitional states in order to reach agreement with them as to how we should deal with these issues in the new situation that has arisen with the pro-democracy movements in North Africa.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Malika Benarab-Attou (Verts/ALE). (FR) Madam President, the peoples of the southern Mediterranean expect a strong gesture of solidarity and support from us amid the upheaval and the challenges they face. These are peoples whom we colonised in the recent past, which means that we have an added responsibility.

In supporting their democratic transition, we must devise, here in Europe, a true policy of hospitality that is consistent with our value of fraternity. Devising a policy of hospitality means, first of all, reviewing the reception conditions at our borders and ensuring that the fundamental rights of those who cross them are respected. It also means finding a solution for the thousands of young people who are dying in the Mediterranean, before our very eyes. This is unacceptable.

This report, despite including new clauses on respect for human rights and fundamental rights in Frontex’s mandate, is not aimed at a new policy of hospitality. Despite the proposed changes, Frontex’s mandate is still confined to a repressive ‘fortress Europe’ attitude. We must continue our efforts to guarantee more thorough assessments of Frontex operations, with the help of an independent monitoring body, so as to ensure respect for democracy and fundamental rights set out in our report.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jaroslav Paška (EFD). (SK) Madam President, Frontex, the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union, has been subjected to frequent criticism since 2005 due to the less than clear mandate for its operations on the territory of Member States and its lack of resources for providing assistance to Member States in the event of exceptional situations on the external borders of the Union. It is therefore in our common interest to strengthen the resources of Frontex in the future so that it can be ready to respond effectively in situations where the border protection forces of individual Member States cannot handle an emergency situation on our common borders. In addition to staffing and technical reinforcements of the rapid intervention teams, we must also, in the interests of fighting cross-border crime, improve cooperation between the border authorities of the Member States and Frontex, as well as cooperation with the Europol and Eurojust agencies. I firmly believe that only well-coordinated cooperation between Member State border services and the relevant European institutions can contribute to strengthening our common border.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Franz Obermayr (NI).(DE) Madam President, along the southern maritime borders of our Union lies the eastern route across the Balkans, where illegal immigration takes place. This year, in my home country of Austria, we have already arrested more than 12 000 illegal immigrants, which is 23% more than last year. They are thus coming via the classical Balkan route, where there is clearly an open external border that seems to bear more resemblance to a Swiss cheese than to a real border.

The activities of Frontex and Europol are failing as a result of the lack of willingness to coordinate on the part of the Member States. They are failing as a result of the lack of deployment plans and of technical operating resources. The negative consequences have to be borne, above all, by the central European countries of destination, including my home country of Austria.

What do the citizens expect, then? They expect Europe to provide effective protection, to protect its external borders effectively. What is needed here is quick and targeted action. I have misgivings, however, about whether this report will actually bring about any progress on efficiency.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Cecilia Malmström, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, I would like to thank all the speakers in this very fruitful debate. The amendment of the legal framework of Frontex has been a priority for us, and the developments in the Mediterranean have, of course, put even greater emphasis on this work. Frontex is only one player in the whole Mediterranean situation. This requires a whole range of different instruments. There is the mobility partnership that we are currently developing with our neighbours in northern Africa, starting with Tunisia and Egypt, and hopefully continuing with the new regime in Libya soon. There is also our global approach to migration, and we are, of course, putting into place the foundations of the common asylum system. I am grateful for the support of Parliament on all these issues and I am sure we will come back to them very soon.

But turning to the future of Frontex, the Commission will further assess the work of the agency and launch a study to determine if it is feasible to create a European system of border guards. The Commission will be making a declaration on this for inclusion in the record, and we will, of course, also be closely monitoring how Frontex is working under the new premises and regulation.

I am confident that a first-reading agreement between the colegislators will enable the agency to better fulfil its coordinating role at the external borders of the EU in the coming years. It will strengthen its effectiveness and operability, and it will also strengthen the fundamental rights aspects of the work. I am thankful for the European Parliament’s support in this respect.

There are many expectations of Frontex. It cannot deliver on all these issues, but with the decision that will be taken in the vote here today or tomorrow, we will give it more resources, more guidelines, more commitment and better legitimacy. I am sure it will work much better with all these things.

I would like to thank you all for your involvement in this and particularly the rapporteur, Mr Busuttil.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jerzy Miller, President-in-Office of the Council.(PL) Madam President, honourable Members, I have listened carefully, with interest and immense gratitude, to everyone who has spoken in this discussion. My impression is that we are all saying that a secure external border is a requirement for the permanent removal of internal borders. This is why we attach such importance to this discussion about an agency which, together with the Member States, guarantees the security of the European Union’s external border.

I would like to express my sincere thanks in particular to the rapporteur. Mr Busuttil has shown that he is able, in what is a very difficult matter – and today’s discussion has shown again how difficult it is – to find a sensible compromise, a compromise which, in such an important matter for Europe, can lead to a settlement. It is not, of course, the best settlement for everyone, but it can gain the support of most MEPs. I am very sincerely grateful, too, for the work of the Hungarian Presidency and for their efforts on behalf of the Council.

The legislation you have prepared lays an even stronger obligation on the Member States to work together. This does not just mean working with the agency, but also with each other, in the name of European solidarity in terms of responsibility for the common external border. Furthermore, this applies not just to formal aspects, because working together also means the Member States making available their human resources, their equipment, their experience, and their ability in resolving the difficult situation at the external border.

The legislation you have prepared guarantees that Frontex will be more effective. We would not have been talking about the agency with such perseverance today if it were not for the real threat to maintenance of the security of the external border. In relation to this, the effectiveness we are talking about is not just a slogan; it is the profound expectation of European society.

Finally, in giving Frontex the duty of, as well as the tools necessary for, carrying out risk analysis, you are saying that it is necessary to prepare at the prevention stage and not wait until there is a real threat to the security of the external border.

I would like to express my very sincere thanks to the rapporteur, in particular, and to everyone who has contributed to achieving this judicious compromise.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Simon Busuttil, rapporteur. (MT) First of all, I would like to thank all those who took part in this debate for their interventions. I think, Madam President, that if there is a lesson to be learnt from the events that took place this year – especially as regards the Schengen Area – it is what Minister Miller just said; namely, that in order to guarantee freedom of movement within the European Union for our citizens, we must realise that we have to work together to strengthen our external borders. This means that the freedom to move within the Schengen Area depends on strong external borders.

This is where Frontex comes in. Frontex helps us cooperate towards strong external borders. This is why we wanted to change our legislation; to make Frontex even more effective than it already is. At the end of the day, let us not forget that this is a chain, and – as the saying goes – a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. If there is a weak link, the whole chain will break. In the changes we made to Frontex, we kept one thing in mind: we must be strict in the protection of our external borders but, at the same time, we must be generous and show solidarity with those seeking help, especially people who are experiencing the realities of emigration.

To conclude, Madam President, I would like to say that it was a huge privilege for me to work together with the shadow rapporteurs, the Commission and the Presidency – especially the Hungarian Presidency – on the subject of Frontex.

I hope that our contribution will lead to a more effective agency, and I also hope that we will be given strong support in the vote to be taken later today. Thank you very much.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Barry Madlener (NI). (NL) Madam President, I would like to make a point of order. Commissioner Malmström has taken numerous questions from a number of Members, including the question from me about what she is going to do about corruption at our borders, for example, in Bulgaria. I have not heard a single answer to these questions from her. She brushes them off quite effortlessly. Do you not think that the Commissioner should answer somewhat more extensively the questions posed by the Members of this House?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  President. – The Commissioner has provided some answers. I do not know whether you wish to take the floor, but there is an item on corruption tomorrow. There will be a debate, a comprehensive debate, tomorrow afternoon, so it may be better to expand on this issue, which is obviously very important and a central concern of both Parliament and the Commission, then.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place today at 11.30.

Written statements (Rule 149)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – The creation of a Frontex agency is effectively putting the determination of who may or may not enter Europe into the hands of the EU. Many countries in the EU have been inundated with immigrants, putting pressure on the economy and welfare systems and overcrowding cities and services. Once immigrants are granted access to Europe, they are able to travel between Member States. Many seek to move on to the UK, which already battles a ballooning population under the strain of recent immigration. At a time of fiscal crisis when austerity measures are essential, it is irrational to flood societies. What is more, the prerogative of who is granted asylum should be the privilege of the domestic government and not be determined by an outside agency. Whilst immigration for asylum seekers is something I support, I do not trust the European Union to be at the helm of decision making. In today’s global society, immigration may be used as a tactic by other countries. Mass immigration can distort social identity and threaten integration. It is a matter that should be handled with care and caution by leaders of nations who recognise and are sensitive to domestic peculiarities.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Kinga Gál (PPE), in writing.(HU) EU decision makers are guided by the aim of making the European Union more citizen-friendly. One of the key elements in this is to make the citizens of Europe feel safe, and to ensure that they are able to safely make use of the most popular of our EU acquis, the Schengen system. The Schengen system, however, cannot function properly without effective protection of our external borders. European citizens therefore have an increasing need for an effective and well-organised EU institution capable of rapid response and which is invested with appropriate powers and capacities. That is why Frontex must be strengthened by legal means as well, so that it can indeed take effective action in the fight against human trafficking, criminal organisations and the drug trade. Respect for human rights, including those of refugees, must, of course, be an important consideration in Frontex operations. My fellow Member, Mr Busuttil, did an outstanding job with the consultations, both within Parliament and with the Commission and the Council, and for that he deserves our unmitigated praise. Furthermore, we must point out that it was the Hungarian Presidency whose efforts resulted in the fact that we reached an agreement on the Frontex proposal over the past six months. We hope that through our strenuous work, we managed to create an appropriate background for the work undertaken by Frontex.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Ville Itälä (PPE), in writing. (FI) According to this report, Member States are under an obligation to make their own equipment available for Frontex operations if Frontex so requests. I hope that this will correct one major problem: the Member States have not often put equipment at the disposal of the agency to any adequate degree.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Marian-Jean Marinescu (PPE), in writing. (RO) The new regulation on Frontex marks the most important reform to the legislation which gave rise to this agency in 2004, and a step forward for the future of the EU’s external borders. The EU’s external borders cannot be reinforced at Member State level. Through Frontex, all Member States will be able to take part in external border operations and actively promote the principle of distributing immigration and asylum assignments.

We must not lose sight of how important it is to show solidarity with those Member States which are subject to migratory pressures. Setting up the European border guard teams is another important step. This new external border service will deploy border guards appointed by Member States for joint operations. I hope that Frontex’s actions will have a higher profile in future. I should emphasise the importance of increasing Frontex’s 2012 budget, given the new tasks arising from this new regulation.

 
  
  

(The sitting was suspended until 11.35)

 
  
  

IN THE CHAIR: EDWARD McMILLAN-SCOTT
Vice-President

 

5. Voting time
Video of the speeches

5.1. Request for waiver of Mr Hans-Peter Martin's parliamentary immunity (A7-0267/2011 - Tadeusz Zwiefka) (vote)

5.2. European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex) (A7-0278/2011 - Simon Busuttil) (vote)

5.3. Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items (A7-0256/2011 - Vital Moreira) (vote)

5.4. Obsolete Council acts in the field of the common agricultural policy (A7-0252/2011 - Paolo De Castro) (vote)

5.5. Repeal of certain obsolete Council acts (A7-0257/2011 - Vital Moreira) (vote)

5.6. Repeal of Regulation (EEC) No 429/73 and Regulation (EC) No 215/2000 (A7-0250/2011 - Vital Moreira) (vote)

5.7. Effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (A7-0272/2011 - Sajjad Karim) (vote)

5.8. Public regulated service offered by the global navigation satellite system established under the Galileo programme (A7-0260/2011 - Norbert Glante) (vote)
 

Before the vote:

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Norbert Glante, rapporteur.(DE) Mr President, I want to keep this brief. I know Members are not always pleased when the rapporteur speaks again before the vote. I simply wanted to thank all those involved and, in this context, I hope that this signal can soon be put to use so that there are enough satellites in orbit, and that the Member States come up with sufficient money for the future budget and the financial perspective so that the Galileo navigation satellite system is actually put into operation. Many thanks once again; I hope we have a bright future ahead of us.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Cecilia Malmström, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, the Commission would like to read out the following statement:

‘The Commission will, when preparing the delegated acts, ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and the Council and carry out appropriate and transparent consultations well in advance, in particular with experts from the national authorities of all the Member States which will be responsible for implementing these delegated acts once they have been adopted or amended.

In view of the fact that questions of national security are particularly relevant when preparing, drawing up and amending public regulated service (PRS) common minimum standards by delegated acts as referred to in Article 8a, the Commission welcomes the intention of Member States to designate as experts in this process the representatives of their respective national authorities on the Security Board for the European Global Navigation Satellite (GNSS) systems, established by Commission Decision 2009/334/EC, and also welcomes the position of all Member States that these experts, working together with the Commission, should endeavour, as far as possible, to advise the Commission on the basis of consensus’.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  President. – Mrs Malmström, you are very reassuring, as always!

 

5.9. International Tropical Timber Agreement (A7-0280/2011 - Vital Moreira) (vote)

5.10. EU-Switzerland agreement on the protection of designations of origin and geographical indications for agricultural products and foodstuffs (A7-0247/2011 - Béla Glattfelder) (vote)

5.11. EU-Norway agreement concerning additional trade preferences in agricultural products (A7-0276/2011 - Helmut Scholz) (vote)

5.12. Extension to Liechtenstein of the EC-Switzerland agreement on trade in agricultural products (A7-0248/2011 - Béla Glattfelder) (vote)

5.13. Convention on the Conservation and Management of High Seas Fishery Resources in the South Pacific Ocean (A7-0274/2011 - Carmen Fraga Estévez) (vote)

5.14. EU-Brazil agreement on civil aviation safety (A7-0259/2011 - Silvia-Adriana Ţicău) (vote)

5.15. Agreement between the EU, Iceland and Norway on the surrender procedure between the Member States of the European Union and Iceland and Norway (A7-0268/2011 - Rui Tavares) (vote)

5.16. Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking (A7-0261/2011 - Herbert Reul) (vote)

5.17. Audit policy - lessons from the crisis (A7-0200/2011 - Antonio Masip Hidalgo) (vote)

5.18. Situation of women approaching retirement age (A7-0291/2011 - Edit Bauer) (vote)

5.19. Directive on mediation in the Member States (A7-0275/2011 - Arlene McCarthy) (vote)

5.20. Voluntary modulation of direct payments under the common agricultural policy (A7-0203/2011 - Britta Reimers) (vote)

5.21. Officially supported export credits (A7-0364/2010 - Yannick Jadot) (vote)
  

Before the vote:

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Yannick Jadot, rapporteur.(FR) Mr President, it is very good of you to give me the floor. I had not planned to speak. I should just like to thank all the shadow rapporteurs and all the teams who worked on this issue. It was tough negotiating with the Council, but I believe that we have come up with a very constructive report.

 

5.22. An effective raw materials strategy for Europe (A7-0288/2011 - Reinhard Bütikofer) (vote)

5.23. EU counter-terrorism policy: main achievements and future challenges (A7-0286/2011 - Sophia in ’t Veld) (vote)
  

Before the vote:

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Sophia in 't Veld, rapporteur. – Mr President, with reference to Rule 177 of the Rules of Procedure, I would like to propose to the House that we postpone the vote on the evaluation of EU counter-terrorism policies. Although the report was adopted by the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs in July, it would seem that positions have been shifting in recent days and controversy has arisen over a number of issues. That is very unfortunate considering that the issue is very sensitive.

As rapporteur, I worked on a timetable which would have allowed for a plenary vote before the summer break, but the timetable has been slipping. However, what counts in the end is the result; evaluation is a key element of transparency and accountability, and it is important that Parliament has a clear and consensual view of what evaluation should include. I believe that with a little more time, we may find circumstances more favourable to a common approach and be able to present a result that will command widespread support. I therefore ask the House to support postponement.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Simon Busuttil, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, on behalf of the EPP Group, I wish to speak against this request for a postponement. I wish to remind colleagues that we have already agreed to postpone the vote at the committee stage and this honestly did not get us any closer to a good, reasonable compromise text that we could all agree upon. In fact, it did not get us anywhere. So a postponement at this stage is not likely to help in any way.

Also, I hope that this request is not motivated by the national electoral interests of those who might wish to vote one way today and another way after their election.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Hannes Swoboda, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, I can only agree with Mr Busuttil. I hope those opposing postponement are not motivated by national election considerations. We support postponement as we want a unified and strong position of the Parliament and not a divided position. That is our message.

 
  
  

(Parliament agreed to the request for a postponement of the vote)

 

5.24. Black Sea fisheries (A7-0236/2011 - Iliana Malinova Iotova) (vote)

5.25. Safety of offshore oil and gas activities (A7-0290/2011 - Vicky Ford) (vote)

5.26. Women entrepreneurship in small and medium-sized enterprises (A7-0207/2011 - Marina Yannakoudakis) (vote)
 

(The sitting was suspended for a few moments)

 
  
  

IN THE CHAIR: JERZY BUZEK
President

 

6. Address by Bronisław Komorowski, President of the Republic of Poland
Video of the speeches
MPphoto
 

  President. – I welcome the President of Poland to the European Parliament with all the more pleasure because this is now his second visit to our Parliament. He made his first visit only a few days after being elected President in free elections.

Ladies and gentlemen, President Komorowski is, in fact, one of us. He was a Member of Parliament in Poland for many years, and served as Deputy Marshal and then Marshal of the Sejm. He also shares the system of values which we in the European Parliament consider to be of the greatest importance: the liberty of every individual, democracy and building a sound economy which has a human face. These are President Komorowski’s most important personal maxims and convictions.

In the time when Poland was still not an independent country, he published and printed underground literature. He was also interned under martial law. Immediately after the liberation of Poland, he took up the first of a series of important functions in the state administration. He served as Undersecretary of State in several governments, and was also Minister for National Defence in the government which it was my privilege to lead. I should also add that President Komorowski and I are united by a friendship which is both political and personal.

Ladies and gentlemen, at a time of fears over demographic change in our continent, it is also worth mentioning that President Komorowski has resisted this and is the father of five children.

(Applause)

Of course, as you can see, this has not hindered him in his political career – all these things can be combined.

Ladies and gentlemen, we are very interested in what the President of Poland has to say, particularly because we are currently going through a period of difficulty. President Komorowski is the Head of State of the Member State which currently holds the Presidency of the Council of the European Union. It is in the interests of us all that we overcome our difficulties, and today we expect the Polish Presidency to send out good and constructive signals about solving Europe’s many problems.

Mr President, please take the floor.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Bronisław Komorowski, President of the Republic of Poland.(PL) Mr President, honourable Members, I would like to express my very sincere thanks for the kind introduction from my former boss, my friend Jerzy Buzek. I should like to say that meeting you all is also a very moving experience for me. I recognise many people here in this Chamber, and not just, by the way, from among my Polish friends, because I can also see many people with whom I have worked on important matters, including matters which were important for Poland’s membership and for the membership of the entire region – of our part of Europe – in the European Union.

I would also like to say – since Mr Buzek mentioned what I have done in the past – that for me, today’s meeting here in the European Parliament is something quite remarkable, if I go back in my mind to that most difficult of times, to the time when martial law was still in force in Poland, when I used to publish an underground magazine called ABC. The title came from the words Adriatyk, Bałtyk, Morze Czarne – the Adriatic, Baltic and Black Seas. We strove to write and edit the magazine with the hope that someday – perhaps in the distant future – not just Poland but also the other countries of our region would be free and democratic countries, and that they would be able, too, to participate in processes from which my country and the entire region had been excluded for decades by the adverse decrees of history.

Recalling that editorial work today, work which generally seemed to have no chance of success, is also important from the point of view of cultivating attitudes of optimism and an optimistic view of the world. Since one can move from an underground magazine, printed in secret – however, it was not a magazine devoted exclusively to its own, Polish problems, but to the problems of the entire region – to a meeting with the European Parliament in a situation in which Poland holds the Presidency of the Council of the European Union, this is a source, a renewed source, of political optimism regarding the future of our continent.

Honourable Members, the history of Europe is a history of conflicts, a history of divisions, a history of feuds and wars. On the other hand, however, it also testifies to the irresistible aspiration of the nations which live there to achieve unity. Geographical, cultural, ethnic and linguistic divides have not prevented the people of our continent from building a united Europe. For we have come to understand that diversity is not a threat, but an opportunity and an asset.

The first fully successful plan to unite Europe came from a small group of countries and was born out of the tragedy of war at a time when the continent was split by a sharp ideological divide. The Schuman Plan and the European Coal and Steel Community were a kind of Copernican revolution in Europe. For just as the great scholar, Nicolaus Copernicus, changed our understanding of the world, so the experience of integration has changed the way we look at international relations, and this has been the case throughout the continent. Europeans have finally become convinced that cooperation and integration allow us to build a better future beyond the divides that are the difficult legacy of history.

The price which had to be paid for peace, security and prosperity in Europe – the voluntary relinquishment of a degree of national sovereignty – has paid off as never before in history. The plan of the European Union’s founding fathers would not have succeeded, however, if it had not been for the bold ideas of everlasting peace and European federation developed by European intellectuals. The authors of these schemes include the Bohemian monarch, George of Poděbrady, French princes and clergy, German philosophers – Europeans of all confessions and languages. There were Poles among them, too, and – as is characteristic of our history – they also developed their plans for unity and peace in Europe in times which were the most difficult for Poland, because they were times when Poland did not feature on the map of Europe. They saw in a united Europe the chance for our nation to regain and consolidate its independence. One of them, Wojciech Jastrzębowski, wrote his Treatise on an Everlasting Alliance, which contained his Constitution for Europe, just after one of the bloody battles of the November Rising of 1831, as he dreamt of a Poland which was independent and secure. Today, we know that to build a united Europe, someone did, quite simply, have to come up with the idea in the first place.

Mr President, honourable Members, an important landmark in European integration – the real unification of Europe – was reached after 1989 and the fall of the Iron Curtain. The fall of Communism and the transformation of Central and Eastern Europe gave a new impetus to the integration of Europe. The Member States of the European Economic Community and its institutions – the European Commission and the European Parliament – undertook the difficult task of transforming the common market into the European Union, a Union in which the area included in the community was significantly enlarged. I will mention only three major projects, which, in my opinion, are symbols of that transformation: common foreign, security and defence policy, the Schengen area and economic and monetary union. At the same time, the Member States of the European Union have done something no less important and no less difficult, by which I mean they have carried out extensive enlargement. Integration of the East and West of the continent was possible and is still under way thanks to coordinated efforts on both sides of the boundary which once divided Europe.

The great enlargement of 2004-2007 required a huge amount of work from all the governments, diplomats, parliaments and non-governmental organisations involved and from many other bodies too numerous to mention here. In preparing for membership, the countries of Central and Eastern Europe underwent great internal changes. In our part of Europe and in Poland, we had to cover the road from totalitarianism and a centrally controlled economy to democracy and the free market at high speed.

This was done at a cost, and it was a painful cost, in the form of unemployment, a worsening of the political climate and a wave of populism. In Poland, however, it was possible to stabilise the political system and build an economic and financial system which proved its worth during the crisis of 2008 and 2009. We know from our own experience that having the courage to make changes quite simply pays dividends.

Poland’s transformation was the work of the Poles themselves, but its course was determined by the aspiration to be part of a Europe which was moving towards ever greater union, and Europe was of great help to us in this. The Europe to which history after 1945 had been more magnanimous extended solidarity – solidarity with the Europe which the decrees of history had made their victim. Poland has not forgotten that solidarity, and here in the European Parliament, a great deal is known about the help and solidarity of the European Union – Parliament was a champion of that solidarity then, and Parliament continues as the guardian of European solidarity today.

(Applause)

Mr President, honourable Members, the Presidency of the Council of the European Union is held, today, by Poland – a Poland which is dynamic, full of faith in the success of the European project, active in external relations and committed to strengthening the achievements of European integration. The Polish Presidency comes, however, at a difficult time for Europe, for its people and its economies. We currently face challenges more difficult than any we have faced in recent years. In most Member States of the European Union, we are dealing not just with a crisis of public finances and a crisis of fiscal policy, but also with weak economic growth. On top of that, there are Europe’s demographic problems, which have implications in areas ranging from economics to issues of civilisation and to politics.

The role of certain financial institutions in bringing about the present crisis, their growing autonomy and the detachment of financial markets from the real economy and the needs of society are undermining faith in the rationality of the free market. Many economic decisions which have serious social consequences are made outside of democratically elected parliaments and governments. The insufficient ability of governments and EU bodies to cope with the effects of the crisis is giving rise in places to a lack of faith in Europe, causing europessimism in society and increasing the tendency to taking unilateral action and to looking for solutions in isolation.

Today, one of the most important achievements of European integration – the European social model – is being called into question. Its core, its essence, has always been a dynamic equilibrium between three values: freedom, justice and solidarity. It is precisely this model which has meant that life in Europe has been – and still is – considered to be the best for human society. This is why so many people from different parts of the world want to live in Europe, and want to get here by a variety of routes, often taking enormous personal risk.

The European Union and its communities are at a turning point, at what is perhaps the most difficult moment since the beginning of the process of integration. The fight for the credibility and the future of the common currency is being carried on by way of hurried decisions establishing mechanisms for reacting to the crisis and improving the coordination of macroeconomic policies. Although my country is still outside the euro area, we do want to cooperate in the creation and implementation of plans to rectify the situation. We know that at stake is the future of a project which is of fundamental significance for Europe and its place in the world. The collapse of the euro and of economic and monetary union could be the prelude to reversing the process of integration, and this could have the worst possible consequences, including abandonment of the Union as a political project.

(Applause)

Some people are talking about – or hoping for – an inevitable return to the past, to attempts at domination and to nationalist attitudes, to the re-erection of borders as a consequence of the collapse of the common currency. In Poland, we do not even think about such scenarios.

(Applause)

We do not entertain such thoughts, and are guided by our experience in Poland and the experience of the last generation, the Solidarity generation. We in Poland well know how easy it is to wipe out the civilisation and the achievements of many generations in the course of a few years. We have quite simply been there. The Union and each of its politicians need bold decisions, decisions as bold as those which, 60 years ago, began the process of European integration. Initially, not everyone understood the new character of the relation between sovereignty, on the one hand, and security and development, on the other. This is why the plan to establish the European Defence Community foundered. It is worth pointing out that the European Coal and Steel Community and, after it, the European Economic Community were not established with the involvement of all the countries which, at the time, could have participated. Later, however, they did join those communities, and are now participants in and beneficiaries of the process of integration.

We must not remain idle in the face of external challenges and the problems which exist within the European Union. There are many things we have to change if we want to avoid social dissent on a scale far greater than that which we have seen in different countries in recent months or weeks as a reaction to problems of a mainly economic nature.

Honourable Members, the crisis is also part of the Polish experience. The crisis is not only a threat, but is also an opportunity to give a new impetus to the process of strengthening European integration; an opportunity to rethink and rebuild our common institutions, so that the Union can regain the capacity for further development and integration. This explains the programme of the Polish Presidency, in which our answer to the crisis is ‘more Europe’.

(Applause)

French President Charles de Gaulle once compared the structure of a united Europe to the construction of a Gothic cathedral. Here, close as we are to the wonderful Strasbourg Cathedral, it should be noted and remembered that the Cathedral’s medieval builders did not know all the details of the building they were planning – they did not know what its final form would be. They did, however, know the objective of their work; they knew what purpose the building was to serve. It is my conviction that this kind of awareness, this kind of long-term perspective, is also necessitated by the situation today in Europe.

Our objectives should be set by three related values: security, development and solidarity. New instruments have to ensure the European Union vitality, progress and international position. It is also essential to rigorously maintain the cohesion of the entire Union. This requires the open nature of the process of strengthening integration to be retained. The Polish Presidency will make every effort to finalise reform of economic governance in the European Union in the very near future.

I would like, here, to thank the European Parliament for its extensive involvement and its valuable contribution to improving the measures which make up the six-pack, the aim of which is to strengthen the Union’s Stability and Growth Pact and to keep the public finances of the European Union’s Member States under control. I would also like to appeal for support for the Presidency’s efforts towards rapid adoption of the package, which is of fundamental significance for the economic stability of our European community.

(Applause)

The success of the entire European project depends on its most advanced and ambitious parts. I am thinking principally here of the common currency, which, despite its present problems, is a great achievement. Increasingly often, proposals are being made to strengthen the process of European integration by basing it on the euro area. The facts of the situation, and this includes the reality of the crisis, have led to an openness to discussion on this matter. It should, however, be remembered that such profound changes – if they are not to harm the whole of the project we call ‘Europe’ – should be made by means of amendments to the Treaties. The need to obtain the consent of all the Member States most certainly raises the question and the expectation of ensuring that all Member States have the opportunity to be included in the process of increased integration once clear criteria have been met. It raises the question as to whether a suitable clear criterion should not simply be the possession of a healthy national economy.

I do not consider the crisis of public finances to amount to the failure of the common currency, but we do have to try to find solutions which will allow its permanent stabilisation and make full use of its potential to create prosperity for Europeans.

The present crisis shows that strengthening the economic pillar of economic and monetary union is essential. We must coordinate economic policy better, and we should develop the emerging Euro+ Pact coordination platform, which involves not just the countries of the euro area, but also all the Member States outside the area which believe in the success of the common currency and are showing determination in seeking to adopt it. Strengthening coordination of the macroeconomic policies of the Member States has within it the potential for further political integration of the European Union.

Mr President, honourable Members, the international situation calls for increased cooperation from the whole Union. No Member State of the European Union is able on its own to be effective in influencing the international order or new events or problems, nor is any Member State able on its own to bring external crises under control. In the face of the global challenges of our times in the area of security, climate protection or solving the world financial crisis, only a more strongly integrated Union has a chance of being effective in influencing others and deciding together with others about which measures are adopted.

(Applause)

The present situation should become an impetus for strengthening European security and defence policy. The appropriate proposals have been put forward by the countries of the Weimar initiative. A great challenge for the European Union is the need to be skilful in pursuing policy towards its immediate surroundings. We have said a lot in recent months in Europe about helping the ‘Arab spring’. We remember 1989 and the famous ‘autumn of the nations’ or ‘autumn of the peoples’. So it is not necessary to convince anyone in Poland of the importance of the events in Africa and the Middle East and of the need to support the efforts being made for liberty in those countries. Attention must not, however, be focused only on the Southern Neighbourhood. We need a more serious approach from the European Union to its eastern neighbours than exists at present, for there is no conflict between the need for the European Union to be involved in supporting the countries which lie to the east and to the south of the Union. All of it is our neighbourhood.

(Applause)

What is needed is a long-term policy towards the nations of Eastern Europe which have the prospect of membership, even if it is a distant one. We see this in the case of Ukraine, which, under difficult conditions, is making efforts to come closer to the Union in order to associate with it and – perhaps in the longer term – to be given the prospect of membership.

I would also like to convey my personal impressions of a conversation with the President of Ukraine – and they were difficult talks about difficult matters. I would like to express my profound conviction that there is great determination in Ukraine to achieve the conditions which are needed for closer relations and for participation in European integration. This also includes work to raise democratic standards there.

The Eastern Partnership Summit, which will be held in Warsaw at the end of September, should lead to the formulation of a clearly written and ambitious political declaration. The partner nations to the east of Europe expect a clear signal from us as to what kind of partnership we want to build with them, how much we want to be involved in the realisation of their European aspirations, and how far we do not want borders to be obstacles to interpersonal contacts. How much are we really ready to work together to strengthen the common European identity based on common European roots?

(Applause)

Mr President, honourable Members, the great Polish poet, Zbigniew Herbert, once wrote something about the idea of Europe. He was an important figure for Poland’s Solidarity generation because he was a poet who spoke and wrote about freedom the way my generation, people of the Solidarity generation, felt about freedom and the importance of the struggle for freedom. Herbert wrote this: ‘The concept of Europe has always been changeable and imprecise for the simple reason that it is not the name of a continent surrounded by ocean and completely enclosed by its own borders. It does, however, evoke particular associations and, I venture to suppose, a faster beating of the heart’. Herbert wrote those words in 1973, when there was a deep divide across Europe that seemed to exclude nations just because they found themselves lying on the eastern side of the Iron Curtain – nations which had been a part of Europe for 1 000 years. I well remember the feeling of those times, the beating of the heart which accompanied timid dreams of freedom. Those timid dreams then became bold dreams of Poland’s participation in the development of a free world. I remember that beating of the heart, and I would like us still to feel emotionally bound to Europe, so that the very thought of Europe and its future still causes the heart to throb – not a fearful kind of throbbing, but the throbbing and the quickened pulse we experience when we take on new, bold challenges and make important decisions.

We in Poland believe deeply in Europe, and we want a European Union which is dynamic and bold, open and supportive. We want a Union which will ensure Europe a role in the world in keeping with the size of its civilisation, and a Union which will protect the vitality of that civilisation – European civilisation. We want a Union which will give all its nations security and which will be the right response to the needs and concerns of its citizens. We know that such a Union is possible. We want to build such a Union, and we want to do so together with the other nations of Europe.

(The House accorded the speaker a standing ovation)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  President. – Mr President, we would like to thank you for your words. You mentioned your work 30-40 years ago in connection with the Adriatic, Baltic and Black Seas. Today, you have extended this with another very important sea in Europe, one which is of key significance – the Mediterranean. You referred to our Southern Partnership and the need to act in this direction. You said that diversity is not a threat, but can be an asset and a source of strength. We agree with you. You also spoke about the fact that Poland can be a source of optimism for our continent. We are very much counting on this. Both caution and courage are needed in what we do. Finally, I particularly noticed that you said: ‘Parliament continues as the guardian of European solidarity today’. Those words are very important for us. We are convinced that the European Parliament wants to participate and will participate in all efforts whose objective it is to strengthen our Union and bring about improvements in relation to the many problems which are still proving difficult to solve today. We – as the representatives of 500 million Europeans – accept responsibility for the work of our Union, work which has been so important for the whole of Europe for several decades. We are convinced it will continue to be important in the future. Thank you, Mr President.

 
  
  

IN THE CHAIR: EDWARD McMILLAN-SCOTT
Vice-President

 

7. Welcome
Video of the speeches
MPphoto
 

  President. – Colleagues, we are going to resume the session with the explanations of vote, but before we do so, I would like to welcome a delegation from the Canadian Federal Parliament and representatives of the Mission of Canada to the European Union who have taken their seats in the diplomatic gallery. The delegation is led by Mr David Tilson who represents a riding or electoral district in Toronto, and the delegation includes MPs and Senators from Quebec and British Colombia. The delegation is in Strasbourg to meet with counterparts from the Delegation for relations with Canada on the occasion of the 34th European Parliament-Canada Interparliamentary meeting. Yesterday and today, the delegation has had the opportunity to hold informal and formal discussions with our Members, and tomorrow they will travel on to Copenhagen for discussions with the future Presidency. I wish the delegation well for the remainder of their stay in the European Union. You are very welcome here.

 

8. Explanations of vote
Video of the speeches
MPphoto
 

  President. – The next item is the explanations of vote. As there are quite a lot, I am going to stick to the minute that speakers are allowed, and then I will cut off the microphone.

 
  
  

Oral explanations of vote

 
  
  

Report: Simon Busuttil (A7-0278/2011)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jens Rohde (ALDE).(DA) Mr President, the revision of the Frontex Regulation, which is the legal act regulating the surveillance of our external borders, is particularly important. Our common external borders are under pressure. In the spring, we saw our external borders in southern Europe come under extreme pressure.

It is important to remember that Europe’s borders are common to us all. For that very reason, during the electoral campaign two years ago, we in the Danish Liberal Party emphasised strongly that it is important for all Member States to contribute to the surveillance of our common borders. Therefore, we are obviously happy that we have now succeeded in ensuring that this will actually happen in future, not simply because it is important to keep an electoral promise, but also, of course, because our external borders are what create the framework around the community that we are all a part of. It is therefore not merely a practical issue, but actually has a very strong symbolic significance as well.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Clemente Mastella (PPE).(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, one of the attributes of a common EU area of freedom, security and justice is that of the removal of borders within the Schengen area. This, however, has rendered the external borders of EU Member States a matter of common concern and has made the need for an integrated management of external borders through a coordinated approach ever more compelling.

For this reason, the adoption and implementation of common rules, increased cooperation between Member States, more combined effort and more pooling of resources are vital. Crucially, cooperation must be based on solidarity among Member States, especially with frontier Member States that, owing to their geographic or demographic situation, face severe migratory pressures, with one such example being Italy.

We therefore welcome the adoption of this report because, following lengthy negotiations, we have managed to obtain some excellent results and improvements in the functioning of the agency responsible, Frontex, and provided for more resources and instruments to optimise its work.

 
  
  

Report: Antonio Masip Hidalgo (A7-0200/2011)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jens Rohde (ALDE).(DA) Mr President, this own-initiative report welcomes the Commission’s Green Paper on audit policy.

The financial crisis has shown us that auditors can actually play a key role in enhancing supervision, particularly when it comes to the financial institutions. I am therefore pleased that we have sent a very clear message today that there is a need to increase the transparency and quality of the work of audit firms. That is absolutely crucial in order to improve both the quality of the financial market and access to finance.

We call on the Commission to put forward proposals with a view to ensuring the independence of the auditors while, naturally, at the same time, maintaining the quality, accuracy and meticulousness of the auditors.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE). – Mr President, on the role of auditors, Ireland has certainly had some difficult experience. I quote the chairman of our National Asset Management Agency, Frank Ryan, who controversially questioned the auditing role of accountants in the run-up to the collapse of banks which were transferring billions of bad and doubtful loans to an asset management agency. He said that it was hardly credible for auditors to say that it is not their responsibility to draw attention to significant risks that may become evident in the course of audits, such as, for instance, the extraordinary concentration of risk that developed at a number of Irish financial institutions between 2004 and 2007.

We certainly need to examine very carefully the role and the work of auditors and we will need to change the rules. I compliment Commissioner Barnier on his observations last night on the concentration of power in the hands of a very few audit companies.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). – Mr President, the very definition of insanity is to repeat the same action in the hope of different outcomes. In their response to the recent financial crisis, the EU’s leaders remind me of nothing so much as that scene in the Simpsons where Homer carries on electrocuting himself by repeatedly trying to snatch back his beer can from some electric cables.

The problem of the euro was excessive integration, trying to push countries with different needs into the same currency. So we have responded with more integration: fiscal and economic union. The problem was excessive debt, so we have given them more debt – forcing these loans on to people who cannot pay their existing liabilities. The problem was a bloated state at national level, so we have bloated the state further at European level, shovelling more and more of the medicine into the mouth of the patient who was sickened by it in the first place. In the process, we have sold our future to some pretty unpleasant autocracies around the world.

Talking of an earlier run on the banks, my countryman Jonathan Swift wrote: ‘A baited banker thus desponds, from his own hand foresees his fall, they have his soul who have his bonds; ’tis like the writing on the wall’. I look at who holds Europe’s bonds now, Mr President, and I tremble.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – Mr President, first of all, the title of this proposal perhaps gives the impression that the crisis is over: ‘Lessons from the Crisis’. Unfortunately, at this point in time, we do not know whether we are at the beginning of the crisis, in the middle of it, or at the end. Obviously, the sooner it finishes the better, and there are, of course, lessons to be learned, in particular, in relation to the topic of auditing. My colleague, Mrs McGuinness, outlined the Irish view on that, and I concur with it.

On the broader front, I want to welcome the speech by the Polish President, and I think we need more of that type of positive outlook so that – as he said – not only can we get over the crisis but we must also ensure permanent stability. That is what we have to aim for. An awful lot of work has to be done to ensure that we get out of this crisis and stay out of it for ever.

 
  
  

Report: Edit Bauer (A7-0291/2011)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jens Rohde (ALDE).(DA) Mr President, older women are certainly at greater risk of poverty than men, and they are perhaps also more likely to be unemployed and have lower pension savings than men – as things stand, in any case, because everything indicates that women currently gain more education than men. It is therefore not certain that this situation will persist for much longer. As women live longer, there is probably also some truth in the claim that they are at greater risk of being on their own.

These are indeed very real problems, but I simply do not understand why on earth the EU should get involved in them.

The solution is not special arrangements for women, but providing general conditions on the labour market for everyone, so that everyone will find it easier to combine family and work and have the opportunity and incentive to work, and so that everyone will be required to save for their pension, thereby creating equal opportunities and equality. In reality, this is about equal opportunities.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE). – Mr President, this report is useful as it sets out very clearly the situation of women approaching retirement age, but it does so in a way which may ghettoise the subject and therefore fail to bring it into the wider public discussion.

I very much welcome the idea that next year will be designated ‘The European Year for Active Ageing and Solidarity between Generations’. This issue is a problem for younger women, and indeed younger men, because we will need to have someone to look after us as we grow old, as will they when they grow old. For that very reason, if this report highlights the matter, it will have done a good job.

I do not think that there are easy solutions. Society needs to have a very careful conversation about what we regard as our entitlements as we grow old and what society is willing to pay to allow us to have those entitlements. As we deal with austerity, that may be a very difficult debate, but this report will at least begin it.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Mario Pirillo (S&D).(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I welcome the attention paid by Parliament to the situation of women approaching retirement age: active ageing must play a key role in EU policies on account of our ever longer life expectancy.

Today’s vote is a first step. I agree with the call for Member States to reflect on the role of women as care-givers. This role, if legally recognised, could create forms of official employment that make it easier for women over 50 to work.

As for the pension system, I repeat the call for the Commission to introduce forms of protection to reduce the pension gap between women, who have often had to interrupt their careers in order to care for and look after their family, and men.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Marian Harkin (ALDE). – Mr President, a lot of the figures in this report are well known, for example, the average gender pay gap being 17.5%, but I must say I was absolutely astonished to read that in the 50-59 age group – which is my own – the average earnings of women were just 67.5% that of men – approximately two-thirds of what men earn. I found this a frightening figure because not only does it mean that women in this age group are significantly less well off than men; it has huge implications for their pensions. In other words, it means that they are more likely to suffer poverty in old age.

The report also talks about interruptions to the careers of women for caring duties, etc., and I would not like to think that I live in a society that acquiesces in the fact that when women take time off to care where it is needed, they are more likely to suffer poverty in old age. I have to say I respectfully disagree with my colleague, Mr Rohde, who talks about equal opportunities. If it was as simple as that, I do not think we would have the problem we have now.

 
  
  

Report: Arlene McCarthy (A7-0275/2011)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Jens Rohde (ALDE).(DA) Mr President, in 2008, we adopted a directive on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters and which the Member States have now implemented in their national legislation. We are already seeing very good results from the Mediation Directive. In several Member States, the legislation has made mediation a realistic, cheap and quick alternative to judicial proceedings.

Nevertheless, we need a greater awareness of mediation, and that is why we are now asking the Commission to identify good mediation practice in the Member States and to take further steps to ensure the continued expansion and increase in awareness of mediation.

 
  
  

Report: Britta Reimers (A7-0203/2011)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Diane Dodds (NI). – Mr President, in my experience within Northern Ireland, voluntary modulation has been very divisive for farmers. It can be used to take money from farmers and then redistribute it to a small number of farmers with limited selection criteria. We have recently seen this in my region in Northern Ireland.

Depending on the scheme put in place, it can also lead to some farmers being put at an unfair competitive disadvantage. Many farmers view this system as unfair and would rather voluntary modulation did not exist. Direct payments are vitally important for farmers in Northern Ireland and also for the economy. Within the CAP post-2013, they should be made very simple to administer and fair to all farmers.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). – Mr President, we began today’s vote with a vote on repealing obsolete directives. The more I think about that, the more I realise how wide the scope of such a report is. Think of how much we could be repealing: starting with the common agricultural policy referred to in this report, the wonderful mid-20th century notion that you can manage agriculture through price support and price fixing; or the common fisheries policy, based on the Marxist principle of equal access to a common resource; or the wonderful ideas of export credits and regulated working hours; or indeed the idea that the European Union can be run by a 27-strong technocracy of unelected officials governing through a series of 5-year plans.

Look around you and you will see these anachronistic accoutrements of an earlier age, reflecting still the planning and statist assumptions of the EU’s earliest years. The very notion that big is beautiful has gone. If it were true, China would be wealthier than Hong Kong, Indonesia would be wealthier than Singapore, France would be wealthier than Monaco, and the EU would be wealthier than Switzerland. The truth is, my friends, that the project has been overtaken by technological change.

 
  
  

Report: Yannick Jadot (A7-0364/2010)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Gianluca Susta (S&D).(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, any initiative that aims to promote our real economy at a time of serious crisis like the present must be thoroughly welcomed, especially when its goal is to make our businesses more competitive on the global market.

I am grateful to the rapporteur, Mr Jadot, and to the other shadow rapporteurs for having delivered a report that singles out support for investment and makes it more transparent without increasing the already substantial number of administrative requirements imposed on SMEs.

I hope that this agreement that we are adopting today, and which was concluded within the OECD, will be signed by other countries that are trade partners of ours in order to guarantee a genuinely level playing field for operators and to ensure that Europe does not suffer competitive disadvantages in a sector that accounts for 10% of world trade and which is therefore crucial to the overall growth of the European Union.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE).(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, around half of all CO2 emission-intensive industrial projects in developing countries have some form of export credit agency support. These projects usually present a high environmental and social risk.

Moreover, it is difficult, if not impossible, to assess the scale of this phenomenon, since the agencies themselves have no data or rules on transparency of information. This situation is completely at odds with our environmental policy. I wonder whether it would not be worth looking at the scale of this phenomenon in more depth.

Mandatory risk calculations are a first step. However, even clearer rules are needed in order to direct these forms of financial support towards the carbon reduction target that we have set ourselves.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). – Mr President, imagine if a business operated on the model of paying its best customers. Such a business, I put it to you, would not be tremendously successful, yet we are rather quaintly pursuing the idea on a pan-continental level through this policy of export credits. Well, colleagues, the bad news is that it is not working terribly well.

In the mid-1970s, the EU as it then stood – or Western Europe – accounted for 36% of world GDP; today it is 25%; in 2020, it will be 15%. What could we do if we wanted our economy to grow? Well, the clue comes from the Commission’s own figures. When he was the Internal Market Commissioner, Günter Verheugen commissioned a study on the cost of complying with EU regulation, and he discovered that across the EU as a whole, it came to EUR 600 billion a year. Yet on the figures of the same European Commission, the advantages of the single market are worth EUR 120 billion a year. So, on the Commission’s own figures – and they should know if anybody does – the single market is five times as expensive in compliance costs as it is in benefits.

Countries do not trade with countries. Businesses trade with businesses. The best thing that governments can do for them is to get out of the way.

 
  
  

Report: Reinhard Bütikofer (A7-0288/2011)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jens Rohde (ALDE).(DA) Mr President, the shortage of raw materials and, in particular, of rare earth elements, is a major challenge for our economy. The shortage of raw materials is, in itself, a major challenge. However, the problem is also that many of the large deposits in the countries around us are not managed according to the same rules as in the EU. There are also a lot of protectionist tendencies around the world. There is the question of conflict minerals.

Therefore, the solution is not for the EU to establish a purchase mechanism. We have, in fact, tried that before and it was proven not to work. Through the World Trade Organisation, the G20 and bilateral connections, the EU and our External Action Service must put pressure on the countries concerned, with the aim of obtaining transparent and equal access. Once we have achieved that, we must ensure that it is the markets that decide – that we leave the rest to the markets. That is a far better solution than creating a purchase mechanism.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Francesco De Angelis (S&D).(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that the key to establishing a sophisticated approach to the issue, one that does not relate exclusively to internal production factors, is to link trade policies to development policies: in other words, human rights clauses, labour standards and corporate social responsibility must become part of every agreement.

Europe’s trump card in this respect are innovation policies aimed at guaranteeing supplies through a wide range of measures, the identification and extraction of raw materials in Europe, investment in new technologies for recycling and reusing materials, and compliance with fair and responsible agreements with non-EU suppliers. The framework programme is, moreover, one of the tools for reviving innovation policies, which are an important, indeed crucial element with regard to development and also with regard to work and employment.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Adam Bielan (ECR).(PL) Mr President, effective management of raw materials policy is a key requirement for competitiveness. The scarcity of resources, and particularly of rare ones, is a challenge for the European economy which requires a consistent and long-term policy. I agree, therefore, with the need to improve coordination of action with regard to exploration for and the extraction and distribution of raw materials. The question of recycling also continues to be important, as does the question of resource efficiency. There also appears to be an essential need for the development of more transparent and predictable framework conditions when giving regulatory approval for setting up new mines. The future of an industry-based European economy depends on broad access to both energy and non-energy raw materials. Therefore, there will be huge significance in the development of an innovative, focused action plan for raw materials governance which guarantees security of supply and increases the competitiveness of EU businesses. In endorsing the report, I am hoping for a reinvigoration of industrial strength and also for a growth in Europe’s science and research potential.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Daniel Caspary (PPE).(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of Mr Bütikofer’s report because I believe that its content is a move in the right direction. However, there is one thing that I feel is missing from this report: we have not said enough about the checks that we, the European Parliament, would like to carry out to see how the Commission is implementing our objectives, our wishes and our ideas. I see that as a major shortcoming. It is something that we are seeing in nearly all policy areas.

I would be very grateful if we, as the European Parliament, were to give some real thought over the coming months to how we deal with this whole area of the legitimate demands that Parliament may make of the Commission, and particularly as regards a better approach to the matter of checking implementation. What do we want the European Commission to do, and how can we – as Parliament – then check whether the Commission is actually implementing our objectives? I regret to say that this is not addressed in this report. We should give greater consideration to this in the future.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE).(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I welcome the report by Mr Bütikofer. The EU needs a strong industrial base on which to grow, and this cannot be achieved without an adequate supply of raw materials.

Once again, we are being penalised because there is no common aim at international level. How can we dream of asserting our interests when dealing with countries such as China without a cohesive European Union? I am convinced that European raw materials diplomacy is the right solution to the supply crisis. I hope that the adopted proposals will be acted on and that the role of the European External Action Service will gradually be strengthened in the near future.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE). (LT) Mr President, whilst debating the European Union raw materials strategy and trying to address the raw materials problem in Europe, we must first of all begin at home. It is generally recognised that waste is the most accessible source of raw materials. Unfortunately, although the average waste recycling rate in the European Union is growing steadily, in many Member States, a significant proportion of waste continues to go to landfill. Therefore, countries which, for many years, formed part of a planned economy zone and whose economies continue to rely primarily on manufacturing, processing or recycling, as opposed to innovations, might view this as a great opportunity. A greater focus on waste recycling and obtaining raw materials from waste would not only help address the EU raw materials problem, but would yield significant benefits for Member States’ economies. I therefore call on both the Commission and the Member States to take more vigorous action as regards obtaining raw materials from waste.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE). – Mr President, this is a useful and important report because our businesses need raw materials, but I would suggest that one of the key raw materials that has not been discussed in this report is land. This does not just concern our food security needs, but also energy and climate issues.

One of the growing concerns globally is the issue of land grabbing, where major global powers buy land in the developing world, which perhaps has negative consequences for those who are living there and their dependants. I think the issue of land availability and land use is crucial within the European Union, but it is also crucial for the developing world and for Europe’s development aid policy. It is part of the issue of raw materials because in many cases, the land holds the raw materials we need, and the issue of land ownership and control will become ever more important as we realise that we are not making any more of it.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Mario Pirillo (S&D).(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in a global market characterised by high price volatility and the ever greater impact of finance on the markets, I can only welcome the creation of a European strategic framework for raw materials.

I welcome the fact that, with today’s vote, we have identified the need for more transparency in the financial markets with regard to raw materials and, at the same time, that we have paid a great deal of attention to the supply problems faced by small and medium-sized enterprises and to measures in this area that can help increase their competitiveness.

I think it is crucially important that emphasis has been placed on the requirement for trade agreements with non-EU countries to include explicit clauses on the protection of human rights and corporate social responsibility.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Paul Murphy (GUE/NGL). – Mr President, I voted against the report on the raw materials strategy. Fundamentally, the EU strategy is one of resource-grabbing for the interests of European big business. They want to get access to raw materials at any cost, regardless of the devastating consequences which their extraction activities can have on indigenous communities, on the environment and on working class people. When I was in Kazakhstan, I saw the impact of mining multinational ArcelorMittal, which is guilty of grossly exploiting its workers and giving them no basic rights. The call for raw materials diplomacy is a very blatant appeal to use the European External Action Service in the service of these big business interests.

The debate also revealed the role of big business and big business influence within this institution, where a number of the MEPs who are behind this very aggressive report have direct links to the industry and clearly represent its interests. Instead of raw materials going to serve the interests of big business and line the pockets of already super-rich multinationals, they should be taken into democratic public ownership and those resources – the vast resources that exist – should be used to raise the living standards of all.

 
  
  

Report: Iliana Malinova Iotova (A7-0236/2011)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Guido Milana (S&D).(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I support the adoption of this report because it has the effect of ensuring that the conditions applied to the Black Sea are proposed in other European areas, too.

Regulating fishing in an area in which only two of the six countries bordering the basin are European is an important development. It is very similar to the situation in the Adriatic, for example, where different countries – EU, non-EU and candidate countries – with totally different rules exist side by side.

The second reason is that I believe that the establishment of a European coastguard should be highlighted and viewed as a genuinely important development: it could actually be one of the first areas for discussion when planning how to protect the sea, fishermen and consumers.

 
  
  

Report: Vicky Ford (A7-0290/2011)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jens Rohde (ALDE).(DA) Mr President, Deepwater Horizon was a natural disaster of historic proportions, and therefore it is obviously entirely appropriate for us in the EU to examine our legislation in this area. Some of the amendments currently being implemented by the US have already been implemented in the European Community. However, it goes without saying that the gaps that exist must be closed. This is, without doubt, primarily the responsibility of the Member States, but we need to have better coordination, and we would like to see the excellent regional cooperation in the North Sea extended to other regions in the EU. It needs to be made crystal clear that it is always the polluter that pays, and we must ensure that we always use independent experts to verify our safety measures.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE). (LT) Mr President, as the global demand for oil and oil products grows, so too does the desire to extract more. Unfortunately, oil and gas in traditional oil wells is depleting. Consequently, we are prospecting in areas where there are significant amounts of oil and gas, but where extraction is more expensive and more dangerous – the deep sea. The disaster last year in the Gulf of Mexico demonstrated that special care must be taken when planning, using and shutting down such wells. Therefore, this European Parliament document, laying down more stringent requirements for well operators and giving supervisory authorities more powers, is very timely. I am delighted that the report also reflects the amendments I submitted. There are a few points that we should focus on. First of all, pollution is of a trans-frontier nature. It is therefore important to apply equally strict requirements to projects in third countries (particularly those neighbouring the European Union), and to companies registered in third countries. We must also reach an agreement with third countries on compensation for environmental damage in the event of an accident within the jurisdiction of those third countries. Secondly, the environment is at risk not only when extracting resources, but also when transporting them and using transportation infrastructure, be it tankers or pipelines.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Mario Pirillo (S&D).(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, with today’s vote we have certainly moved towards an improvement in the safety and inspection of offshore oil and gas activities, in order to prevent a repeat of incidents such as the one which occurred in 2010 on the platform in the Gulf of Mexico, claiming 11 lives and causing very severe environmental damage.

I welcome the proposal to coordinate our civil protection forces instead of creating supranational bodies. Better still, I hope that cooperation will be strengthened between the inspection bodies in order to establish common and independent standards at European level. I think that the proposal to establish a Mediterranean Offshore Authorities Forum is a positive one.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Adam Bielan (ECR).(PL) Mr President, the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico has made us aware of the need for action on raising the level of safety in the offshore industry. In view of the huge number of active installations in Europe, most of which are in the North Sea Basin and where dangerous incidents have also taken place, it is essential to establish consistent principles and legal frameworks to ensure that all offshore activity is both safe and sustainable.

Development of a high level of safety in the offshore industry with a focus on protecting people and the environment will increase the confidence of society and will also help increase the Union’s position in efforts to strengthen existing legislation on a global scale. It is in the Union’s interest, too, to step up cooperation with neighbouring countries which also exploit marine deposits, in particular with Mediterranean countries as part of our neighbourhood policy, but also with Norway, Russia and the United States.

Establishing common and transparent rules of operation will result in both mutual economic benefits and an increase in safety, and this is why I support the resolution.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Paolo Bartolozzi (PPE).(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the disaster that struck the Gulf of Mexico more than a year ago has prompted the European Commission to reflect on legislation relating to offshore oil activities.

The European Parliament, too, wished to express its position on the matter, with this report. It has adopted a text that calls for the sector’s operators to have adequate technical and financial capacity and which aims to establish high safety standards so as to confirm the European Parliament’s leading role in promoting the safety of offshore activities.

The new measures requested of the Commission in this regard will have to focus on international coordination and on a realistic approach that combines all of the quality procedures that exist in the sector and prevents the creation of new bodies or additional red tape, which could well delay the achievement of specific final objectives.

In concrete terms, the report demands an improvement in communication and information and knowledge sharing mechanisms, in addition to greater accountability on the part of companies operating in the sector, and calls for the role and powers of the European Maritime Safety Agency to be strengthened and expanded.

For all these reasons, I believe that the result achieved thanks to the negotiations on this text, for which we voted, is a positive one.

 
  
  

Report: Marina Yannakoudakis (A7-0207/2011)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Clemente Mastella (PPE).(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is vital to recognise women’s abilities in the workplace and to offer them special assistance by means of effective, practical tools that encourage them to participate and ensure that they move on to a level playing field where there is no room for gender discrimination in the workplace.

We endorsed this report because it recognises the value of women entrepreneurs in small and medium-sized enterprises, points out the different problems they face, and highlights the contribution that women in employment can make to both the community and the economy of the EU.

Member States have so far each taken different approaches to supporting and promoting women in decision making and in the boardroom. The problems faced by women vary from nation to nation. Some States offer more support than others, and the cultural differences in a woman’s role also influence the chances she will have to set up a business.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jens Rohde (ALDE).(DA) Mr President, we can at least say that it is difficult not to agree with the main concept of this report, namely that women can also be entrepreneurs. Of course they can. In fact, I know many female entrepreneurs, and they are very capable to boot. It is also hard not to agree that the Member States should adopt measures that make it easier to combine family life and work, and that the Member States, the Commission and we, too, here in Parliament, must improve the framework conditions for small and medium-sized enterprises.

However, why should that benefit female entrepreneurs in particular? Instead of indulging in a victim mentality, could we not simply say that we must ensure good framework conditions for everyone who wants to start their own business? Thus, each individual man and each individual woman can decide for themselves whether or not they want to be an entrepreneur.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE). – Mr President, I am still here. Thank you for calling me. Can I use the opportunity to say, while we are focusing on the issue of women in enterprise, that the biggest problem for men and women in enterprise at the moment is credit availability. We have in Ireland the Credit Review Office, which is suggesting that while there is a problem with credit supply, there is also a problem with demand from enterprises, which are fearful of actually taking on extra debt.

We need to analyse more deeply what is happening. When businesses look for credit, they are not being refused, but the process is taking so long, and there are so many delays and so much bureaucracy involved in applying for loans, that very many of them literally do not push through the loan application. While, therefore, there is no official recognition that they have been refused credit, in effect, the process itself within the banks makes this a credit refusal, so I would require that we do further analysis of it, because if we do not have credit, neither men nor women can be entrepreneurs.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Marian Harkin (ALDE). – Mr President, if the recommendations in this report to promote female entrepreneurship are acted upon, it will be beneficial both for women and for our economies, because the numbers tell us that only one in ten women are entrepreneurs compared to one in four men.

I would like to highlight two particular issues. Firstly, the issue of social security: in my own country, and indeed many others, I am aware that if you are an entrepreneur and you go out of business, you do not have any social security entitlements, whereas those you have employed do. So it is no wonder that women, in particular, are cautious about setting up their own business. While I recognise and understand that this is a matter for Member States to deal with, I nonetheless think they need to look at this issue.

I also want to mention the Progress Microfinance Facility, which is also mentioned in the report. That can provide micro-credit of up to EUR 25 000 for SMEs and those who would not normally have access to credit from the banks. My own country has not accessed this fund, and I would call on this country, Ireland – and indeed all Member States – to make use of this fund to help struggling SMEs, both in starting up and in becoming sustainable.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Seán Kelly (PPE). (GA) Mr President, first of all, I would like to join with you in welcoming the delegates from Canada here today. As regards this report, I welcome it.

One thing that would be interesting would be a survey to look at the banks and companies that went bust in the crisis and see how many women were in senior positions in those businesses. I would say few, if any.

There is certainly no physical or psychological reason why more women should not be involved in business and entrepreneurship, whereas there might be such a reason in the case of other careers. It is quite obvious, as has been pointed out, that opportunities and encouragement must be provided to ensure this happens. Certainly one could say that, had Lehman Brothers been ‘Lehwoman Sisters’, we might not be in the situation we are in. So we have a lot to do: the resource is there; let women have the opportunity to contribute to entrepreneurship, SMEs, etc.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Christa Klaß (PPE).(DE) Mr President, I voted against paragraph 46 of the report not on account of its substance, but because it contains legal irregularities. I am a great advocate of ensuring legal certainty in all matters. Small and medium-sized enterprises do not generally have management boards, nor do they have Member States as shareholders. We therefore need to be correct here. I am all in favour of the balanced representation of women in such bodies, but these bodies do actually have to exist.

I welcome the report overall. Self-employment among women is not an emergency solution; it is part of the economy and is an important economic factor. Women do indeed need particular support – especially when it comes to starting up a business – because they tend to approach things differently. They like to do things one step at a time and they want financing to be manageable. It is indeed a problem that when a person becomes self-employed, they then have to shoulder the full burden of their social security provision. In my view, therefore, we need to have an option which allows responsibility for one’s social security provision to be phased in; in other words, a way for people to take on responsibility for their own social security provision in stages. This would undoubtedly be another helpful step for women moving into self-employment.

 
  
  

Written explanations of vote

 
  
  

Report: Tadeusz Zwiefka (A7-0267/2011)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. (PT) This report concerns the request for waiver of the immunity of our fellow Member, Mr Martin, as announced by the President of the European Parliament on 12 May 2011, following a letter from the Vienna Public Prosecutor’s Office, forwarded by the Permanent Representation of Austria to the European Union. Mr Martin is accused, by the Vienna Public Prosecutor’s Office, of having violated the Austrian Law on Political Parties during the 2009 European elections, by using State funding inappropriately to meet private expenditure and to settle inflated invoices. Mr Martin is also accused of having misled the auditors responsible for scrutinising the use of funds by submitting ‘fictitious documents’. If this is true, such behaviour is unworthy of a Member of this House. In view of this, and taking into account the recommendation of the Committee on Legal Affairs, which recommends waiving the parliamentary immunity of Mr Martin, I am voting in favour of this report.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. (SK) At the plenary meeting on 12 May 2001, the President, in accordance with Article 6(2) of the Rules of Procedure, reported that he had received a letter from the prosecutor’s office in Vienna, forwarded to him on 29 April 2011 by the Permanent Representation of Austria to the European Union, containing a request for parliamentary immunity to be lifted from the MEP Hans-Peter Martin. The Vienna prosecutor intends to bring proceedings against him on the basis of a charge that he used State funds inappropriately to finance private expenditure and to settle inflated invoices presented to him by friends and business partners. The charges relate to the period of the election campaign for the European Parliament in 2008 and 2009. The MEP is also charged with misleading the auditors responsible for checking the use of funding.

During a hearing in the Committee on Legal Affairs, Mr Martin stated that the prosecution was the result of attempts by another fellow Member and his assistant to take his seat in the European Parliament. These include the illegal seizure of documents from the buildings of the European Parliament and interference with his e-mails. This was also the subject of a Member’s complaint to President Buzek. In my opinion, it is right to agree to the request from the Vienna prosecutor’s office to strip Mr Martin of his parliamentary immunity.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Vladimír Maňka (S&D), in writing. (SK) The Vienna Public Prosecutor’s Office intends to institute proceedings against Mr Hans-Peter Martin, Member of the European Parliament, on the basis of allegations that he has breached the provisions of Section 2b of the Austrian Law on Political Parties by using State funding inappropriately to meet private expenditure and to settle inflated invoices submitted to him by friends or business associates. The allegations relate to the period of the European election campaign, between 2008 and 2009.

In addition, Mr Martin is accused of having misled the auditors responsible for scrutinising the use of funds by submitting ‘fictitious documents’ to justify the lawfulness of the accounting and/or the legal basis for the use of funds.

In the course of the preliminary investigation, the Vienna Prosecutor’s Office intends to order searches, in particular on the premises used by the staff of the ‘Martin list’ and to obtain the release of information concerning bank accounts and bank transactions in both Austria and Germany. On the basis of the foregoing, and in accordance with Article 2(4) of the Rules of Procedure, I agree with the recommendation of the Committee on Legal Affairs, following an examination of the arguments for and against stripping the MEP of his immunity, that the European Parliament should strip Hans-Peter Martin of his parliamentary immunity.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted to waive the immunity of Hans-Peter Martin.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. (PT) Defending the independence of the mandate of Members of this House is the responsibility of Parliament, and that independence cannot be jeopardised. In the case in question, the Vienna Public Prosecutor’s Office has requested the waiver of the immunity of our fellow Member, Mr Martin, in order to enable the Austrian authorities to conduct the necessary investigations and to take legal action against Mr Martin, to call for a search of his house or offices, to seize documents and to carry out computer checks or any other electronic searches that may be necessary and to initiate criminal proceedings against Mr Martin on the grounds of misappropriation of party funding or any other legal description that might be given to the alleged offences before the criminal courts having jurisdiction. Given that the waiver of immunity of Mr Martin concerns alleged offences related to misappropriation of party funding, covered by Section 2b of the Law on Political Parties, we have to proceed with the waiver of Mr Martin’s immunity.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The Committee on Legal Affairs unanimously adopted the report recommending waiving Hans-Peter Martin’s immunity in order to enable the Austrian authorities to conduct investigations for alleged misappropriation of party funding. I did not support this initiative since I think that if there is immunity, it should be waived only after a Member’s mandate has expired.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. (DE) I am delighted that today, the European Parliament has resolved by such a great majority to waive the immunity of Hans-Peter Martin, an Austrian Member of the European Parliament. The institution of various proceedings against Mr Martin confirms the suspicions that have been floating around for a long time, yet which seem to have been deliberately covered up. For years now, we non-attached Members have been tabling parliamentary questions in an attempt to get to the bottom of the suspicions that Mr Martin has been negligent in his management of taxpayers’ money. However, we have had to wait for the ‘sorcerer’s apprentice’ – Martin Ehrenhauser, Mr Martin’s former assistant and now a Member of Parliament himself – to betray his former boss and bring these intrigues into the open. The extent to which he himself is tangled up in the matters requiring investigation also has yet to be established.

It is a matter of great concern, however, that the members of the Austrian political and media landscape have apparently been deliberately deceiving 18% of the Austrian electorate for years now by failing to discuss these dubious goings-on, with the sole intention of damaging the Freedom Party of Austria. I hope that handing over Mr Martin to face Austrian justice will now shed light on the tangle of funding surrounding this self-proclaimed Mr Clean, which is why I voted in favour of the report.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. (PT) I voted for the waiver of parliamentary immunity, in view of the arguments of the Committee on Legal Affairs that are set out in the report.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. This is a request to waive the parliamentary immunity of Hans-Peter Martin. The case concerns the inappropriate use of State funding to meet private expenditure.

 
  
  

Report: Simon Busuttil (A7-0278/2011)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. (PT) I voted for this report because I believe that one of the attributes of a common area of freedom, security and justice in the European Union is the removal of internal borders, particularly within the Schengen area. On the other hand, the Union’s external borders will become an issue of joint responsibility, so there is an increasingly urgent need for their integrated management.

This report aims for a coordinated approach to the security of external borders, as it is imperative to establish integrated and uniform management that ensures a high level of control and surveillance. Consequently, there is a need to go ahead with adopting and applying common rules, as well as to step up cooperation between Member States as regards securing their external borders. More combined effort is needed as is more pooling of resources. It is in the light of this need for more coordination and solidarity that the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex) plays an important role. Parliament has supported Frontex unequivocally, notably through significant budget increases to support its operations, as well as through demanding improvements in the legislation governing it, in order to address its shortcomings and improve its efficiency.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution on the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex). The creation of the Schengen area in the EU and the removal of internal border controls have encouraged the EU Member States to address the issue of external border protection together, and the need for integrated border management is becoming increasingly important. In this area, it is crucial to ensure that the Frontex Agency, responsible for the protection of external borders, functions efficiently. Frontex should be the European external border agency that coordinates common EU action in relation to the external borders of EU Member States. In particular, Frontex should be ready to assist Member States in circumstances requiring increased technical and operational assistance at external borders, especially those Member States facing specific and disproportionate pressures. I therefore welcome the amendments to the Frontex Regulation proposed in the resolution, and believe that they will strengthen the work of this agency, will help it function and meet its objectives more efficiently, and that, at the same time, the EU’s external borders will be better protected.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE), in writing.(IT) A forward-looking European migration policy requires the integrated management of operational cooperation at the external borders of the Member States of the European Union, precisely in order to cope with the constant threats and demands at our borders resulting from cross-border crime. The future of the European Frontex Agency depends on a high level of trust and mutual cooperation among Member States but, above all, on the availability of the tools and instruments that it needs in order to perform its duties, particularly in emergencies, in a timely and efficient manner, in full compliance with the provisions on fundamental rights.

I therefore support the proposal to amend the 2004 Frontex Regulation, since the security and management of our external borders must not remain an ambition, but must be guaranteed in practice by a body that performs its duties in close cooperation with other European agencies, specifically Europol and Eurojust, with the European Asylum Support Office and with the Fundamental Rights Agency. Nevertheless, I believe that the assessments to be carried out on the effectiveness of Frontex should in no way compromise the current smooth operation of Schengen.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Antonello Antinoro (PPE), in writing.(IT) I voted in favour of amending the Council regulation because I believe that it is necessary to establish a European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union. The recent historic events and the migratory flows that have followed them have made this requirement all the more obvious.

Following numerous negotiations with the Council and six trialogues, the Permanent Representatives Committee (Coreper) has finally agreed to the European Parliament’s final request relating to the principles of necessity and proportionality. The report significantly enhances the future regulation, and four fundamental results have been achieved: (1) the agency has been made more efficient; (2) the agency’s visibility has been increased through the introduction of ‘European border guards’ who are named in a clearly identifiable way; (3) a package of measures relating to the monitoring and protection of fundamental human rights has been introduced; and (4) the agency is subject to democratic scrutiny by the European Parliament. I congratulate Mr Busuttil on the success of his report, and hope that all this will lend real legitimacy to the agency, so that we have an increasing number of institutions representing the EU.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Pino Arlacchi (S&D), in writing. – I strongly support this report as Europe can no longer look powerless in emergency situations because it is unable to muster resources or pool assets. Frontex must be ready to assist Member States in circumstances requiring increased technical and operational assistance at external borders, especially at external Union borders which are vulnerable or require concerted action.

Thanks to the amendments tabled by my group on this text, the operational capacities of the agency will be strengthened. We also obtained that rescue at sea be added to the tasks of Frontex. This report is also important because it clearly underlines that Frontex has the obligation to respect fundamental rights, respect international conventions and assure international protection, in particular, the principle of non-refoulement.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing.(FR) At a time when Europeans sometimes doubt the quality of border controls at the European Union’s external borders, I voted in favour of the report by my colleague, Mr Busuttil, because it sets out to strengthen in a balanced way the European agency responsible for this matter. Indeed, Frontex will have at its disposal increased material and financial resources to carry out its tasks. Nonetheless, respect for fundamental rights will be, more than ever, at the heart of these commitments. Finally, Frontex will have at its disposal ‘European border guard teams’ to ensure the security of the external borders and, hence, of the European Union as a whole.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. (PT) The European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex) was created in 2004 and became operational in 2005. Frontex reinforces security at the borders by ensuring the coordination of Member State action in applying Union measures relating to management of the external borders. The abolition of internal borders has facilitated the freedom of movement of citizens, requiring a coordinated approach to securing the external borders, which must remain closed to cross-border crime and other illicit activities. Therefore, there is a need to adopt and apply common rules, and to step up cooperation among Member States as regards the external borders. As such, this report, for which I voted, provides for the creation of ‘European border guard teams’, to be deployed during joint operations, rapid interventions and pilot projects. I would also stress the stepping up of Frontex’s obligations regarding fundamental rights, the establishment of an effective mechanism for monitoring respect for these rights in all its activities, the nomination of a fundamental rights officer and the creation of a consultative forum on this issue.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Gerard Batten (EFD), in writing. – I voted against the Frontex report because it is nation states and not EU agencies which should control and patrol national borders. Frontex is an affront to British freedom. This latest move is simply a power grab by the EU to give Frontex more money, personnel, equipment and powers. This vote gives the wrong powers to the wrong people. This proposal is another way of increasing the power and dominion of the European Union over its Member States.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing.(ES) I voted in favour of this report because the amendment will enable EU rules to be applied effectively, thereby enhancing coordination and cooperation between Member States. Reinforcing the role of the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex) will bring about integrated policy management.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing.(IT) I voted resolutely against the report in question, since it includes provisions aimed at weakening the Frontex Agency and rendering it incapable of accomplishing the tasks for which it was created. The text gives priority, in fact, to the principle of non-refoulement and includes clauses aimed at prohibiting the repatriation of illegal immigrants. Furthermore, it replaces the word ‘illegal’ with the word ‘irregular’.

There is no logical explanation, let alone legal justification, for such a change, the aim of which appears to be to intentionally promote the legal status of illegal immigrants in order to prevent their repatriation and facilitate their regularisation. The Lega Nord believes that the Frontex Agency should not lend support to illicit activities such as illegal immigration, but should be obliged to stop them instead. That is why I voted against.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. (LT) I voted in favour of this report because the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex) is a very important element in the mechanism for managing EU migration, and I believe that the potential of this agency has yet to be fully exploited. The importance of Frontex became particularly apparent in recent months when refugees from North Africa flooded into Europe. I therefore believe that the adoption of this amended regulation is very timely, although the amendments provided for in it were drawn up on the basis of the 2008 Commission report and the recommendations of the Management Board.

The objectives of the current proposal are to strengthen the agency’s operational capabilities, by preparing, coordinating and implementing action, with special regard to the sharing of tasks with EU Member States, both in terms of the deployment of human resources and technical equipment, and enhancing Frontex’s internal and external mandate and powers.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing.(IT) I voted in favour of the Busuttil report because I agree that the Frontex Agency should be given a new mandate and equipped with more resources and instruments in order to make it more effective. Frontex plays a fundamental role in the coordination of our external borders. In the light of the recent, ever changing and constantly evolving migratory flows, conditions are emerging that are crucial to the smooth operation of the agency, namely integrated management that guarantees a high, uniform level of control and surveillance, but also common rules and greater cooperation among Member States. I agree with the point emphasised by the rapporteur, namely that Frontex should be ready to assist Member States in specific circumstances, with a special focus on those States that face specific or disproportionate pressures on their respective national asylum systems. Close cooperation with other European agencies such as Europol and Eurojust in the fight against cross-border crime is therefore key to ensuring this.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – I voted against because this report aims to create an EU Border Guard, and is another attempt to create new EU controlled institutions which enlarge the scope of EU competences. Although the UK is not in Frontex, the UK contributes towards any new EU formation – in this instance, part of a budget of EUR 88 million in 2011 – money that will allow the agency to purchase cars, helicopters and other border monitoring equipment instead of relying on the Member States to police their own. The agency will also appoint an inspector to ensure cases are in line with their stipulations on human rights. It enables the EU to determine who is allowed inside Europe, thus controlling immigrants who may then seek forward travel to the UK. Matters of citizenship and immigration should remain the privilege of sovereign determination.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Antonio Cancian (PPE), in writing.(IT) Mr Busuttil has presented us with a report that we can declare a success for the European Parliament. Indeed, today we have adopted a report that is the fruit of lengthy negotiations, at the end of which the Council agreed to Parliament’s requests. I voted in favour of the report because I believe that it significantly improves the future regulation on the management of Frontex. The agency was set up in 2004, but five years on from the start of its work, improvements need to be made to the way in which it operates. I think that, thanks to this report, Parliament has achieved its four main objectives: firstly, to make the agency more efficient; secondly, to increase the agency’s visibility through the establishment of ‘European border guards’ who are named in a clearly identifiable way; thirdly, to draft a package of measures relating to the monitoring and protection of fundamental human rights; and lastly, to subject the agency to democratic scrutiny by the European Parliament.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. (PT) Union policy concerning the external borders aims to institute integrated management of the borders, which ensures a high level of surveillance and control. This is indispensable to the freedom of movement of citizens within the Union and is a crucial element of the area of freedom, security and justice. It is crucial to strengthen the role of the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex) as regards developing a policy with a view to gradually introducing the concept of integrated management of the external borders. Now that Frontex has been operating for six years, there is a clear need to review its operations. This law grants Frontex a renewed mandate with more resources and tools at its disposal.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. (PT) I am voting for the Busuttil report on the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex) because I recognise that the agency’s role in the integrated and uniform management of the external borders, which ensures a high and uniform level of surveillance and control, is a sine qua non for the existence of a true area of freedom, security and justice where the free movement of people is guaranteed. Increasing migration pressures, involving new threats and risks, and the enlargement of the Schengen area, mean there is a need to strengthen its role, to furnish it with more resources and tools, and to make it more efficient. I especially welcome the strengthening of provisions on fundamental rights; increased effectiveness, with the possibility of seconding Frontex experts for periods of at least six months; the creation of teams of border guards; the processing of personal data for risk analyses, while retaining the data for limited periods only and establishing an obligation for it to be depersonalised; and the acquisition of operational resources. Frontex shall be able to go ahead with acquiring resources in partnership with the Member States where there is an emergency or a lack of resources, which will give it greater room for manoeuvre in operational terms.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Marielle De Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. (FR) With some 214 million migrants in the world, the management of migratory flows is one of the major challenges that we face. However, EU migration policy lacks ambition. Firstly, we must improve Frontex’s operations and increase the resources available to the agency for managing the EU’s external borders by ensuring that full European solidarity is shown. We need to increase its visibility by deploying European border guard teams. The European Union must also improve its methods of monitoring respect for fundamental rights. This mechanism aside, if we genuinely want to help countries – particularly the countries of the South – then we must move towards harmonising the right to asylum, review the Dublin Convention and, even more importantly, finally draw up a proper immigration policy. This is the only calm and responsible way of addressing the issue of migration.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. (FR) I voted in favour of this proposal to amend the mandate of the European Agency for the protection of the external borders of the European Union, Frontex, which should make it possible to strengthen the work of this European Agency in a context of strong migratory pressure at our borders. An increase in European cooperation, as proposed in this act, will help improve the fight against illegal immigration on European soil. This new mandate is fully in line with the approach established by the European Pact on Asylum and Immigration signed by the European leaders under the French Presidency of the European Union in September 2008.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing.(FR) I voted in favour of the report on the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union, which introduces some new rules. Since 2005, Frontex has been responsible for coordinating law enforcement at the external borders of the EU. The time had come to assess the first six years in order to strengthen it and make it more effective. I am delighted that the agency will no longer have to depend on funding from the Member States in order to purchase or lease equipment (vehicles, helicopters and so on). Furthermore, Member States are legally obliged to honour their commitments to provide the agency with human resources or equipment on an annual basis. I welcome the introduction of arrangements to ensure that migrants’ fundamental rights are respected, in particular, through the appointment of a fundamental rights officer and the development of a code of conduct. In accordance with international law, no migrant shall be disembarked in, or otherwise handed over to, the authorities of a country in which his or her life or freedoms are threatened. That may seem obvious but it sometimes bears repeating.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Ioan Enciu (S&D), in writing. (RO) I voted for this report as I regard the reform of Frontex as being of paramount importance, not only with a view to remedying the shortcomings in its operation identified so far, but also to granting it new powers and resources.

One of the key aspects of this new regulation is the improvement in the agency’s protection of immigrants’ fundamental rights. From this perspective, the key aspects derive from the introduction of specific training courses for agents, the introduction of a code of conduct, as well as from the obligation on Frontex agents to comply with European regulations when conducting operations outside EU territory.

I also regard the fact that Frontex will be tasked with carrying out risk analyses at external borders as an extremely important step forward, since these risk analyses will allow an objective evaluation to be made of the real problems prevalent in the Schengen states. Finally, I consider that the next logical step in Frontex’s development will have to be to create an EU border guard system, a measure which ought to be implemented without delay.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. (PT) In a Europe increasingly aiming to free itself of obstacles to internal freedom of movement, the external borders face the challenge of not becoming a fortress, whilst simultaneously contributing to guaranteeing the security of its citizens and controlling the flow of illegal immigrants.

Surveillance and control at the external borders of the European Union fall within the competence, not just of the boundary states, but of all the Member States of the EU. The European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex) is taking on a crucial role in coordinating and assisting Member States. The Commission’s proposal, with the amendments that were introduced at the committee stage, aims to clarify the mandate of Frontex and equip it with new powers in relation to its mandate. I hope that the new legislative framework will enable the agency not just to pursue its important mission, but also to improve its performance as regards Member State sovereignty and human rights.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. (PT) This report concerns the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 of the Council, which created the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex). The Schengen Agreement, which made the free movement of people (500 million) and goods throughout the European Union possible by abolishing checks at the internal borders of signatory countries, was concluded on 14 June 1985. Control of the EU’s external borders has come to be a matter of common interest and to require integrated management. While freedom of movement is positive for citizens of good faith, it is also an opportunity for unwelcome individuals to enter Member States: for example, refugees, terrorists, criminals, fugitives from justice, stateless persons, etc. I welcome and am voting for this report aiming to strengthen Frontex by making it more efficient, by increasing its visibility through applying the name ‘European border guards’ to its employees, by binding the Member States to compliance with these rules, and by submitting it to more effective checks by Parliament.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) This report introduces amendments on the management of the EU’s external borders, stepping up controls on them, notably through the creation of teams of European border guards. It also establishes that Member States are obliged to contribute personnel and material resources. As we know, the European Union’s external borders will become an issue of joint responsibility, especially in the Schengen area. The Commission and Parliament are, therefore, justifying the measures proposed in this report with the need created for their integrated and uniform management, ensuring ‘a high level of control and surveillance’. This constitutes new steps towards the consolidation of a repressive immigration policy and stepping up resources, thus giving more power to the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex).

It should be remembered that European Union policy in this area criminalises immigrants and their families – above all, since the adoption of the so-called Return Directive, or Shame Directive – and disguises the fact that they are, in general, either fleeing wars that the European Union itself has been feeding, such as the recent and shameful case of Libya, or simply seeking better living conditions. We voted against this report because we disagree with this repressive, imperialist and federalist vision of the European Union.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) This report introduces amendments on the management of the EU’s external borders, stepping up controls on them, notably through the creation of teams of European border guards. It also establishes that Member States are obliged to contribute personnel and material resources.

As we know, the Union’s external borders will become an issue of joint responsibility, especially in the Schengen area. The Commission and Parliament are, therefore, justifying the measures proposed in this report with the need created for their integrated and uniform management, ensuring ‘a high level of control and surveillance’.

We believe these amendments aim to give the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex) more power so as to make immigration policy worse through more repressive measures. It should be remembered that European Union policy in this area criminalises immigrants and their families – especially since the Return Directive, or Shame Directive – whilst disguising the fact that they are, in general, either fleeing wars fed by the European Union itself or simply seeking better living conditions. We voted against because we disagree with this repressive, imperialist and federalist vision of the European Union.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Monika Flašíková-Beňová (S&D), in writing. (SK) The Schengen area of free movement brings together 25 countries (including three non-EU Member States), enabling free movement within the area for almost half a billion people across the continent. The removal of internal borders facilitates freedom of movement for citizens in a clearly positive way. It is, however, essential to coordinate the approach to securing external borders. The proper functioning of this system requires integrated management, ensuring a uniform and high level of checks and supervision. It requires the adoption and implementation of common rules and also greater cooperation between Member States in securing the external borders. The cooperation must, in principle, rest on solidarity between Member States, and particularly with the Member States on the borders, which, for geographical and demographic reasons, are exposed to substantial migration flows on their borders.

It is here that the Frontex Agency plays an important role, responding to fast moving events in the area of migration flows on the external borders of the Union, and active in all common land, air and sea operations. It has not, however, reached the expected level of effectiveness. I firmly believe that the agency should embody European solidarity and that the resources collected from the various Member States should be combined in support of Member States in difficulty or in specific locations on the external borders of the Union that are sensitive or that require joint action.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing.(FR) In an ideal world, each Member State would have ultimate responsibility for controlling its own borders and would take a sovereign decision on who is eligible to enter and reside on its territory, and under what conditions. This would not, moreover, preclude cooperation of any kind. However, Schengen and the European Union have been through that; they have done away with all checks at the EU’s internal borders and thus sent an extremely powerful message to would-be illegal immigrants. These people all know, in fact, that no matter where they enter the EU, they will easily be able to reach the country of their choice, particularly since the country of arrival will be swamped and its authorities overstretched. This is exactly what we have been experiencing since the beginning of the year, with the ‘Arab revolutions’ that, oddly enough, have offloaded onto the Italian and Maltese coasts tens of thousands of so-called refugees, whose primary duty is ostensibly to participate in the rebirth of their country. From that perspective, strengthening Frontex, the agency that is supposed to embody European solidarity in the event of a huge influx of migrants, seems logical. What is less so is the unhealthy preoccupation with considerations that, on the pretext of defending human rights, are liable to undo these efforts.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Estelle Grelier (S&D), in writing. (FR) I voted in favour of the review of the Regulation on the Frontex Agency because it was vital to clarify its role and responsibilities while ensuring that it respects migrants’ fundamental rights when carrying out its operations. The need for this review has become even more obvious in the light of the Arab revolutions and the migratory movements that have followed. I therefore welcome several of the proposed amendments, such as the establishment of a consultative forum, which will exercise greater control over Frontex’s activities, and the requirement for the agency to undertake rescue at sea during humanitarian emergencies, or face the suspension of its operations. The possibility that the agency will not have to depend any more on the Member States, by acquiring its equipment itself, together with the increased information given to Parliament, are amendments that will help to clarify the link between Frontex and political decisions. One aspect that has particularly caught my attention is the creation, thanks to this regulation, of the status of European border guards. This development, which is only terminological at present, is an innovation that may, we hope, have a bearing on other groups of professionals requiring the same coordination, such as the coastguards of the various Member States, for example.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Françoise Grossetête (PPE), in writing. (FR) The agency responsible for securing the external borders of the Schengen area, within which the citizens of 25 countries, including 22 Member States of the EU, may circulate freely, has often been criticised for its lack of resources. It has to monitor some 42 672 kilometres of external sea borders and 8 826 kilometres of land borders. This week, the European Parliament adopted new rules on Frontex by 431 votes to 49, with 48 abstentions. This is the most significant reform of the law that established Frontex in 2004. Our assessment of the first six years of the agency’s activities shows that it needs to be strengthened and made more effective. From now on, the agency will purchase or lease its own equipment, such as vehicles or helicopters, and will therefore no longer be reliant on funding from the Member States. Personnel appointed by the Member States will help make up the European border guard teams. The existing ‘joint support teams’ and the ‘rapid border intervention teams’ will be merged under the name of ‘European border guards’. The agency’s budget has increased from EUR 6 million to EUR 88 million between 2005 and 2011.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Brice Hortefeux (PPE), in writing. (FR) Today, Tuesday 13 September, Parliament has given its strong support to the reform of the Frontex Agency by adopting, by a large majority, the report by Mr Busuttil (PPE Group, MT). This report calls for a stronger mandate for the agency, an increase in its resources and increased cooperation between the European Union and the Member States. The need for a European agency that is responsible for the effective surveillance of the EU’s external borders is now plain to see. We are experiencing strong migratory pressure. Given the recent developments in the Mediterranean basin, there was an urgent need to review Frontex’s operating procedures and working methods in order to give it the means to become fully operational. I am convinced that the appropriate response to phenomena on such a scale is a European response that respects the specific circumstances and needs of individual countries. That is why I welcome the creation of a European border guard team, which testifies, once again, to the will to achieve a strong and integrated Europe.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. (LT) I welcomed this document because one of the attributes of a common EU area of freedom, security and justice is that of the removal of internal borders, especially within the Schengen area. In turn, this has rendered the external borders of EU Member States a matter of common concern and has made the need for an integrated management of external borders ever more compelling. We must learn from the first five years of the agency (Frontex – European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union) and give it a renewed mandate with more resources and more tools to become more effective. A recurring problem has been that Frontex is too dependent on Member States for the deployment of personnel and equipment in missions coordinated by the agency. Participation on the part of the Member States had been patchy, and pledges for equipment have been low. These shortcomings have seriously hampered the efficiency of the agency. Another problem has been the lack of cooperation with third countries. I believe that removing these shortcomings and this document will contribute to improving the work of this agency.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Cătălin Sorin Ivan (S&D), in writing. (RO) The new regulations governing Frontex, the European border protection agency, are necessary against the new backdrop of the Arab Spring, with the current increasingly serious problem of immigration. As in the case of any other measure concerning external actions, we decided in the European Parliament that respect for human rights, one of the EU’s basic principles, is crucial. This is why we have listed the conditions relating to the violation of this principle.

Efficiency is also an issue which has had an important role to play in our negotiations. Therefore, according to the new regulations, Frontex must have its own logistical resources which it can lease or purchase, without being dependent on Member States’ involvement.

I regard the revision of Frontex’s mandate not only as an important step in protecting the Union’s borders, but also as a guarantee that our actions will be subject to respect for human rights.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Anneli Jäätteenmäki (ALDE), in writing. (FI) The control of the European Union’s external borders and issues of migration have been hotly debated in recent years. The European border control culture will be strengthened by the new Frontex rules. The change is a significant one. There will be an essential improvement in how Frontex operates. The effectiveness of joint operations will be greater. Opportunities for acquiring one’s own equipment and for recruiting one’s own operational personnel will help supplement the resources allocated by the Member States. The reform will boost Frontex’s ability to respond to sudden, unexpected situations, such as those that were witnessed in the spring and the summer.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Constance Le Grip (PPE) , in writing.(FR) I voted in favour of the report by my colleague, Mr Busuttil, on the proposal for a regulation aimed at strengthening the role of the European Frontex Agency in the EU external borders surveillance system. Thanks to this review, the agency will have more financial and human resources at its disposal to cope with the tasks assigned to it. In particular, the agency will be able to purchase or lease its own equipment, such as vehicles or helicopters, and will therefore no longer be reliant on funding from the Member States, as it was previously. An EU border guard system will also be created and will consist of a pool of national border guards that can be tapped by the agency for the purposes of its various border surveillance operations from the end of 2011. This review of the Frontex Regulation will mean that the Member States receive more support from the agency in the task of managing the EU’s external borders. At a time when the migratory pressures at the borders of the European Union are increasing, strengthening the role of Frontex is vital. This was, moreover, an objective laid down in the European Pact on Immigration and Asylum, adopted in 2008 under the French Presidency of the European Union.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. (RO) The European Parliament has made a considerable contribution through the amendments it has tabled, as it has successfully created the position of a fundamental rights officer and a consultative forum for fundamental rights. This contribution is especially important as, according to the new rules, Frontex missions can be suspended in the event of human rights violations.

In this context, Frontex will draw up codes of good conduct to guarantee respect for human rights in every operation coordinated by the agency, including those where persons are repatriated/returned.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Vladimír Maňka (S&D), in writing. (SK) One of the attributes of a common EU area of freedom, security and justice is that of the removal of internal borders, especially within the Schengen area. In turn, this has rendered the external borders of EU Member States a matter of common concern and has made the need for an integrated management of external borders ever more compelling.

With 42 672 km of external sea borders and 8 826 km of land borders, the Schengen free-movement area comprises 25 countries (including three non-EU states) enabling free internal travel for nearly half a billion people across the continent. The abolition of internal borders has facilitated freedom of movement for citizens in an unprecedented manner.

However, this calls for a coordinated approach in securing external borders. Whereas external borders remain open and efficient for bona fide travellers and for people who need protection, they must be closed for cross-border crime and for other illicit activities.

Integrated management ensuring a uniform and high level of control and surveillance is therefore necessary. This calls for the adoption and implementation of common rules, as well as increased cooperation between Member States in securing their external borders. A more combined effort is needed, along with greater pooling of resources.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report on the basis that, with 42 672 km of external sea borders and 8 826 km of land borders, the Schengen free movement area comprises 25 countries (including three non-EU states) and enables free internal travel for nearly half a billion people across the continent. The abolition of internal borders has facilitated freedom of movement for citizens in an unprecedented manner. But this calls for a coordinated approach in securing external borders. And, whereas external borders remain open and efficient for bona fide travellers and for people who need protection, they must be closed for cross-border crime and for other illicit activities.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. (IT) I voted in favour of Mr Busuttil’s report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 establishing a European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union, better known as Frontex. The adoption of this regulation will, above all, enable better protection for those countries subject to specific or disproportionate pressures.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Kyriakos Mavronikolas (S&D), in writing. (EL) The European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex) is to develop its own code of conduct in order to safeguard full respect for human rights on all missions, including repatriation operations. At the same time, it is to appoint a special officer to ensure that fundamental rights are respected when action is taken. This is the most important reform of the legislation governing Frontex, which needs to be strengthened further and to become more effective. The fact that the agency’s duties will include the provision of assistance to the Member States in humanitarian emergencies and rescue operations at sea is also extremely important.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. (FR) This report is in favour of Frontex becoming independent and being able to send its patrols to combat illegal immigration as far away as in third countries. That takes the biscuit! A consultative forum will not overturn the policy of security at all costs, which is endorsed and taken further here. I want no part of it. I voted against.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. (PT) The European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex) coordinates operational coordination among Member States in the area of managing the external borders; it assists Member States in training national border guards, including establishing common training standards; it carries out risk analyses; it follows developments in research relevant to control and monitoring of the external borders; it supports Member States in circumstances requiring increased operational and technical assistance at the external borders; and it provides Member States with the necessary support as regards organising joint return operations. Frontex reinforces security at the borders by ensuring the coordination of Member State action in applying Union measures relating to management of the external borders. According to the revised regulation, Frontex should promote solidarity between Member States, particularly those facing ‘specific and disproportionate pressures’. EU Member States, which used to contribute personnel and technical equipment to Frontex on a voluntary basis, are now obliged to do so. The agency should, however, also be provided with the means for acquiring or leasing its own equipment. The revision of Frontex’s mandate aims to make the agency work better, in the light of experience acquired since its creation in 2004.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing.(ES) I voted against the Busuttil report because it goes even further with the current, incorrect approach taken by the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex), an approach that is based on the notion of ‘Fortress Europe’ without taking into account its harmful, inhumane consequences. We can find an example of this in the more than 2 000 people who have died this year while trying to escape the dramatic situation they were forced to endure in their countries, seeking refuge in Europe as a last resort to survive hunger, poverty, misery, wars, climate disasters or political persecution. This report explores the construction of ‘Fortress Europe’ without taking into account the fact that, in many cases, people trying to enter EU territory are fleeing situations brought about by the European Union itself, without addressing the main causes of migration, including the EU’s harmful neighbourhood policy and unsustainable neoliberal trade policy, and without ensuring that the human rights of all migrants are protected by means of a migration and asylum policy based on solidarity.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Louis Michel (ALDE), in writing. (FR) The new Frontex rules that were adopted today will help make the agency more visible and more effective. This is a significant reform of this agency since it was first set up. National border guards appointed by the Member States to take part in operations will strengthen the European border guard teams. The agency will also be able to purchase or lease its own equipment. The introduction of mechanisms to guarantee respect for fundamental rights is an important achievement in this matter. Hence, the appointment of a fundamental rights officer and the creation of a consultative forum will mean that respect for fundamental rights can be monitored in all Frontex activities. It should also be emphasised that Frontex will have to develop codes of conduct in order to guarantee respect for human rights in all operations, and specifically return operations, with particular focus on unaccompanied minors and vulnerable persons.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE), in writing. (SK) The free movement of people within the European Union and its area of freedom, security and justice is one of the cornerstones of the EU, enabling free movement within the area for almost half a billion people in the continent of Europe. The EU must therefore include among its priorities the establishment of a comprehensive European migration policy based on security, responsibility, solidarity and, of course, human rights. In my opinion, a high level of border control and surveillance must be implemented consistently in the interests of protecting EU citizens, and I therefore agree that the Frontex Agency’s mandate should be adjusted in order to boost its operational capacities, and for measures to be adopted that are adequate, effective and respectful of fundamental rights.

I firmly believe that, for the purpose of effective protection of EU citizens and their values against cross-border crime and other illegal activities, the Frontex Agency should enhance its cooperation with Europol and Eurojust, particularly in the area of cross-border crime. I would like to conclude by emphasising that cooperation between Member States must be based on the principle of solidarity with the Member States on the borders, which, for geographical and demographic reasons, are exposed to substantial and disproportionate migration flows on their borders.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – I have taken into account the rapporteur’s suggestions to (1) strengthen the provisions on fundamental human rights; (2) merge the articles providing for the setting up of Frontex joint support teams and rapid border intervention teams into one article providing for an EU border guard system which will consist of a pool of national border guards that can be tapped by the agency for the purposes of its joint operations, rapid border intervention missions and pilot projects; this will streamline the provisions of the regulation, increase transparency, avoid duplication and confusion of roles and, most importantly, give a clearer European identity to the agency’s missions; (3) support the Commission’s proposal to require Member State to participate in the EU border guard system; (4) tighten the timeframes within which rapid border intervention missions should be deployed; and (5) grant the agency the power to process personal data in order to enable it to play a greater role in combating cross-border crime and irregular migration. I agree with the rapporteur and I voted ‘in favour’.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Claudio Morganti (EFD), in writing.(IT) I decided to abstain in the assessment of this report. The text clearly aims to remedy the self-evident failure of Frontex, and several of the proposed measures are on the right track. However, I wonder how these measures can be implemented when the Member States – and the Council, which represents them – continue to oppose, de facto, the common management of European borders.

The cuts made by the Council in the next budget that we shall have to approve are the latest in a long list of evidence to this effect: the fund for external borders is to be cut by EUR 15 million, while there will be EUR 10 million less for repatriations and another dozen million stripped from Frontex itself. I therefore hope that Parliament proves to be less hypocritical than the Council and gets its points across forcefully, including when it comes to providing Frontex with the resources it requires.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. (LT) I would like to thank Mr Busuttil for a well balanced report, and for helping us reach a consensus on how to strengthen the Frontex Agency. The principle of solidarity among countries has been consolidated, the European Parliament has become more involved and the dimension of respect for fundamental rights has been strengthened. This is important for obtaining public support and giving them confidence in this European institution. However, Frontex is not becoming a supranational institution – responsibility for border management and control lies with the Member States. Therefore, when carrying out operations, particularly in areas where the greatest problems arise, Frontex should involve national forces so that, following operations, the latter’s skills would be enhanced and they would continue to apply good practice. Before concluding working arrangements with third countries, it is important for there to be negotiations with EU institutions and those of the Member States in question which are responsible for external relations. Experience shows that undemocratic regimes may abuse judicial cooperation for political purposes. The EU must also pay attention to other dimensions of immigration. Undesirables should not cross the EU’s external borders. Of particular concern is the case where a Schengen visa was issued to a person suspected of war crimes, who possibly visited the EU several times. When he was arrested at Vienna airport under a European arrest warrant, the European arrest procedure was not followed and he was released. We must do everything to ensure that such a situation is not repeated.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Mariya Nedelcheva (PPE), in writing. (BG) I strongly support Mr Busuttil’s report. The adoption of this regulation will enlighten the general public further about the functions and missions carried out by Frontex. The introduction of the ‘European border guard team’ concept enhances the European aspect of the missions and highlights the readiness for shared responsibility and integrated management of common borders.

This will help achieve European solidarity, highlighted in the Treaties, through the binding connection with Member States’ legal obligations and with sufficient finances and human resources. The enhancement and clarification of the role of the agency and Member States will help ensure the smooth coordination of the actions taken and provide a clear distribution of responsibilities and an ability to meet the challenges which some countries are facing.

In this way, we are allowing Frontex to carry out the human mission which it performs. When carrying out its responsibilities, Frontex must set an example not only in Europe, but also at a global level.

Migration is a phenomenon linked with people. Therefore, every action and every new operating mechanism must comply with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In this respect, I welcome all the proposals submitted to this effect – the consultative forum, human rights experts and the training activities envisaged for Frontex officers on fundamental rights issues.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing.(IT) The immigration crisis resulting from the unrest in the Arab Maghreb has shown just how much Europe’s Mediterranean countries need a European agency like Frontex to solve problems at their borders. I voted in favour of the amendment of the regulation in order to enable the strengthening of Frontex, making it an agency that is ready to help a Member State deal with urgent problems on request. Frontex has already shown that with greater autonomy and funding, it can play a truly decisive role in resolving disputes that would otherwise persist for too long if they were dealt with exclusively by European policy.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 establishing a European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the European Union (Frontex). The removal of internal borders, especially in the Schengen area, one of the objectives of a common area of freedom, security and justice within the EU, requires that Member States assume shared responsibility for the Union’s external borders. In this respect, it is vital to strengthen the integrated management of said borders; indeed, external borders must be secured by keeping them closed to cross-border crime and other illicit activities. Thus, the powers of Frontex must be reshaped and reinforced. I would like to highlight, with regard to the amendments made, the reinforcement of fundamental human rights provisions; the creation of an EU border guard system; support for Member States whose asylum systems are under particular pressure; the new role in assisting with voluntary returns; and the extension of democratic scrutiny on the part of the agency by giving Parliament a more important role in monitoring the work performed by the agency, including its working arrangements with third countries.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Phil Prendergast (S&D), in writing. – The abolition of internal borders has created an even greater need to monitor and adopt a coordinated approach to secure our external borders. The security of Europe’s borders has relevance even for those Member States who are not in the Schengen area. Europe must be protected against cross-border crime and other illegal activities, including the alarming problem of human trafficking facing the EU. A balance must be struck between ensuring borders remain open and efficient for citizens, legitimate travellers and people in need of protection and in ensuring that they remain closed to criminal elements. While it is important for Europe to have a common migration policy, it is equally important that we avoid the ‘easy’ rhetoric surrounding migration. Some Member States have been calling for the right to re-impose border controls in times of trouble. Such calls should be resisted, and the Schengen Agreement should be strengthened to ensure the continuation of the right to freedom of movement within Europe.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. (PT) The objective of Frontex, created in 2004, is to manage cooperation among the various Member States in relation to external borders. This is a field that, with regard to the Schengen area, requires close cooperation as the nature of borders is two-sided: whilst they delimit the territorial area of a State, they also represent the outermost limit of a common area with an external border of 42 672 km, in which more than half a billion individuals move freely. It is with this key principle in mind – that the Member States must take joint action – that we should view the amendment to the regulation establishing Frontex: the aim is to endow it with effective means of action that enable it to provide timely assistance to Member States that need support through being the primary gateways to the European Union. Finally, the further strengthening of cooperation between Frontex and other Union agencies that share common goals is also justified, with a view to improving resource rationalisation and action efficiency.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Mitro Repo (S&D), in writing. (FI) This resolution and the enhancement of Frontex’s external mandate and powers, as well as its greater independence, are a step towards an ever more integrated system of border control and European migration policy. High-level, independent and integrated border management would allow free movement within the European Union.

With the expansion of Frontex’s powers, however, we need to ensure that its present safeguards, especially those concerning human rights, are improved. I am especially pleased that Frontex will be more fully involved in obligations relating to human and fundamental rights. Of particular importance are the references to the principle of non-refoulement and the right of everyone to leave any country, including their own. Obviously, the EU agencies have to comply with Union law and fundamental rights when active both within the EU and outside it. At the same time, there should also be more training in human rights for officers.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Robert Rochefort (ALDE), in writing. (FR) I voted for the report on amending the regulation on Frontex, the European Agency for the Management of the External Borders of the EU, created in 2004. Its aim is to more clearly define the agency’s mandate and to improve its effectiveness. How?

Firstly, by addressing a recurring problem: the fact that Frontex is too dependent on Member States for the deployment of personnel and equipment. From now on, the agency will have the means to purchase or lease its own equipment, and Member States will be required to honour their commitments with regard to providing national border guards. This is about establishing a proper EU border guard system that can be tapped by the agency for all its operations.

Secondly, by reducing the time needed to deploy rapid intervention teams to the borders, in order to be truly able to face emergency situations.

Finally, and this is crucial, by strengthening the provisions relating to Frontex respecting and defending fundamental rights in all areas for which it is responsible. This is one of Parliament’s main victories in this text, which, we hope, will soon have direct and tangible results on the ground, in the difficult areas located at the external borders of the Union.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – Abstention. Like all other EU agencies and bodies, Frontex has a duty to observe and uphold fundamental rights in all realms of its affairs. The rapporteur welcomes the numerous elements in the Commission proposal which underline the importance of fundamental rights and which strengthen the ability and obligation of Frontex to ensure that respect for such rights is an integral part of border management. However, we understand that not enough guarantees are provided to fulfil all these obligations.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing.(IT) I voted in favour of this report because I think that it has become increasingly important to manage the European Union’s external borders in a coordinated and integrated way, particularly following the abolition of its internal borders. The dramatic immigrant landings in Lampedusa recently show that we can wait no longer: patrol operations must ensure a high and uniform standard of control and surveillance.

This means that common rules need to be adopted and implemented, alongside greater cooperation between Member States, in order to make our external borders more secure. In the light of this need for greater coordination and solidarity, Frontex is required to carry out an increasingly important role, providing it with a fresh mandate and more resources and instruments to make it increasingly effective.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing.(IT) On the basis of the impact assessment carried out over recent years, the European Commission has realised that the instruments and tasks allocated to Frontex are not up to the job of combating illegal immigration and human trafficking. The new regulation gives Frontex the chance to work more effectively with Member States by providing funds and manpower to those that take part in joint operations. In addition, Frontex will also be able to provide itself with border guards by using personnel made available by Member States.

Clearly, if incompatible ideological policy positions had not been added to the text, we could have voted in favour. Instead, the principle of non-refoulement and the creation of a human rights supervisory office were added to the text, while the term ‘illegal’ was replaced by ‘irregular’. As it stands, we are voting against it.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Marco Scurria (PPE), in writing.(IT) The amendment to the Frontex Regulation was a necessity given ever increasing illegal immigration within the borders of the European Union. In this light, setting up teams of European border guards particularly helps a number of Member States to manage huge and sudden migratory flows, such as those that took place following the Arab revolts. At the same time, the procedures for the most vulnerable categories – above all, unaccompanied minors – represent the other side of this measure, where respect for the law and solidarity intersect to guarantee both human rights and the security of the Member States.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Joanna Senyszyn (S&D), in writing.(PL) I endorsed the resolution on amending the regulation on the EU’s Frontex Agency. Amendment of the regulation is essential in order to strengthen the agency in carrying out its operations in support of Member States in crisis situations which require increased technical and operational assistance at external borders. For Frontex to operate effectively, it also needs greater resources, inter alia, for the purchase of its own equipment, because the Member States have not been giving the agency a sufficient degree of financial support.

I also support the greater role for the agency in upholding fundamental rights. In fulfilling this role, Frontex must work more closely with other European agencies: the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, Europol, Eurojust and the European Asylum Support Office. I hope the Polish Presidency will be successful in its endeavours to bring work on amending the Frontex Regulation to completion.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The events on the island of Lampedusa and the resultant border closure by the French State have made the reshaping of Frontex unavoidable. Integrated management of operational cooperation at the external borders of the Member States of the EU guarantees an area of freedom, security and justice for European citizens. The goal of the proposals submitted is to strengthen the role of Frontex and provide greater autonomy from the Member States with regard to the human resources and instruments it can use. The creation of a reserve European border guard system and budget reinforcement will provide the agency with the means to acquire its own equipment and provide immediate assistance when necessary, where timeframes for action and consent are limited. Another important factor is the greater emphasis on respect for human rights, through the creation of a consultative forum, and the new powers regarding handling personal data to fight cross-border crime and illegal migration. I am voting in favour of this report as I believe the EU must urgently establish a migration policy based on the principles of solidarity and responsibility whilst respecting international and EU law, giving special attention to the most vulnerable individuals.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Rafał Trzaskowski (PPE), in writing.(PL) The overwhelming majority of votes with which Simon Busuttil’s report was adopted is proof of the fact that Parliament supports a strong border guard agency which is capable of action. The decision to create European border guard teams was undoubtedly important in this regard.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. – I voted in favour of this report to strengthen the powers and increase the resources that are available to Frontex to allow them to better protect the borders of the EU. A larger budget will allow Frontex to acquire equipment that will enable the agency to deal with an emergency. The report is clear that Frontex will continue to act as a coordinating agency, with the responsibility of day-to-day border controls remaining a responsibility of individual Member States. In response to Parliament’s concerns about the fundamental rights of immigrants, Frontex will appoint a special fundamental rights officer to ensure respect for human rights for immigrants.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Dominique Vlasto (PPE), in writing. (FR) I was keen to support this text, since it sanctions my political group’s vision regarding the principle of integrated management of our external borders. Indeed, given that freedom of movement is one of the greatest Community acquis, it must have as a corollary a high and uniform level of monitoring and control of these same EU borders. However, recent events have shown the need to review Frontex’s operating rules, in order to be able to cope either with a State’s failure to control its borders, or with exceptional circumstances. To my mind, sharing an internal market and an area of freedom, security and justice requires common rules. The survival of the Schengen area is therefore closely linked to the success of Frontex’s missions. Indeed, if the external borders of the Union become permeable, each State could well be exposed to threats. The fact is, any State that saw its fundamental interests or its security threatened would consequently have the right to take steps to maintain public order within its territory. I believe that European solidarity should be exemplary in this area.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. (DE) Frontex was established as an agency in 2004. As various new countries have joined the EU, so its external borders have changed. The changes to the agency contained in the Commission’s proposal should allow it to function effectively, thereby securing for the EU’s 500 million citizens a high degree of freedom to travel and, in particular, providing the countries situated at the external borders of the EU with appropriate protection from cross-border crime and illegal immigration. To this end, the Member States should be required to ensure that the agency receives adequate resources and equipment. A further important point is that the timeframes for reacting to emergency situations must be reduced. Before Frontex’s legal basis can be changed in this way, however, we need to have an extensive debate on its work to date and its future accountability.

 
  
  

Report: Vital Moreira (A7-0256/2011)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. (PT) I voted in favour of the report on the amendment of Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items. Its aim is to oblige the Commission and Member-States to establish a secure system for collection, transmission and storage of notifications and to oblige the Commission to inform the European Parliament regarding the system’s functioning. I believe that it is crucial to oblige the Commission to present a report on the implementation and application of the regulation, in addition to providing a thorough assessment of its impact.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. (LT) I voted in favour of this document. In the European Union, there are licences for dual-use items (these are defined as items, including software and technology, which can be used for both civil and military purposes, and include all goods which can be used for assisting in any way in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices). The regulation lays down a list of dual-use items, and it is regularly updated to reflect the Member States’ international commitments and rapid technological development. The updating of this list, which we voted for, will enable us to guarantee the application of the commitments made throughout the entire EU and will give EU exporters legal certainty as regards which items require an export licence.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  George Becali (NI), in writing. (RO) This report is fairly technical and specific to an area relating to commercial operations involving products which can be used for civil and military purposes. Although Parliament’s room for manoeuvre is limited, we can oblige the Commission to inform Parliament at regular intervals about the system’s operation and to submit reports assessing the impact of the new regulation.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Sergio Berlato (PPE), in writing.(IT) The economy has changed radically over the last few years. Global trade has undergone genuine growth thanks to the World Trade Organisation and numerous multilateral and bilateral initiatives. From the 1990s onwards, a growing number of developing countries and emerging economies have become involved in world trade and developed into the driving forces behind the global economy. In the EU, 18% of jobs depend on foreign trade and, according to forecasts, in 2015, some 90% of world economic growth will be generated outside the European Union. To me, it therefore seems fundamentally important to set out and implement a long-term strategy for foreign trade that bears in mind the changing role of the EU in the world economy.

It is also worth noting that the trend of population growth in the EU is reversing, while the population of developing countries continues to increase rapidly. This will have inevitable consequences on the economies of these countries. Lastly, I would like to point out to the Commission how worthwhile it would be to make forecasts that incorporate both the current situation as well as probable future scenarios into the global and EU economy. This could form the basis for the development of a long-term strategy designed to respond to the needs of European citizens.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing.(ES) I voted in favour of this initiative because I believe there is a need to improve EU coordination and the role of the EU in the international control regimes, and to ensure that it speaks with a single voice. Furthermore, Parliament, in its capacity as a colegislative body, should give strong parliamentary backing on all issues which come under exclusive EU competence. This would enable greater control and more transparency in the system’s functioning.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing.(IT) The subject in question, namely exports of dual-use items, is very delicate, and must be subjected to some kind of democratic control. It is right to amend the regulations that govern the EU legislative activities on the subject so as to bring Parliament into the decision-making processes and allow – in contrast to the current situation – for the representatives of the citizens of Europe to be suitably informed about updates to the list of dual-use items. I therefore voted in favour of the report.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. (LT) I voted in favour of this report because with it, the European Parliament aims to oblige the Commission and the Member States to set up a secure regime for controlling the transit of dual-use items, establishing a reliable system for the collection, transmission and storage of notifications. It is crucial to tighten controls on the export of chemical and biological weapons, and to strengthen and tighten up the global issuing of arms export licences, in order to guarantee human security. The granting of authorisation for the export of dual-use items is decided on the basis of the international export control regime in countries divided into four main groups: the Australia Group, which endeavours to prevent the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons, the Nuclear Suppliers Group, which aims to reduce the proliferation of nuclear weapons and controls exports, the Missile Technology Control Regime, which aims to curb the spread of unmanned delivery systems for nuclear weapons and the Wassenaar Arrangement, focusing on the transparency of national export control regimes. All of the countries of the export control regimes endeavour to maintain good relations with each other, to cooperate and to guarantee security.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. (PT) Dual-use items and technologies are considered to be those that can serve both civil and military purposes. The Community regime for the control of exports is governed by a regulation containing an annex of controlled dual-use items. The current proposal introduces various new general Community export authorisations aimed at levelling the field for exporters within the EU and is intended to facilitate exports in specific risk situations. I fully support the agreement reached in the trialogue, as I believe it is a balanced document representing the interests of exporters, whilst maintaining strong guarantees of transparency in this sensitive dual-use item and technology industry.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. (PT) Dual-use items, which can be used for both civil and military purposes, such as, for example, chemicals that can be used as fertilisers or to prepare bombs, and information technology for computers that can also be used to guide missiles, currently constitute a highly sensitive issue. European-level export controls for dual-use products and technologies aim to ensure that the international commitments of the EU and its Member States as regards the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the proliferation of conventional weapons are respected. Examples include the Nuclear Suppliers Group, against the proliferation of nuclear items and technology, and the Australia Group, against the proliferation of chemical and biological items and technology. In practice, these extremely important controls, which make it possible to prevent the proliferation of weapons using the preventative measures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 of 5 May 2009, do not permit Parliament to take any real action. I am therefore voting for this report because I believe there is a need to update the list of items in Annex I, but I would like to stress that Parliament should have a stronger voice and a more prominent role in future amendments to the regulation.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. (PT) Dual-use items are those items, software and technologies that can be used for both civil and military purposes. The type of goods in question warrants special requirements and care regarding the way they are traded and used. Additionally, they must fully comply with the applicable international conventions and the list of items classified as such must be regularly updated. In light of the recent amendments to international export control regimes, the goal of this proposal is precisely to update the list of dual-use items, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 428/2009, for which reason it merits my support.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. (PT) This report, drafted by Vital Moreira, proposes the amendment of Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items. Exports of dual-use items (listed in Annex I), pursuant to the abovementioned regulation, are dependent on international control regimes such as the Australia Group (AG), the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) and the Wassenaar Arrangement (WA). The role of the European Parliament in this matter has been very limited, for which reason I am voting in favour of this report, which recommends the adoption of the Commission’s proposal at first reading, since it fulfils the requirements of the Treaty of Lisbon and obliges the Commission and the Member States to set up a secure system for the collection, transmission and storage of notifications, and to inform Parliament about the system’s functioning – something that currently does not occur – by means of an annual report to be presented by the dual-use coordination group.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) Dual-use item export control has been subject to measures at EU level. Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 is the principal Community instrument for controlling exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items. International export control regimes are responsible for making decisions that modify or update current control lists. These decisions are taken without the participation of national parliaments, the European Parliament or the EU. This regulation aims to change this situation, by creating a common list of EU dual-use items and technologies. The Commission and the Member States will be obliged to inform Parliament about any amendments to this list. Thus, the commitments previously made by EU Member States under international regimes are guaranteed to be applied in a uniform and coordinated fashion throughout the EU. Member States must play a central role in the creation of these control lists – a proposal that runs counter to the centralisation of powers in the Commission in this field, namely through the dual-use coordination group, presided over by the Commission, which decides those countries with whom dual-use items may be traded.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) Export controls on dual-use items have been the subject of EU-level measures. Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 of 5 May 2009 is the main EU instrument for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use products.

Making decisions to change or update their control lists is the responsibility of the international export control regimes, since the national parliaments, the European Parliament and the European Union are not involved in these decisions.

With the amendment of Annex I to this regulation, a list of common dual-use items and technology is included. This means that all the commitments previously made by EU Member States within the framework of international regimes are guaranteed to be applied in a uniform and coordinated way throughout the EU.

However, although we consider increased democratic controls and greater transparency to be necessary, we believe it should fall to each individual Member State to decide on their control lists, so we do not agree that it should be the dual-use coordination group, chaired by the Commission, that decides in which countries the sale of dual-use products is permitted, thereby withdrawing this competence from the Member States.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. (SK) Within the framework of the EU system for controlling exports of dual-use items set out in Regulation No 428/2009, a permit is required for the export of the items listed in the Annex to the regulation. Annex I to the regulation was last updated on 5 May 2009, when Regulation No 428/2009 was adopted. Since then, all international regimes for controlling exports have taken the decision to amend and update their own control lists. I therefore share the view that we must make the necessary changes to the Annex. By now, Annex I to the regulation has, in principle, been transposed automatically into EU legislation and the European Parliament or national parliaments have not interfered in this process. The large Member States of the Union had a decidedly leading role within the EU in coordinating the representation of the Union in international control regimes.

At present, however, none of the EU institutions have managed to guarantee the cohesion of EU policy in respect of international control regimes or within the framework of these regimes. The fact of the matter is that Parliament has very little room for manoeuvre. It has no real possibility of acting as an institution implementing changes and improvements in relation to this document. I firmly believe that we must improve coordination in the EU and in relation to its role in international control regimes, ensuring that it acts in a unified way, with strong support from Parliament in relation to all the issues falling within the exclusive competence of the Union.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. (LT) I welcome the substantial amendments to Article 1 of the regulation that aim to oblige the Commission and the Member States to set up a secure system for the collection, transmission, and storage of notifications, and to oblige the Commission to inform the European Parliament about the system’s functioning. Furthermore, Parliament wants to establish an obligation for the dual-use coordination group to report to the European Parliament annually. Parliament could thus fulfil its control function vis-à-vis the European Commission. Finally, Parliament seeks to oblige the Commission to report on the implementation and application of this regulation, and also to provide a comprehensive impact assessment for it.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE), in writing.(PL) Dual-use items are the product of achievements in science and technology, fruits of the advance of civilisation. The idea behind the origin of such items is usually the aspiration to improve our quality of life, as is the case with chemical and medical products, or also, for example, to make everyday work and communication easier, as in the case of information technologies. However, if they are put to the wrong use, they can be a huge danger to health and life. Therefore, the control of exports of dual-use items from the European Union should be as thorough as possible, and the standards for maintaining this control should be equally high and rigorous in all Member States. Failure to carry out precise inspections and a lack of information on the final recipients and the final use of these items may result in a catastrophe.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Bogusław Liberadzki (S&D), in writing.(PL) Voting has taken place on the proposal for a regulation amending Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items.

I opted for the idea which was tabled as I believe that these products should be monitored so that we do not contribute to the proliferation of biological, chemical and, above all, nuclear weapons. I believe that the European Union should speak with one voice, and its position should be supported by the European Parliament. In addition, we should streamline coordination at EU level and its role on the international stage.

In order to achieve these aims, we need to ensure that Member States and the Commission create a system for the collection, transmission and storage of notifications. The Commission should also be obliged to inform the European Parliament on the workings of the system, and also request that the coordination group provides an annual report.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Vladimír Maňka (S&D), in writing. (SK) Parliament has no real possibility to act as an amending institution in this file, as it is required to do in its capacity as a colegislative body. In view of future amendments to this regulation, there is a need to improve EU coordination and its role in the international control regimes, and to ensure that the EU speaks with a single voice and with strong parliamentary backing on all issues within exclusive EU competence.

The abovementioned regulation will be reformed according to the Lisbon Treaty’s requirements for more transparent and democratic decision making in the area of the Union’s dual-use framework. I have therefore supported it.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – The system for regulating the export of dual-use items (civil and possible military use) has been unsatisfactory. Here, Parliament has approved substantial amendments to Article 1 of the regulation that aim to oblige the Commission and the Member States to set up a secure system for the collection, transmission and storage of notifications, and to oblige the Commission to inform Parliament about the system’s functioning. Until now, this system has only been an option, as introduced in the 2009 regulation.

The system would be designed to have online access to a database containing, for example, denials of export authorisations. Parliament also wants to establish an obligation for the dual-use coordination group to annually report to Parliament in order to fulfil its supervisory function where the European Commission is concerned. Finally, Parliament seeks to introduce an obligation on the Commission to report on the implementation and application as well as to provide a comprehensive impact assessment of the regulation.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Jiří Maštálka (GUE/NGL), in writing. (CS) Advanced technological development and the emergence of improved means of production and technologically sophisticated products opens up possibilities not only for their use but also for misuse, involving purposes other than those for which they were intended. The monitoring of this type of good and its categorisation into items under international control regimes is not only a commercially sensitive topic, but also a topic that is, in essence, related to security matters. In my opinion, it would be useful to support effective and transparent control regimes enabling the monitoring of international trade in technologies that can be misused for military purposes, and particularly for developing and producing weapons of mass destruction. At the same time, however, I would like to add that this should be based on transparency, sound planning and practicality.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Marisa Matias (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) The report amending Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 sets up a Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items. Henceforth, the Commission and Member States will be equipped with a secure system for the collection, transmission and storage of notifications that reinforces the conformity of exports of civil goods that could be used for military purposes. Until now, this record keeping was optional and was largely dependent on the consensual decisions of international export control regimes, such as the Australia Group (AG) for chemical and biological items, the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) for civil nuclear items, the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), and the Wassenaar Arrangement (WA) for conventional arms and dual-use items and technologies.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. (PT) The Lisbon Treaty clarified EU competences in international trade, and thus represents a good opportunity to reaffirm the role of the EU in this field and the competences and responsibilities of the European Parliament in the institutional framework of the EU in relation to decision making. The Community regime for dual-use items must be organised more transparently and democratically. The full participation of the European Parliament, through the application of obligations set out by the Lisbon Treaty, and the adoption of a joint interpretation by the European Parliament and the European Commission within a new framework agreement, will be crucial in order to fulfil this objective.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – Technological progress in today’s world means that there is a need to update regularly the list of controlled items. The last update of Annex I of the regulation occurred on the occasion of the adoption of the regulation on 5 May 2009. I absolutely agree with that, but I think that there should be defined measures taken and an organised mechanism for control over updates established and made more transparent.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. (LT) The rapporteur, Vital Moreira, has revealed the lack of democratic parliamentary control and the difficulties for the European Parliament to fulfil its capacity as a colegislative body in this field. The report reveals the prevailing practice whereby issues regarding the control of exports of dual-use items remain a closed area of intergovernmental policy, not even fully coordinated between the EU Member States, and the Commission only plays an intermediary role, while national parliaments and the European Parliament are excluded. I would like to stress that this area is part of the common foreign and security policy (CFSP), which requires at least a minimum exchange of information between Member States. The issue of the timely exchange of information also covers the area of dual-use items and trade in military equipment. I remember a case, not long ago, when one of the big EU Member States concluded an agreement on the sale of naval transport, and recently equipment, to a third country. Other EU Member States were not informed of this in advance via the appropriate working bodies. Some countries have concerns that this technology may be used in an area of tension. I believe that the EU Member States must develop a clearer, responsible and principled policy on the export of military equipment and dual-use items. Consequently, there really is a need for a more in-depth review of related EU legislation, as proposed by the rapporteur, in order to strengthen CFSP coordination, the exchange of information, the development of a common EU position and its representation under international control regimes, and to increase the European Parliament’s role in terms of scrutiny under the Treaty of Lisbon.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution because the control of exports, transfer and transit of dual-use items, which can be used for both civil and military purposes, is one of the keys to preventing weapons proliferation globally. Furthermore, this sector has a crucial role to play in developing innovations and promoting competitiveness. Consequently, we must make every effort to ensure that we create a more favourable environment for legitimate trade in these items and that we prevent their illegal use for military purposes or proliferation programmes. To achieve these goals, the list of dual-use items must be updated, taking into account advances in modern technology and the duties and obligations of Member States under international non-proliferation regimes, export control agreements and international treaties. As for European Union dual-use items, we must guarantee a more transparent and more democratic decision-making process. Parliament must be given more powers by tabling amendments to this regulation in order to enable it to fulfil its control function vis-à-vis the European Commission. The Commission must make every effort to ensure that secure systems for the collection, transmission and storage of notifications begin to work properly and it must regularly inform the European Parliament about the functioning of these systems. It is also very important for the dual-use coordination group to report to the European Parliament on an annual basis.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. (PT) In procedures for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items, Parliament currently has no real possibility to act as an amending institution. In line with its capacity of colegislative body, however, following the Treaty of Lisbon, this should not be the case. In view of future amendments, there is a need to ensure that the EU speaks with a single voice with strong parliamentary backing on all issues within exclusive EU competence. To remedy this situation, in the context of the Union regime for the control of exports of dual-use items and technology, Parliament has ensured that the Commission will be obliged to inform it about the workings of the system. Parliament also wishes to establish an obligation for the dual-use coordination group to annually report to Parliament in order to fulfil its control function in relation to the European Commission. The aforementioned powers of Parliament, introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon, should be reflected individually in all EU legislation. On the basis of this principle, I voted for this report, which puts forward a decision-making process that is more transparent and democratic, and which involves Parliament.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing.(IT) To date, Annex I to the regulation has been quasi-automatically transposed into EU legislation without any participation on the part of the European Parliament or the national parliaments of the European Union. EU coordination and representation in the international control regimes were characterised by a leading role being assumed by the major EU Member States, with decision and policy making undertaken behind closed doors under the conceptual – intergovernmental – framework of the common foreign and security policy.

All EU Member States are members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) and of the Australia Group (AG), but Cyprus is not party to the Wassenaar Arrangement (WA), and Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Slovenia, Slovakia and Romania are not members of the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR). Moreover, the European Commission is a founding member of the AG, and an observer of the NSG, but does not have any role in the WA and MTCR. Accordingly, the consistency of the EU’s policy towards and within the international control regimes cannot currently be guaranteed by any EU institution. Parliament is confronted with a Commission proposal, subject to amendments. It should be noted, however, that Parliament’s room for manoeuvre is rather limited.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Miguel Portas (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) The report amending Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 of the Council establishes an EU scheme for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items. From now on, the Commission and Member States have a secure system for the collection, transmission and storage of notifications, which reinforces the conformity of the export of goods that are civilian but carry the risk of potential military use. Until now, this system was optional and largely dependent on decisions taken by consensus in international export control regimes: for example, the Australian Group for chemical and biological items; the Nuclear Suppliers Group for civil nuclear products; and the Missile Technology Control Regime and the Wassenaar Arrangement for conventional arms and dual-use goods and technologies.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – Abstention. The EU dual-use export control system, as set out in Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2009, requires an authorisation for the export of dual-use items listed in the Annex to the regulation. Annex I of this regulation largely depends on decisions that are taken by consensus in international export control regimes like the Australia Group (AG) for biological and chemical items, the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) for civil nuclear items, the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) and the Wassenaar Arrangement (WA) for conventional arms and dual-use goods and technologies. Article 15 of the basic Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 specifies that ‘the list of dual-use items set out in Annex I shall be updated in conformity with the relevant obligations and commitments, and any modification thereof, that Member States have accepted as members of the international non-proliferation regimes and export control arrangements, or by ratification of relevant international treaties’.

The current practice in the EU is, to say the least, too vague.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing.(IT) The current EU dual-use export control system requires these technologies to be authorised for export, which is a particularly sensitive issue in terms of their possible applications in relation to war. It is essential in this context to increase the transparency of national systems for controlling exports.

In the complex procedure to reform these mechanisms, Parliament – in its capacity as colegislator – does not currently have many options for making amendments. It would therefore be worth improving coordination and the role of the EU in international control regimes, thereby ensuring that the EU speaks with a single voice and with strong parliamentary backing on all issues for which the EU is exclusively responsible.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing.(IT) I am in favour of the report since controlling dual-use products is essential for preventing weapons proliferation and it is carried out through preventive measures such as mandatory export authorisations and customs registration procedures. In light of the EU’s new competences in the area of international trade, which were obtained following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, this could be a significant step forward towards regulating the market for exporting dual-use items and making it more transparent and democratic.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Laurence J. A. J. Stassen (NI), in writing. (NL) Given that there are a number of civilian products and technologies that could also be used for military or terrorist purposes, supervision of the export of such products is a necessity. In order to be able to carry out this supervision effectively, a common list of products for which an export licence is required has been produced. The list predominantly contains chemical products and construction materials. The Dutch Party for Freedom (PVV) voted in favour of this proposal because, at the moment, different lists are used in different European countries.

A common framework prevents potential buyers from exploiting loopholes between different Member States and from ‘shopping around’ the various countries in order to obtain these products. Having a common framework also has the side benefit of clarity for exporting companies from the Netherlands, along with fair competition thanks to identical rules for exporting businesses from the various countries of Europe.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Inese Vaidere (PPE), in writing. (LV) As things stand in the European Union, there is no truly common export and transit control system for dual-use items such as nuclear material or chemical and conventional weapons. Decisions on these questions are taken behind closed doors at the Foreign Affairs Council of the EU without open debates, common criteria or the participation of Parliament, which is a legislative body of the EU.

It is the case that not even all EU Member States are represented in the organisations that control the export of such dangerous items. The Baltic States, as well as Cyprus, Malta, Slovakia, Slovenia and Romania, for example, are not members of the Missile Technology Control Regime.

As a result, decisions taken on trade grounds by one EU Member State may endanger another Member State’s security interests, as we have already experienced.

This report supports amendments to European Union legislation in order to create a common EU system for the collection, transmission and storage of authorisations and to oblige the Commission to inform the European Parliament about authorisations which have been issued.

On such fundamentally important issues such as foreign and security policy, unambiguous solidarity between EU Member States must be the order of the day. The amendments proposed by the report will introduce an improved, common and transparent system for regulating the export of weapons, nuclear material, missiles and other similar technologies.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. (DE) Dual-use items are items that are intended for civil purposes, but which have characteristics that mean they can also be used for military purposes. A list of such items was drawn up as part of international export control regimes (Annex I), these items then requiring special approval. The reasons behind the Union regulation that has now been tabled are increased transparency and greater responsibility for such types of items and technologies. These are objectives that I support, which is why I voted in favour.

 
  
  

Report: Paolo De Castro (A7-0252/2011)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. (PT) I voted for this resolution on the repeal of a number of legal acts that have become obsolete because they have exhausted their effects over the last few decades, but which remain technically in force. For example, several measures relating to the accession of new Member States established temporary measures, which were to be applied immediately following their accession, but have since become obsolete.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing.(FR) Far from the myth of rampant bureaucracy, the European Union carries out regular reviews of European legislation in order to remove outdated texts, thus making the applicable law clearer. I consider this approach to be essential, both for citizens and for businesses, and that is why I endorsed this report.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. (LT) I welcomed this document. Many acts adopted in recent decades no longer have any effect, but officially remain in force. Some of them are obsolete because they were temporary or their content has been duplicated in subsequent legislation. Other legislation contained transitional measures which applied to the new Member States prior to their accession to the European Union and which expired once they became EU Member States. Although technically, these acts are still in force, they no longer have any real practical effect. The European Parliament, the Council and the Commission agreed in their interinstitutional agreement on better law making that Community law should be updated and condensed by repealing acts which are no longer applied, thus giving the acquis communautaire and all parties concerned greater clarity, transparency and simplicity.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  George Becali (NI), in writing. (RO) I voted for this report because it relates to certain regulations which were mainly aimed at transitional measures linked to the Union’s enlargement process. This means that we are updating, simplifying and condensing current European legislation.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing.(ES) I voted in favour of the report because it is necessary to adopt the various regulations in order to adapt them to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and to improve the transparency of EU law, a fundamental element of the ‘Better law making’ strategy.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing.(IT) The proposal for a regulation to repeal European Union legislative acts that have now become useless responds to the needs for legislative simplification and a reduction in the acts that no longer have any purpose within the EU’s already ample legislative corpus. Since the effects of the regulations we are preparing to repeal on other pieces of legislation are protected, and given that the effects of each of these acts on EU legislation at the time of their introduction is thereby preserved, it is worthwhile and sensible to get rid of the regulations which now only have a formal or numerical value, so to speak. I have therefore voted in favour.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. (LT) I voted in favour of this report because a large number of legal acts have been adopted in the last ten years or so in the field of the common agricultural policy, which technically remain in force, but which have actually expired. The majority of such documents are obsolete because the same area has been regulated by subsequent EU documents, while some of them were generally temporary in nature. The majority of such documents were applied for a limited period, such as documents intended to help the new Member States prepare for accession to the EU. These documents are therefore suspended on the basis of the interinstitutional agreement 2003C321/1 on better law making. It is necessary to reduce the number of EU legal acts and other documents or amend them with more condensed legislation.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. (PT) The obsolete nature of all or part of some legislative instruments is inevitable in any legal system. The temporary nature of certain acts, the occurrence of conditions that modify or resolve them, the expiry of programmes or the adoption of new legislation can, inter alia, contribute to this. It falls to the legislator to detect them and, where justified, repeal them so as to make it easier to interpret and apply the legislation actually in force. The specific irrelevance of the obsolete acts can, even so, cause unnecessary difficulties of interpretation and prevent compliance with the interinstitutional agreement on better law making. As I am a lawyer by profession, I particularly understand the need for this repeal.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. (PT) Over the course of almost six decades of existence, the European Union’s name has changed: European Economic Community, European Community and European Union. As the name has changed, many adopted regulations and directives have become dated, especially taking into account the breakneck scientific and technological changes we have witnessed over the last few decades. This report, drafted by our fellow Member, Mr de Castro, tables a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on repealing certain obsolete Council acts in the area of the common agricultural policy: temporary acts that have exhausted their effects, temporary measures resulting from the accession of new Member States, linguistic and content-related errors, etc. I therefore welcome this proposal, which aims to ‘clean up’ certain European laws that are out of step with reality and is in fulfilment of the interinstitutional agreement 2003C321/1 on better law making.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) This report concerns the repeal of a number of legal acts that have become obsolete, resulting from regulations adopted over the last few decades, which have exhausted their effects because of their temporary nature or because their content has been taken up by successive acts. A number of regulations relating to the common agricultural policy are now repealed, such as, inter alia, Community financing, systems of premiums, restrictions and suspensions of aid, establishment of common market organisations, Community compensation, common intervention prices, direct support measures for producers’ incomes and improvement of Community production. Having observed the indirect implications that many of these, now obsolete, regulations have had in our country, we must remind you that the majority of them were, over time, associated with the deterioration of the farming sector in Portugal, the exacerbation of the country’s agro-food production deficit and the increase in its foreign dependence. In this way, more problems were created for small and medium-sized farmers without the conditions necessary for their adaptation, development and modernisation having been created.

At a time when we are experiencing a profound crisis in the rural world, too, it is regrettable that the Commission has not gone against the general framework described and acted differently in some cases, specifically by extending certain beneficial regulations that are necessary for the survival of production in some countries, like Portugal, particularly as regards small and medium-sized farming.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) This report concerns the repeal of a number of legal acts that have become obsolete, resulting from regulations adopted over the last few decades, which have exhausted their effects because of their temporary nature or because their content has been taken up by successive acts.

A number of regulations relating to the common agricultural policy are now repealed, such as, inter alia, Community financing, systems of premiums, restrictions and suspensions of aid, establishment of common market organisations, Community compensation, common intervention prices, measures of direct support of producers’ incomes, and improvement of Community production.

Having observed the indirect implications that many of these, now obsolete, regulations have had in our country, we must remind you that the majority of them were, over time, associated with the deterioration of the farming sector in Portugal, the exacerbation of the country’s agro-food production deficit and the increase in its foreign dependence.

In many cases, they served to create more problems for small and medium-sized farmers without the conditions necessary for their adaptation, development and modernisation having been created. At a time when we are experiencing a profound crisis in the rural world, too, it is regrettable that the Commission has not acted differently in some cases, specifically by extending certain beneficial regulations that are necessary for the survival of production in some countries, like Portugal, particularly as regards small and medium-sized farming.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. (SK) Many acts passed in recent decades have exhausted all of their legal effects, but in spite of this, they remain effective from a technical perspective. They have become obsolete due to their temporary nature or because their content has been taken over in subsequent acts. In some measures relating to the accession of new Member States, transitional measures were laid down directly after their accession and they have now become obsolete. The European Parliament, the Council and the Commission agreed in their interinstitutional agreement on better law making that Community law should be updated and condensed by repealing acts which are no longer applied. Acts which have no continuing relevance should be removed from the acquis communautaire in order to improve the transparency and certainty of Union law.

Improving the transparency of Union law is an essential component of the strategy for better law making being implemented by EU institutions. In this context, I firmly believe that it is right to remove acts that are no longer genuinely effective from the legislation currently in force. This mainly involves regulations related to the common agricultural policy. They have become obsolete even though they are formally still in force. In the interests of legal certainty and clarity, I therefore believe that these obsolete regulations should be repealed.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. (LT) I welcomed the document because improving the transparency of Union law is an essential element of the better law making strategy that Union institutions are implementing. In that context, it is appropriate to remove from active legislation those acts which no longer have real effect. For reasons of legal certainty and clarity, those obsolete regulations should be repealed.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing.(IT) Simplification through better law making is a diktat that applies equally to the agricultural sector, where the volume of legislation is notably large. Mr De Castro’s resolution aims to repeal a number of acts that have now become obsolete, since they are no longer effective despite remaining technically in force. I therefore voted in favour of this resolution because the 20-plus regulations on various agricultural sectors – from dairy to fruit and vegetables, from tobacco to flowers – have become obsolete as subsequent acts have been drawn up to respond to the needs of a continually evolving agricultural sector in the EU 27. I consider this an effective step towards simplifying procedures by eliminating the surplus from the past in order to be able to build anew a better, simplified and effective system for European agriculture – which is much required.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Vladimír Maňka (S&D), in writing. (SK) This resolution on the repealing of certain legal acts that have become obsolete concerns a number of acts adopted over the last decades that have exhausted all their effects. Technically, however, they remain in force. They have become obsolete because of their temporary character or because their content has been taken up by successive acts. Several measures linked to the accession of new Member States provided for transitory measures directly following the time of their accession and these have now become obsolete.

A number of legal acts are repealed with the current proposal, which is based on the interinstitutional agreement on better law making. This agreement targets the simplification and reduction in the volume of legislation. According to the agreement, legislation will be updated and condensed, inter alia, through the repeal of acts which are no longer applied and through the codification or recasting of other acts.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this resolution on repealing of certain legal acts that have become obsolete. It concerns a number of acts which were adopted over the last decades, have exhausted all their effects, but remain technically in force. They have become obsolete because of their temporary character or because their content has been taken up by successive acts. Several measures linked to the accession of new Member States provided for transitory measures directly following the time of their accession, and by now have become obsolete. A number of legal acts are repealed with the current proposal, which is based on interinstitutional agreement 2003C321/1 on better law making. This agreement targets the simplifying and reducing of the volume of legislation (point 35). According to the agreement, legislation will be updated and condensed, inter alia, through the repeal of acts which are no longer applied and through the codification or recasting of other acts.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Marisa Matias (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) Transparent legislation is essential in order to make the EU more democratic and to provide equality of access for all citizens. As such, in order to remove legal mazes and to increase the clarity and security of European legislation, obsolete regulations should be repealed. This report repeals regulations relating to the common agricultural policy that have remained formally in force, despite having become obsolete and ineffective, notably because they relate to temporary measures, because their content has been repeated in later acts or because new measures have been introduced. It is entirely appropriate to remove acts that no longer have any real effect from the legislation in force, so I voted for this report.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. (PT) The simplification of the legislation in force is always welcome, so I am voting for this Commission proposal to repeal a number of legal acts, tabled by Parliament and the Council under the ordinary legislative procedure. This proposal appears in the context of the European Union’s commitment to improving its legislative policy and to simplifying the legislation in force, with a view to creating greater clarity in the legislative process in the area of common agricultural policy.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – Report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on repealing certain obsolete Council acts in the field of the common agricultural policy. It is high time we have these measures and I even would suggest making some additions to this report. Disproportional quotas and requirements do not stimulate the production of agricultural products. I voted ‘in favour’.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution, providing for the repeal of certain obsolete Council acts in the field of the common agricultural policy, because European Union legislation must be transparent and function effectively. Attention should be drawn to the fact that many regulations in the field of the common agricultural policy are still in force, although they have become obsolete and do not reflect the realities of current political and social relations. They were of a temporary nature or their content has been duplicated in subsequent legal acts. Consequently, it is appropriate to remove from active legislation those acts which no longer have any real effect. I believe that we must make every effort to ensure clarity, legal certainty and an improved legal framework at EU level.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing.(IT) The constant changes in regulatory requirements in European agriculture have made it necessary to simplify the existing legislation on the subject since many obsolete acts remain in force. There are some 25 regulations on various agricultural sectors that need to be updated or repealed as they have been replaced by new rules that meet current requirements. In line with the principle of legislative simplification adopted by the EU, I think we need to repeal these outdated rules that are no longer actually effective and only represent a legal burden for agricultural markets.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. (PT) The purpose of this report is to repeal a number of obsolete legal acts, with a view to improving the quality of the legislation in force and simplifying it, thereby creating a better and clearer legislative environment. I voted for this report, since the lawyer linguists of the Council and Parliament have approved these amendments by mutual agreement, and proposed that all the amendments be voted on together as part of a single vote.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing.(IT) This resolution on the repealing of certain legal acts that have become obsolete concerns a number of acts which were adopted over the last decades and have exhausted all their effects, but remain technically in force. They have become obsolete because of their temporary character or because their content has been taken up by successive acts. Several measures linked to the accession of new Member States provided for transitory measures for the period directly after the time of their accession; these have now become obsolete. I fully agree on all of this and congratulate Mr De Castro on his work.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. (PT) Improving the transparency of Union law is an essential element of the better law making strategy that Union institutions are implementing and it is, in this context, necessary to repeal those acts that no longer have any real effect. That is the purpose of this proposal, which aims to repeal a number of regulations relating to the common agricultural policy that have become obsolete, even though they are still in force.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. This resolution on the repeal of certain legal acts that have become obsolete concerns a number of acts which were adopted over the last decades, have exhausted all their effects, but remain technically in force. They have become obsolete because of their temporary character or because their content has been taken up by successive acts. Several measures linked to the accession of new Member States provided for transitory measures immediately after their accession and have become obsolete by now. A number of legal acts are repealed under the current proposal, which is based on the interinstitutional agreement on better law making (OJ C 321 of 31.12.2003). This agreement targets the simplification and reduction of the volume of legislation (point 35). According to the agreement, ‘legislation will be updated and condensed, inter alia, through the repeal of acts which are no longer applied and through the codification or recasting of other acts’.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing.(IT) I voted in favour of the proposal to repeal these acts because it is motivated by the European Union’s political commitment to improve the quality of its legislative activity and to simplify existing legislation. Indeed, this is the only way to create a clearer, better legislative environment for businesses.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. (DE) As the rapporteur establishes, a number of regulations in the area of the common agricultural policy still remain formally in force, despite the fact that they are now outdated. The purpose of this regulation is to rescind these. Bearing in mind that efforts to reform the common agricultural policy have been under way for many years now, this step is already long overdue.

 
  
  

Report: Vital Moreira (A7-0257/2011)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. (PT) I voted for the repeal of certain obsolete Council acts in the area of EU common commercial policy adopted over recent decades, which remain technically in force, despite having exhausted their effects. These acts have become obsolete because of their temporary nature, because their content has been taken up by successive acts or resulted from an international agreement which was subsequently replaced by another agreement, or because they were meant as an interim instrument for the period prior to the entry into force of an international agreement, which had taken place in the meantime. The main purpose of this type of repeal of certain legal acts is improving the quality of the legislation in force and simplifying it, with a view to creating a better and clearer legislative environment for businesses.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. (LT) I welcomed this document. Many acts adopted in recent decades no longer have any effect but officially remain in force. Some of them are obsolete because they were temporary or their content has been duplicated in other legislation. Other legal acts contained transitional measures which applied to the new Member States prior to their accession to the European Union. Although technically these acts are still in force, they no longer have any real practical effect. The European Parliament, the Council and the Commission agreed in their interinstitutional agreement on better law making that Community law should be updated and condensed by repealing acts which are no longer applied, thus giving the acquis communautaire and all parties concerned greater clarity, transparency and simplicity.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing.(ES) I voted in favour of adopting this draft legislative resolution because of the need to adapt and repeal certain Council acts made obsolete under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing.(IT) The Commission’s proposal to repeal obsolete legislative acts on international trade responds to the need to clarify and simplify legislation. Indeed, such acts have now lost all real legal significance since they are either provisional acts that have already exceeded their temporal scope, acts that have been superseded over time by other rules, or even acts governing agreements with third countries that have joined the EU in the meantime. I therefore voted in favour of the proposal to repeal these acts so that the job of simplifying and clarifying the huge corpus of EU legislation can continue and so that the European legislative environment, little by little, can respond increasingly well to the requirement for clarity.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. (PT) Like several Member States, including my own, the European Union has legislated a lot, which does not always mean the same as legislated well. This fact is now unanimously accepted by the institutions participating in the legislative process, and has even been the motivation for an interinstitutional agreement intended to promote the adoption of better legislation. Despite this effort, it is clear that some adopted legislative acts are now obsolete – such as some of those relating to the common commercial policy – and this fully justifies their removal from the legal system, so as to simplify and clarify it.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. (PT) Over the course of almost six decades of existence, the European Union’s name has changed: European Economic Community, European Community and European Union. In the same way as the name has changed, many adopted regulations and directives have become dated, especially taking into account the breakneck scientific and technological changes we have witnessed over the last few decades. This report, drafted by our fellow Member, Mr Moreira, tables a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on repealing certain obsolete Council acts: temporary acts that have exhausted their effects, content that has been taken up by successive acts or resulted from a subsequently repealed international agreement, interim instruments, measures linked to the accession of new Member States, etc. I therefore welcome this proposal, which aims to ‘clean up’ certain European laws that are out of step with reality and is in fulfilment of the interinstitutional agreement on better law making, which, in the name of transparency and the certainty of Union law, recommends their repeal, with a view to ‘more clarity and legal certainty for the Union’s citizens and institutions’.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. (SK) The Commission proposal to repeal a number of acts stems from the political commitment of the EU to improve the quality of law making and to simplify the legislation currently in force, in order to create a better and clearer legislative environment for businesses. Many acts adopted in previous decades in the area of the common commercial policy of the Union have lost all of their effect but are formally still effective. These acts have become obsolete due to their temporary nature, because their content has been taken over by subsequent acts, or because their content arose from an international agreement later replaced by another agreement, or they were intended to be temporary instruments for a period prior to the entry into force of an international agreement, which has taken place in the meantime.

Moreover, after the accession of new Member States, many measures relating to accession became obsolete. The European Parliament, the Council and the Commission agreed in their interinstitutional agreement on better law making that Community law should be updated and condensed by repealing acts which are no longer applied. Acts which have no continued relevance should be removed from the acquis communautaire in order to improve the transparency and certainty of Union law. I firmly believe that the purpose and aim of the submitted amendments must be to achieve a greater level of clarity and legal certainty for the citizens of the Union.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. (LT) The Commission’s proposal to repeal a number of legal acts, as presented to the European Parliament and the Council under the ordinary legislative procedure, is driven by the European Union’s policy commitment to improve the quality of law making, and to simplify the legislation in force in order to create a better and clearer legislative environment for businesses. Many legal acts in the area of the Union’s common commercial policy adopted in recent decades no longer have any impact but officially remain in force. These acts have become obsolete. The European Parliament, the Council and the Commission agreed in their interinstitutional agreement on better law making that Community law should be updated and condensed by repealing acts which are no longer applied. Acts that are no longer relevant should be removed from the acquis communautaire in order to improve the transparency and certainty of Union law. I welcomed the document because the proposed amendments are intended to ensure more clarity and legal certainty for the Union’s citizens and institutions.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Vladimír Maňka (S&D), in writing. (SK) The Commission proposal to repeal a number of acts, as presented to the European Parliament and the Council under the ordinary legislative procedure, stems from the political commitment of the EU to improve the quality of law making and to simplify the legislation currently in force, in order to create a better and clearer legislative environment for businesses.

Many acts adopted in previous decades in the area of the common commercial policy of the Union have lost all of their effect but are formally still effective. These acts became obsolete:

- due to their transitory nature

- because their content has been taken up by successive acts

- because they were based on an international agreement subsequently replaced by another agreement

- because they were intended as a transitory instrument for the period prior to the entry into force of an international agreement that has become law in the meantime.

The European Parliament, the Council and the Commission agreed in their interinstitutional agreement on better law making that Community law should be updated and condensed by repealing acts which are no longer applied. Acts which have no continued relevance should be removed from the acquis communautaire in order to improve the transparency and certainty of Union law.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this resolution supporting a Commission proposal to repeal a number of legal acts, as presented to the European Parliament and the Council under the ordinary legislative procedure. The proposal is driven by the European Union’s policy commitment to improve the quality of law making, and to simplify the legislation in force with a view to creating a better and clearer legislative environment for businesses

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. (PT) The simplification of the legislation in force is always welcome, so I am voting for this Commission proposal to repeal a number of legal acts, tabled by Parliament and the Council under the ordinary legislative procedure. This proposal appears in the context of the European Union’s commitment to improving its legislative policy, so as to simplify the legislation in force, with a view to creating greater clarity in the legislative process for businesses.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – A number of acts which were adopted over the last decades have exhausted all their effects, but remain technically in force. They have become obsolete because of their temporary character or because their content has been incorporated in successive acts. Well, finally, functionaries from the European Commission have woken up. How long did it take to ask them to work? Moreira did a great job! I voted ‘in favour’.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. (PT) The purpose of this report is to repeal a number of obsolete acts, with a view to improving and simplifying the legislation in force, thereby creating a better and clearer legislative environment for businesses.

Indeed, certain legal acts of the Union’s common commercial policy adopted over recent decades have completely exhausted their effects but remain technically in force. These acts have become obsolete because of their temporary nature, because their content has been taken up by successive acts or resulted from an international agreement which was subsequently replaced by another agreement, or simply because they were an interim instrument for the period prior to the entry into force of an international agreement, which has taken place in the meantime. In addition, various measures linked to the accession of new Member States became obsolete following that particular expansion process. On the basis of the principles enshrined in the interinstitutional agreement on better law making, for which I also voted, I voted for this report, which promotes the repeal of acts that are no longer applied, with a view to improving the transparency and certainty of Union law.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. (PT) Improving the transparency of Union law is an essential element of the ‘better law making’ strategy that Union institutions are implementing and it is, in this context, necessary to repeal those acts that no longer have any real effect. That is the purpose of this proposal, which aims to repeal a number of regulations relating to the common commercial policy that have become obsolete, even though they are still in force.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. The Commission’s proposal to repeal a number of legal acts, as presented to the European Parliament and the Council under the ordinary legislative procedure, is driven by the European Union’s policy commitment to improve the quality of law making and simplify the legislation in force with a view to creating a better and clearer legislative environment for businesses. Many legal acts in the area of the common commercial policy which were adopted in the last decades have exhausted all their effects, but remain technically into force.

These acts have become obsolete because of their temporary character (Council Regulation (EEC) No 478/92, Council Regulation (EEC) No 3125/92, Council Regulation (EC) No 2798/1999, Council Regulation (EC) No 215/2000, Council Decision 2004/910/EC, Council Regulation (EC) No 1923/2004), or because their content has been taken up by successive acts (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1471/88, Council Decision 2007/317/EC) or resulted from an international agreement which was subsequently replaced by another agreement (Council Regulation (EC) No 2184/96, Council Regulation (EC) No 2398/96), or because they were meant as an interim instrument for the period prior to the entry into force of an international agreement which took place in the meantime (Council Regulation (EC) No 1722/1999).

 
  
  

Report: Vital Moreira (A7-0250/2011)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. (PT) I voted for the repeal of Regulation (EEC) No 429/73 and Regulation (EC) No 215/2000, which were rendered obsolete by Decision No 1/95 of the EC-Turkey Association Council of 22 December 1995 on implementing the final phase of the customs union, which eliminated customs duties for goods originating in Turkey. Parliament, the Council and the Commission established in their interinstitutional agreement on better law making that Union law should be updated and condensed through the repeal of acts that are no longer applied. Therefore, acts that are no longer relevant should be withdrawn from the acquis communautaire, so as to improve transparency, and establish greater clarity and legal certainty for EU citizens and institutions.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. (LT) I welcomed this document. Many acts adopted in recent decades no longer have any effect, but officially remain in force. Some of them are no longer relevant because they were temporary or their content was duplicated in other legal acts. Other legal acts contained transitional measures to be applied to the new Member States prior to becoming EU Members. Although technically these are still in force, they no longer have a practical effect. The European Parliament, the Council and the Commission agreed in their interinstitutional agreement on better law making that Community law should be updated and condensed by repealing acts which are no longer applied, thus giving the acquis communautaire and all parties concerned greater clarity, transparency and simplicity.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing.(ES) I gave my support to the initiative due to the consequences of Parliament’s commitment to improve and simplify the quality of legislation for the benefit of companies. Therefore, what we have done is repeal obsolete legislation in order to improve transparency and legal certainty for EU citizens.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. (PT) The regulations in question concerning processed agricultural products have become obsolete like other legislative instruments, so justifying their repeal. In the first case, EU-Turkey trade relations have changed so much that the constant standards of that legal instrument no longer make sense. In the second, concessions were established in the form of Community tariff quotas in 1995, and their effects have naturally expired.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. (PT) The European Commission has decided to repeal a number of legal acts, such as the provisions relating to customs duties for goods originating in Turkey, since it believes that many regulations and directives adopted in recent decades are now out-of-date, especially taking into account the breakneck scientific and technological changes we have witnessed over the last few decades.

This report, drafted by our fellow Member, Mr Moreira, tables a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council repealing Regulation (EEC) No 429/73 making special provisions for imports into the Community of certain goods coming under Regulation (EEC) No 1059/69 and originating in Turkey, and Regulation (EC) No 215/2000 renewing for 2000 the measures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1416/95 establishing certain concessions in the form of Community tariff quotas in 1995 for certain processed agricultural products.

I therefore welcome this proposal, which aims to ‘clean up’ certain obsolete European laws that are out of step with reality and is in fulfilment of the interinstitutional agreement on better law making, which, in the name of transparency and the certainty of Union law, recommends their repeal, with a view to ‘more clarity and legal certainty for the Union’s citizens and institutions’.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. (SK) The Commission has got rid of obsolete legislation on several occasions, mainly by declaring the relevant acts of the Commission obsolete. The Commission recently declared almost 250 agricultural legal acts obsolete, and in the near future, some other agricultural legal acts and about 60 legal acts from the field of trading in processed agricultural products will be declared obsolete. In the interests of legal certainty, the Commission is proposing that the legal acts listed in this motion be repealed by the Council, since this is not within the competence or rights of the Commission. The motion concerns the repeal of Council Regulation (EEC) No 429/73, which specifies a reduced fixed component of import duty for processed agricultural products originating in Turkey. The provisions of the regulation have become obsolete, since Decision No 1/95 of the EC-Turkey Association Council of 22 December 1995 on implementing the final phase of the customs union removed import duties on goods originating in Turkey.

The motion also relates to the repeal of Council Regulation (EEC) No 215/2000, the legal effect of which has become exhausted. The motion is analogous to a similar motion for obsolete agricultural legal acts, which is referred to in the continuing programme of simplification adopted within the framework of the recently updated Commission strategy for simplifying the regulatory environment. In the interests of legal certainty and clarity, I fully agree with the Council’s view that Regulations (EEC) No 429/73 and 215/2000 should be repealed.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. (LT) Regulation (EEC) No 429/73 of the Council was adopted in order to determine the reduced fixed component of import duties for processed agricultural products originating in Turkey and imported within the framework of the Additional Protocol to the 1970 Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey. Decision No 1/95 of the EC-Turkey Association Council of 22 December 1995 on implementing the final phase of the customs union lays down the rules for determining the customs duties for processed agricultural products originating in Turkey and imported into the European Union. Regulation (EEC) No 429/73 has become obsolete. I therefore welcomed the repeal of this document.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Vladimír Maňka (S&D), in writing. (SK) The proposal to repeal this act stems from the political commitment of the EU to improve the quality of law making and to simplify the legislation currently in force in order to create a better and clearer legislative environment for businesses.

The provisions of the regulation became obsolete because Decision No 1/95 of the EC-Turkey Association Council of 22 December 1995 on implementing the final phase of the customs union has eliminated customs duties for goods originating in Turkey.

The European Parliament, the Council and the Commission agreed in their interinstitutional agreement on better law making that Community law should be updated and condensed by repealing acts which are no longer applied. Acts which have no continued relevance should be removed from the acquis communautaire in order to improve the transparency and certainty of Union law.

I agree with the Commission proposal, which clearly states that the Commission does not have the authority to declare obsolete acts adopted by the Council or by the European Parliament and the Council. It is in the interests of legal certainty for the EU’s law-making body to consent to the repeal of legislation.

The purpose of the amendments submitted is to achieve a greater level of clarity and legal certainty for the citizens and institutions of the Union.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report as a straightforward common sense measure.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. (PT) I voted for this resolution, which supports the Commission’s proposal to repeal a number of legal acts, as tabled by Parliament and the Council under the ordinary legislative procedure. This proposal is driven by the European Union’s commitment to simplifying and improving the quality of the legislation in force, with a view to creating a better and clearer legislative environment as regards implementing the final phase of the customs union that has eliminated customs duties for goods originating in Turkey.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution, which proposes repealing the regulation making special provisions for imports into the Community of certain goods originating in Turkey. Attention should be drawn to the fact that Decision No 1/95 of the EC-Turkey Association Council of 22 December 1995 on implementing the final phase of the customs union has eliminated customs duties for goods originating in Turkey. Given this, and in order to improve the transparency and certainty of Union law, acts that are no longer relevant should be immediately removed from the acquis communautaire. I also believe that a positive business environment must be created, both for large business entities and small and medium-sized companies, and a better, clearer and effectively functioning legal framework must be established. For this reason, we must make every effort to ensure that the quality of law making is improved and legislation in force is simplified, in order to guarantee greater clarity and legal certainty for citizens, business entities and institutions.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. (PT) The purposes of this report are the same as for report A-0257/2011, for which I voted. It concerns the repeal of acts that are no longer relevant, so as to improve transparency and legal certainty in the Union. It is not, in fact, within the Commission’s powers to declare obsolete acts which were adopted by the Council or the European Parliament and the Council. That is why, in the interests of legal certainty, the repeal of legal acts must be authorised by the Union’s legislator. As such, and as the proposed amendments are intended to establish more clarity and legal certainty for the Union’s citizens and institutions, I voted for this report.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. (PT) Improving the transparency of Union law is an essential element of the ‘better law making’ strategy that Union institutions are implementing and it is, in this context, necessary to repeal those acts that no longer have any real effect. That is the purpose of this proposal, which aims to repeal Regulation (EEC) No 429/73 making special provisions for imports into the Community of certain goods coming under Regulation (EEC) No 1059/69 and originating in Turkey, and Regulation (EC) No 215/2000 renewing for 2000 the measures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1416/95 establishing certain concessions in the form of Community tariff quotas in 1995 for certain processed agricultural products.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – I voted in favour. The Commission’s proposal to repeal this legal act, as presented to Parliament and the Council under the ordinary legislative procedure, is driven by the European Union’s policy commitment to improve the quality of law making, and to simplify the legislation in force in view of creating a better and clearer legislative environment for businesses. Its provisions became obsolete because Decision No 1/95 of the EC-Turkey Association Council of 22 December 1995 on implementing the final phase of the customs union has eliminated customs duties for goods originating in Turkey.

Parliament, the Council and the Commission agreed in their interinstitutional agreement on better law making that Community law should be updated and condensed by repealing acts which are no longer applied. Acts which have no continued relevance should be removed from the acquis communautaire in order to improve the transparency and certainty of Union law. The proposed amendments are intended to establish more clarity and legal certainty for the Union’s citizens and institutions.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. (DE) I voted in favour of the report since this legal act is intended to simplify the provisions in force, thereby directly making the framework conditions for European enterprises clearer. Indirectly, it also brings about legal certainty for the citizens of Europe.

 
  
  

Report: Sajjad Karim (A7-0272/2011)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. (RO) The European Union’s environmental policy is based on the precautionary principle and preventive action, as well as on the principle of rectification, mainly at source, of the damage caused to the environment, and on the ‘polluter pays’ principle.

The environmental impact must be taken into account as early as possible in every process involving technical planning and making decisions. I think that public and private projects which may have a significant environmental impact should only be authorised after a preliminary assessment has been carried out of the possible effects these projects could have on the environment.

This assessment should be carried out on the basis of suitable information supplied by the initiator of the project, which can be supplemented by authorities and people who might be involved in the relevant project. Certain types of projects have a significant environmental impact and they should be subject, in general, to systematic assessments. I voted in favour of this report.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. (LT) The European Parliament and the Commission have agreed to ensure that Union law is simpler, clearer, more comprehensible and accessible to citizens, so that they can properly make use of the rights granted to them. EU law making is a complicated process. Many provisions are often amended in part or in spirit, and they are scattered across various documents. Therefore, codification is used as the basis for merging legislation without changing its content. I welcomed this amendment to the directive on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, which will merge all of the provisions in force in this area into one document.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing.(ES) I voted in favour of this initiative, which does not make substantial amendments but, rather, is a codification of existing laws in accordance with what has been established by the consultative group of the European Parliament’s legal services.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. (PT) I voted for this resolution, which is a straightforward codification of the existing texts, without any change in their substance. However, consent should only be given to public and private projects that are likely to have a significant impact on the environment once an assessment of the likely significant environmental effects of those projects has been carried out. This assessment should be carried out on the basis of adequate information provided by the developer, which may be supplemented by the authorities and by the public likely to be concerned by the project in question.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. (PT) A sustainable and consistent environmental policy that does not harm competitiveness is required for green growth, thereby necessitating the uniform assessment of the impact of both public and private projects on the environment. I am therefore voting for the Commission proposal for codification of legislation relating to the assessment of certain public and private projects on the environment.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. (PT) In this sitting, following the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (codified text), Parliament has adopted the report tabled by Mr Karim. The European Commission ascribes great importance to the simplification and clarification of Union legislation, in order to make it more legible and accessible for citizens, so that they are increasingly enabled to use the specific rights conferred on them.

To increase the efficiency of administrative procedures, the Commission decided, in April 1987, to codify all acts no later than after 10 amendments, and stressed that this was a minimum requirement and that the services should make every effort to codify the texts for which they are responsible at shorter intervals, where possible.

Given that the proposal is intended as a straightforward codification of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, I am voting for this proposal in the knowledge that it will result in a significant improvement in administrative procedures.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. (SK) Within the Europe of Citizens framework, the Commission is attaching great importance to simplifying and clarifying EU law, with the aim of making it more comprehensible and more accessible to citizens, giving them new opportunities and a chance to exercise the specific rights it provides them with in a more effective way. The achievement of this aim will not be possible, however, as long as a situation persists where there are numerous scattered provisions, repeated and often amended in terms of their essential scope, and in many legal acts, from the original legal act up to its most recent amendment, all of which requires an exhaustive search and the comparison of many legal acts in order to identify the positive law. The clarity and transparency of law therefore requires the frequent codification of amended legal acts. Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment was repeatedly amended in a fundamental way.

In the interests of clarity and transparency, this directive should be codified. I personally believe that the impacts of the project on the environment should be assessed with regard to the interest in protecting human health, enhancing the environment, contributing to quality of life, ensuring the maintenance of species diversity and conserving the reproductive capacity of the environment as the basic source of life.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. (LT) I welcomed the document because it highlights the huge importance of simple and clear laws which are accessible and easily understood. We must ensure that the principle of the transparency of Union law is followed and that the law is implemented more effectively. We must also aim to ensure that it is simpler for EU citizens to exercise their rights. When drafting proposals, the European institutions must respect the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. When putting forward legislative proposals, the form of regulations should be used more often, so that fewer but better legal acts are adopted. I welcome the European Citizens’ Initiative, as a new form of public participation in the drafting of European Union policy. The Commission absolutely must ensure that citizens are aware of the rules and regulations applied, so that they can use this instrument effectively.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Vladimír Maňka (S&D), in writing. (SK) Having regard to the interinstitutional agreement of 20 December 1994 on an accelerated working method for official codification of legislative texts, and particularly point 4 of the agreement, the Commission proposal has been examined. It was examined by a consultative working group composed of the relevant legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission.

The subject of the proposal is merely the clear and simple codification of texts currently in force, with no substantial amendments, and I have therefore voted in favour of it.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this resolution, which – according to the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission – is a straightforward codification of the existing texts without any change in their substance.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. (PT) According to the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, the purpose of this report is the straightforward codification of existing texts, without any change in their substance, which is why I voted in favour.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The directive was based on the principle of preventive actions. Environmental protection measures should be taken in advance and should be aimed at elimination of the source. Any economic project, either public or private, which may affect the environment, for example, the construction of roads or the beginning of the functioning of a metal production shop, should respectively undergo ecological assessment. In the document, serious attention is paid to distribution of ecologically important information and the opinion of all stakeholders should be taken into account. In general, the report is useful and reasonable.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. (LT) We approved without discussion the codified text of the legal act regulating certain aspects of the environmental impact assessment procedure. On the one hand, we have thus given the public and businesses legal certainty by officially placing all of the provisions in one document. On the other hand, cases are constantly emerging (from the Nord Stream pipeline to projects of local importance in the Member States) which demonstrate that, in future, we will seriously have to discuss certain key aspects of the environmental impact assessment process, such as guaranteeing that the process is independent from those who ordered it and the extension of the concept of the public concerned. The European Commission, as the guardian of EU law, could also play a more active (and, above all, impartial) role in this process, particularly in cases where a project has a cross-border aspect. I therefore call on the Commission to take these comments into account when revising the key provisions of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. (PT) The Consultative Working Party established by the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission met to assess the proposal in this report on 19 April and 18 May 2011. After analysing the text, the Consultative Working Party concluded, without dissent, that the proposal is a straightforward codification of existing texts, without any change in their substance. On the basis of that opinion, I voted for this report.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing.(IT) The proposal in question is merely a codification of the existing texts, without any substantive amendments.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. (PT) Given that the purpose of this directive is the codification of various earlier texts, with benefits in terms of the accessibility and comprehensibility of the legislation, without any changes to their substance, I voted for this resolution.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – I voted in favour. As this is a codified text, the resolution simply reads: ‘A. whereas, according to the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, the proposal in question contains a straightforward codification of the existing texts without any change in their substance, 1. Adopts its position at first reading, taking over the Commission proposal as adapted to the recommendations of the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission; 2. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments’.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. (PT) Article 191(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union mentions that ‘Union policy on the environment shall aim at a high level of protection’ and that its action must be based ‘on the precautionary principle and […] that preventive action should be taken’. I am voting for this proposal for a directive because I agree with the harmonisation of the general principles of assessment of certain public and private projects in the area of the environment. I believe projects can only be officially approved by the competent authorities following ex ante evaluation of their real effects.

The Member States should also be given the freedom to set thresholds and criteria allowing projects without a significant environmental impact to be exempt from evaluation. In line with Article 6 of the Aarhus Convention, I consider it extremely positive for the public to be involved in the decision-making processes of projects that affect the environment, by increasing the involvement of local communities and their resulting accountability. However, it is important to create rules and procedures for their active participation, and it is also important to establish an environmental culture that reconciles the development of the regions with the protection of nature.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Dominique Vlasto (PPE), in writing.(FR) The priority given by local authorities to major local development projects raises the issue of addressing their impact on the environment. This is even more the case when these projects are implemented through public/private partnerships, either because of their technical complexity or because of the diminishing public funds available to them. I am therefore delighted that our Parliament has taken up this issue and is reaffirming the ‘polluter pays’ principle at this time. I feel that it is no longer possible to compromise when it comes to protecting our environment, our quality of life or our health. However, some of these projects are likely to have a real impact on the population, biodiversity and our living environment, and it is up to us to emphasise the precautionary principle and set up a suitable liability and compensation system. To my mind, this method should be used from development right up to implementation; public consultations should be organised, and risks, alternatives and ways of eliminating any risks to the environment and to the population should be taken into account.

 
  
  

Report: Norbert Glante (A7-0260/2011)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. (PT) I voted for the report on the public regulated service (PRS) offered by the global navigation satellite system established under the Galileo programme because I believe that the PRS is one of the essential services offered by Galileo, which ensures and guarantees security even in serious crisis situations. The PRS is one of the five services made available by the European satellite navigation system, Galileo: the open service, the commercial service, the safety-of-life service, the search and rescue service and the public regulated service (PRS).

This proposal concerns the PRS, whose use is restricted exclusively to users authorised by governments for sensitive applications, such as critical infrastructure, transport, internal and external security, and emergency services. I consider it important to establish common standards applicable to the use, management and supervision of access to the PRS. The mechanism proposed in this report intended to ensure security strikes the requisite balance between the definition of common minimum standards and enforcement of the rules at EU level, on the one hand, and decentralisation of the supervision currently provided by the Member States, on the other.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution on the rules for access to the public regulated service offered by the global navigation satellite system established under the Galileo programme. The public regulated service (PRS) is one of five services provided by the European satellite navigation programme Galileo. PRS is restricted to government-authorised users for sensitive applications (such as critical infrastructure, transport, internal and external security and emergency services). The PRS is not due to become operational until 2014, but it is important that the requisite legal framework should be established in advance so that the Member States and other actors have sufficient time to establish the various monitoring mechanisms and meet the mandatory security standards. I therefore welcome the Commission’s proposal contained in the resolution to create a detailed legal framework governing access to the PRS and the administration and supervision of users, the aim being to guarantee the security of the system and the protection of information. A high level of security is essential because certain PRS-related applications may be politically and strategically sensitive.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing.(FR) The Galileo programme is a European initiative aimed at setting up a global satellite navigation system at the cutting edge of technology, providing a global positioning service that is extremely reliable and precise, under civilian control. The public regulated service (PRS) is among the three initial services that Galileo could offer from 2014. It is exclusively reserved to governments and authorised users; it will provide a high-level continued service, linked to very robust encrypted signals for certain sensitive applications. The use of the PRS should make it possible to protect critical infrastructure that depends on satellite navigation and which could be used in a crisis situation. I supported this proposal, which lays down the rules on restricted access to the PRS and establishes a framework for properly implementing these access conditions. As far as I am concerned, Galileo is one of the symbolic projects of European integration, and I hope that the initial teething troubles are now behind us.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. (LT) I voted in favour of this document. The Commission’s proposal covers the public regulated service (PRS) offered by the European satellite navigation programme, Galileo, which is restricted to government-authorised users for sensitive applications (such as critical infrastructure, transport, internal and external security and emergency services). These applications call for a high level of precision and reliability, and this proposal therefore creates a detailed legal framework governing access to the PRS and the administration and supervision of users.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Gerard Batten (EFD), in writing. – I voted against the Galileo programme as an expensive, useless and void EU project which alleges to replace the GPS system and, for example, enhance border security, but, in fact, is an ambitious project which merely seeks to promote the EU brand globally. Taxpayers’ money must be spent on more reasonable projects than sending into space EU-labelled satellites in order to compete with the USA. The purpose of Galileo is to further the EU’s plans for one military force to which I am totally opposed.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Sergio Berlato (PPE), in writing. (IT) The public regulated service (PRS) provided under Galileo, the European satellite navigation programme, is restricted exclusively to government-authorised users. It is only to be used for sensitive applications such as, for example, critical infrastructure, transport, internal and external security and emergency services, which require a high level of precision and reliability. The report under debate regulates one of the first services that Galileo could start to provide to Member States from 2014 onwards: a system that will enable the protection of critical infrastructures that depend on satellite navigation, thereby guaranteeing a high level of service continuity. I share Mr Glante’s belief that the proposed arrangements designed to guarantee this security strike the requisite balance between the enforcement of rules at EU level, on the one hand, and decentralisation of the supervision currently provided by the Member States, on the other. Although, for the moment, it is necessary to restrict the manufacture of PRS receivers to EU territory, we need to consider the eventuality that production might also be extended to other countries in future. Therefore, I take the view that from now on, it would be a good idea to set up security agreements laying down the conditions governing such authorisation, with a view to guaranteeing compliance with the common minimum standards.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing.(ES) I voted in favour of this report because the public regulated service (PRS) is one of the vital services offered by Galileo. The proposal creates a detailed legal framework governing access to the PRS and the administration and supervision of users in order to guarantee the security of the system and the protection of information. Bearing in mind that it will be operational in 2014, it is important to adopt that framework in advance so that the Member States and other actors have sufficient time to establish the various monitoring mechanisms and meet the mandatory security standards.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. (LT) I voted in favour of this report because I agree that it is important to establish our own European satellite navigation system, and the document that we voted in favour of today concerns one of the five main services of the Galileo programme due to be established. The document which the European Parliament voted for today is intended to establish the necessary legal framework for the Galileo programme, which will become operational in 2014 and which has as its principal objective the provision of a satellite navigation public regulated service. This service would be restricted to government-authorised users for sensitive applications (such as critical infrastructure, transport, internal and external security and emergency services).

These applications call for a high level of precision and reliability, for which reason powerful, encrypted signals will be used in this project. The programmes used to provide this service may, of course, be a very sensitive issue for Member States from a political or strategic point of view, and it is therefore necessary to ensure the highest level of security. That is why the legal framework for such a programme is being established now.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Jan Březina (PPE), in writing. (CS) I welcome the establishment of the public regulated service (PRS) which is to be under the Galileo European satellite navigation programme, and the continuous service of which should be guaranteed, even in serious crisis situations. Since a failure to observe security rules can also have an impact on other participants and users (for example, unauthorised and hostile use of the PRS can result in security-related shortcomings), the use, management and control of access to the PRS should operate on the basis of common standards. In my opinion, the proposed arrangements designed to guarantee security strike the requisite balance between the definition of common minimum standards and enforcement of the rules at EU level, on the one hand, and decentralisation of the supervision currently provided by the Member States, on the other. In view of the fact that participation in the PRS is voluntary for all Member States, and that Member States also decide for themselves on the type of PRS use and on whether users should pay for the service (while taking account of the fact that the GPS signal is free of charge), it would only be fair, in my opinion, for the national operating costs to be met only by those Member States that are participating in the PRS.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – I voted against the Galileo programme as an expensive and vain EU project which alleges that it makes air travel safer, cuts time spent in traffic jams and enhances border security, but, in fact, it is an ambitious project which merely seeks to promote the EU brand internationally. Taxpayers’ money must be spent on more meaningful projects than sending into space 30 satellites, simply in order to compete with the USA.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Antonio Cancian (PPE), in writing.(IT) I voted in favour of Mr Glante’s report on access to the public regulated service (PRS) offered by the global navigation satellite system established under the Galileo programme because I think the initiative to establish a legal framework on the subject is worthy of support. The PRS is restricted exclusively to government-authorised users for sensitive applications that require a high level of precision and reliability, such as infrastructure, transport, internal and external security, and emergency services. Clear rules are required for the management and supervision of the system, as well as for the protection of sensitive data and information security. The appointment of national authorities that will provide this supervision and guarantee compliance with these rules represents a critically important step forward in this area. I also appreciate the Commission’s desire to work with the Member States to establish a shared legal basis to underpin this matter, thereby enshrining the necessary Europe-wide uniformity and consistency, as well as the due attention to the individual circumstances and characteristics of each State.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. (PT) Galileo is of strategic importance for the independence of the Union regarding satellite navigation, positioning and timing services, and will offer an important contribution to the implementation of the ‘Europe 2020’ strategy, as well as to smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Use and management of the public regulated service (PRS) is therefore the joint responsibility of Member States in order to protect the security of the Union and their own security. Consequently, access to the PRS must be strictly limited to certain categories of user, which are subject to continuous monitoring.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Lara Comi (PPE), in writing.(IT) Galileo is one of the crowning glories of Europe’s industrial and research system. I voted in favour of this report because, following convoluted negotiations with the Council, Mr Glante has managed to obtain a number of significant victories for the citizens of the European Union. I am referring, in particular, to the respect for privacy and data protection. At the same time, I am also referring to the desire to sell this technology’s marketable aspects in order to derive suitable benefit from the excellent work carried out each and every day by researchers, engineers and specialists in Europe, which has an ever increasing need for top-quality new technologies. With regard to the uses that this proposal deals with, I also particularly appreciated Mr Glante’s emphasis on security. This is of enormous importance and the European Union cannot tolerate missteps if we want to make further progress in developing high-quality technology.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. (FR) I endorsed this proposal on the Galileo programme because, following this vote, the parties authorised by the Member States’ governments will be able, from 2014, to use data from the satellite navigation system in order to carry out emergency, defence and security operations. We can be pleased that the European governments will be less reliant on the US GPS system. European space policy is crucial to ensuring that Europe holds a strong position on the world stage. The European Union should therefore increase its commitment in this area, in particular, by providing European funding for flagship programmes such as the Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES) Earth observation programme.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Ioan Enciu (S&D), in writing. (RO) I voted for the report on the detailed rules for access to the public regulated service (PRS) offered by the global navigation satellite system established under the Galileo programme, as I think that a detailed legal framework is required for regulations governing access to the PRS and for the administration and supervision of users, with the aim of guaranteeing the system’s security and protecting information. The PRS is one of the key features of the Galileo programme and will guarantee continuity of service and security, even in serious times of crisis.

I also agree that the arrangements proposed by the Commission, designed to guarantee security, strike the requisite balance between the definition of common minimum standards and verification of compliance with the rules at EU level, on the one hand, and decentralisation of the supervision currently provided by Member States, on the other.

Last but not least, I support the introduction of a clear procedure to cover cases where a competent PRS authority fails to comply with the common minimum standards. I think that the ultimate purpose of this procedure should be to guarantee compliance with these standards throughout the EU.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. (PT) The aim of this report is to set out the ways in which the Member States, the Council, the Commission, Union agencies and international organisations can access the public regulated service (PRS) offered by the global navigation satellite system established under the Galileo programme. The PRS is a restricted service, to which the general public will not have access, and its use must be controlled for security reasons. The security objectives linked to PRS use are directly linked to the security of the Union and its Member States, and have an impact on the Union’s foreign policy. It is, therefore, essential to supervise users through means like the establishment of an authorisation procedure, the use of encryptions, the authorisation of receivers, etc. Furthermore, this is a service that uses some applications that could be very politically and strategically sensitive. All in all, the characteristics of the PRS necessitate a precise legislative definition of the detailed rules for access, which is exactly what is achieved with this proposal.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. (PT) This report, drafted by our fellow Member, Mr Glante, concerns the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the detailed rules for access to the public regulated service (PRS) offered by the global navigation satellite system established under the Galileo programme. The PRS is one of the services made available by the European satellite navigation system, Galileo. It is a service similar to the traditional Global Positioning System, but about ten times more accurate. The Member States, the Council, the Commission and, subject to certain conditions, EU agencies, international organisations and non-member countries have access to it.

The Commission proposal under consideration puts forward a detailed regulatory framework for access to the PRS, and the administration and supervision of users, given the need to guarantee the security of its operations for political and strategic reasons. Given the specific nature of this service, I agree with the rapporteur’s position that there is a need to create a mechanism – Competent PRS Authority – that will prevent the violation of security standards. I am voting for this report, and I hope that it will be another instrument at the service of Europeans and that it will contribute to improving their quality of life.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) As the rapporteur says, ‘the European satellite navigation programme Galileo provides five services: the open service, the commercial service, the safety-of-life service, the search and rescue service and the public regulated service. The proposal under consideration here concerns the public regulated service (PRS), which is restricted to government-authorised users for sensitive applications (such as critical infrastructure, transport, internal and external security and emergency services)’. The Commission proposal introduces a detailed regulatory framework for access to the PRS, and the administration and supervision of users, so as to guarantee the security of the system and the protection of information.

However, Parliament has introduced some proposed amendments to the report, which we are very doubtful and even seriously concerned about, specifically its attempts to provide data obtained by Galileo to the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and her external missions. Moreover, these provisions end up being contradictory, as it is repeatedly stated that the system is exclusively intended for applications of a civilian nature. That is why we abstained.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) As the report’s explanatory statement says, ‘the European satellite navigation programme Galileo provides five services: the open service, the commercial service, the safety-of-life service, the search and rescue service and the public regulated service. The proposal under consideration here concerns the public regulated service (PRS), which is restricted to government-authorised users for sensitive applications (such as critical infrastructure, transport, internal and external security and emergency services). These applications call for a high level of precision and reliability, for which reason the PRS uses powerful, encrypted signals’.

However, the Commission proposal introduces a detailed regulatory framework for access to the PRS, and the administration and supervision of users, so as to guarantee the security of the system and the protection of information.

Nevertheless, Parliament has introduced some proposed amendments to the report that has been voted on, which we are very doubtful and even seriously concerned about, specifically, its attempts to supply data obtained by Galileo to the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and her external missions.

That is why we abstained.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. (SK) The European satellite navigation system, Galileo, will provide five different services: the open service, the commercial service, the safety-of-life service, the search and rescue service and the public regulated service (PRS). The proposal under consideration here concerns the PRS, which is restricted to government-authorised users for sensitive applications (such as critical infrastructure, transport, internal and external security and emergency services). These applications call for a high level of precision and reliability, for which reason the PRS uses powerful, encrypted signals. In creating the legal framework proposed by the Commission, we must proceed cautiously, since some applications of this service may be politically and strategically sensitive. Although the PRS is not due to become operational until 2014, it is important that the requisite legal framework should be established in advance, so that the Member States and other actors have sufficient time to establish the various monitoring mechanisms and meet the mandatory security standards.

Since non-compliance with the security provisions can also have implications for other participants and users, I firmly believe that it is vital for the use and management of, and supervision of access to, the PRS to be based on common standards, and the ultimate purpose of this procedure should be to guarantee that the standards are met throughout the EU.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Elisabetta Gardini (PPE), in writing. (IT) The report on rules for access to the new services offered by the Galileo programme is an important part of ensuring service continuity and the security of the information provided by the satellite navigation system. We need to establish common criteria to regulate the usage, management and supervision of the information provided by the Galileo programme. The EU institutions must see the space policy as a priority, since it can play a vital part in cementing the European Union’s role as a leader in foreign and industrial policy. To further emphasise the importance of this sector, we need only recall a few figures: EUR 5.5 billion annual turnover, 2 000 enterprises and around 30 000 jobs. I therefore consider funding for space programmes such as Galileo to be absolutely essential, but here I should also like to emphasise that I am somewhat baffled over the exclusion from the EU budget 2014-2020 of the Global Monitoring Programme for Environment and Security.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Roberto Gualtieri (S&D), in writing. (IT) Parliament’s vote on the report by Mr Glante opens the way to the development of a European satellite navigation system. The establishment within the Galileo programme of a public regulated service (PRS) – an encrypted, maximum security network to be used by operators authorised by governments, such as the police or the armed forces – will provide an extremely useful service for European citizens by helping to ensure that security forces can respond to crises or emergencies without delay.

Other than providing benefits for citizens, the Galileo programme also represents an opportunity for European industry in the new technologies markets by helping to create high-level jobs in the satellite navigation sector. Parliament now awaits the position of the Council, in order to make the PRS service available and operative from 2014 onwards.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Jim Higgins (PPE), in writing. (GA) I welcome this report as a good start to implementing the Galileo system, so that the EU would have greater independence in terms of the GPS system and so forth.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. – My group voted against the Glante report. There remain concerns relating to privacy and data protection as well as regarding the possible military uses of Galileo. Accordingly, we could not support the report as it currently stands.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. (LT) Regulation (EC) No 683/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the further implementation of the European satellite navigation programmes (EGNOS and Galileo) stipulates in its annex that the specific objectives of the Galileo programme are to ensure that the signals emitted by the system can be used to offer a public regulated service (hereinafter PRS), restricted to government-authorised users, for sensitive applications which require effective access control and a high level of service continuity. The Member States, the Council, the Commission and the European External Action Service (EEAS) have the right to unlimited and uninterrupted access to the PRS worldwide. I welcomed the document because each Member State which uses the PRS shall decide independently which categories of natural persons residing on its territory or performing official duties abroad on behalf of that Member State, as well as legal persons established on its territory, are authorised to be PRS users, as well as on the uses to which it may be put. Such uses may include security-related uses.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Vladimír Maňka (S&D), in writing. (SK) The European satellite navigation programme, Galileo, provides five services: the open service, the commercial service, the safety-of-life service, the search and rescue service and the public regulated service. The proposal under consideration here concerns the public regulated service (PRS), which is restricted to government-authorised users for sensitive applications (such as critical infrastructure, transport, internal and external security and emergency services). These applications call for a high level of precision and reliability, for which reason the PRS uses powerful, encrypted signals.

The Commission proposal creates a detailed legal framework governing access to the PRS and the administration and supervision of users, the aim being to guarantee the security of the system and the protection of information. Since certain PRS-related applications may be politically and strategically sensitive, and with a view to ensuring the requisite high degree of security, great care needs to be taken when establishing this legal framework. It includes a joint, harmonised procedure for user authorisation by the participants. Although the PRS is not due to become operational until 2014, it is important that the requisite legal framework should be established in advance, so that the Member States and other actors have sufficient time to establish the various monitoring mechanisms and meet the mandatory security standards.

The ultimate purpose of this procedure should be to guarantee that the standards are met throughout the EU.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted in favour of this report. The European satellite navigation programme, Galileo, provides five services: the open service, the commercial service, the safety-of-life service, the search and rescue service and the public regulated service. The proposal under consideration here concerns the public regulated service (PRS), which is restricted to government-authorised users for sensitive applications (such as critical infrastructure, transport, internal and external security and emergency services). These applications call for a high level of precision and reliability, for which reason the PRS uses powerful, encrypted signals. The Commission proposal creates a detailed legal framework governing access to the PRS and the administration and supervision of users, the aim being to guarantee the security of the system and the protection of information. Since certain PRS-related applications may be politically and strategically sensitive, and with a view to ensuring the requisite high degree of security, great care needs to be taken when establishing this legal framework, which includes a joint, harmonised procedure for user authorisation by the participants.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Marisa Matias (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) This report concerns the European satellite navigation system, Galileo, which will offer a total of five services: the open service, the commercial service, the safety-of-life service, the search and rescue service and the public regulated service (PRS). This proposal concerns the PRS, whose use is restricted exclusively to government-authorised users for sensitive applications, such as critical infrastructure, transport, internal and external security, and emergency services. These applications call for a high level of precision and reliability, which is why the PRS uses powerful, encrypted signals.

The Commission’s proposal lays down procedures whereby PRS participants – the Member States on an optional basis, the Council, the Commission and, subject to certain conditions, EU agencies, third countries and international organisations – can authorise users to possess or use a PRS receiver. I decided to abstain because there are proposals that are a little controversial, notably as regards the information obtained by Galileo that can be provided to the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Iosif Matula (PPE), in writing. (RO) There is a steady increase in the use of satellite navigation applications both by individuals and in the business or public sector. However, the services offered extend beyond the well-known scope of guiding cars. They are used in police work, by the emergency services, in transport, to supply electricity, to name but a few areas.

The EU must undoubtedly have an independent satellite navigation infrastructure to ensure the continued, secure provision of such services. Of the five services offered by the European satellite navigation system, the public regulated service (PRS) is the key one. It requires a high level of accuracy and reliability.

Therefore, it is advisable for us to prepare the framework for the PRS to become operational in 2014 by putting some supervisory mechanisms in place in good time, which will ensure compliance with the specific security standards applicable in some sensitive areas. Apart from the matter of compliance with security regulations, Member States also need to resolve another issue, specifically whether users should pay or not to use the PRS, at a time when Member States will be bearing the operational costs for the PRS.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. (PT) The European satellite navigation system, Galileo, will offer a total of five services: the open service, the commercial service, the safety-of-life service, the search and rescue service and the public regulated service (PRS). This proposal concerns the PRS, whose use is restricted exclusively to users authorised by governments for sensitive applications, such as critical infrastructure, transport, internal and external security, and emergency services.

It introduces a detailed regulatory framework for access to the PRS, and the administration and supervision of users, so as to guarantee the security of the system and the protection of information. Since certain PRS-related applications may be politically and strategically sensitive, and with a view to ensuring the requisite high degree of security, great care needs to be taken when establishing this legal framework, not least by introducing a joint, harmonised procedure for user authorisation by the participants. Although the PRS is not due to become operational until 2014, it is important that the requisite legal framework be established in advance, so that the Member States and other actors have sufficient time to establish the various monitoring mechanisms and meet the mandatory security standards.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing.(ES) I voted against this report, in keeping with my rejection of the European Galileo programme, on account of its having a standpoint and aims that are clearly military. I do not support the fact that the EU spends enormous amounts of its citizens’ money on developing complex programmes and systems that are solely, or in most cases, used for military purposes. My dedication to what real, committed pacifism involves and, above all, to the necessary demilitarisation of the EU, makes it impossible for me to support any programme, mechanism or tool that, like the satellite resulting from the Galileo programme, is largely intended to make progress in the militarisation of human relations and the technological arms race. In recent years, the Galileo programme has been of no use, or very little use, to development, innovation and progress made in civil, not military, matters. Even so, huge amounts have been spent on developing it, even though it has not resulted in a higher quality of life for the majority of European citizens.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – This report deals with the legal framework for one of the five services that will be offered by the Galileo system, public regulated services (PRS) restricted to government-authorised users, for sensitive applications which require a high level of service continuity. It defines the modalities according to which Member States and other participants will have access to the PRS provided by Galileo. I hope this service will be affordable to the population of the EU in the matter of price. I voted ‘in favour’.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Elisabeth Morin-Chartier (PPE), in writing. (FR) Like most of my colleagues, I voted in favour of this report laying down the rules on right of access to encrypted signals and the conditions applied to the development and marketing, by businesses, of software applications and navigation systems. This report will make it possible, from 2014, for the European satellite navigation system, Galileo, to offer a GPS signal that is restricted to authorised users, such as the police, the army and the security services, in addition to signals intended for navigation in general. Parliament has approved specific rules governing the future ‘public regulated service’, Galileo, which should be in place by mid-October 2011. Galileo will provide five different services: the open service, the commercial service, the safety-of-life service, the search and rescue service and the public regulated service (PRS). The PRS, one of the three services that could be provided from 2014, will be restricted to government-authorised users for sensitive applications such as critical infrastructure, transport, defence, security and emergency services. These applications will call for a high level of precision and reliability, which is why the PRS will use powerful, encrypted signals.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution on the rules for access to the public regulated service offered by the global navigation satellite system established under the Galileo programme. I believe that it is appropriate to give certain government-authorised users the right to use the services of the European satellite navigation programmes for sensitive or security-related applications. The Member States, the Council, the Commission and the European External Action Service must be granted discretionary, unlimited and uninterrupted access worldwide. It should be noted that the Galileo programme is strategically important, particularly in the field of precise object detection. Furthermore, it facilitates the implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy. Consequently, it is necessary to promote the use and development of Galileo applications and services. However, we must always ensure a high level of protection of classified information. A control mechanism that functions effectively needs to be established, along with strict conditions of use.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing.(IT) I voted in favour of Mr Glante’s report on PRS, the public regulated service for satellite navigation, because I believe that a technological system to provide logistical assistance and infrastructure protection for businesses and citizens could be of great importance. For security purposes, it is just as important to thoroughly and comprehensively regulate the rules for accessing the system. The text also regulates the first public service that Galileo will provide to Member States in the coming years.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. (EL) The Galileo European satellite navigation programme is, without doubt, ambitious and important. However, the provision of sensitive government services to users, even if they are strictly authorised, requires a strong legal framework and a particularly high level of security. Given that certain services may be politically and strategically sensitive, any concessions will incite particular interest on the part of Greece. It is imperative that information should be provided by the Member States on a voluntary basis, subject to strict rules and supervision. The Commission proposal and this report by the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy have stayed within those limits, which is why I voted in favour of the report.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. (PT) This report concerns the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the detailed rules for access to the public regulated service (PRS) offered by the global navigation satellite system established under the Galileo programme. Access to the PRS is restricted to government-authorised users for sensitive applications, such as critical infrastructure, transport, internal and external security, and emergency services. These applications call for a high level of precision and reliability, which is why the PRS uses powerful, encrypted signals.

The Commission is introducing a detailed regulatory framework for access to the PRS, and the administration and supervision of users, so as to guarantee the security of the system and the protection of information. The PRS is one of the key services offered by Galileo, one which will guarantee continuity of service and security even at times of serious crisis. It is important to establish common standards applicable to the use, management and supervision of access to the PRS. The report concludes that the proposed mechanism guarantees the security of the system, so I voted in favour.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. (PT) Within the framework of the European satellite navigation programme, Galileo, the public regulated service (PRS) will be made available for use by government-authorised entities for sensitive applications, such as critical infrastructure, transport, internal and external security, and emergency services. It is important to establish common standards applicable to the use, management and supervision of access to the PRS, precisely because the applications in question could be sensitive from a political and strategic point of view, as security breaches, when using this service, could have serious repercussions. That is the purpose of this Commission proposal, for which I voted.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Zuzana Roithová (PPE) , in writing. (CS) I was the shadow rapporteur of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) for this legislation in the Subcommittee on Security and Defence, and I am pleased that the Council and the European Parliament have reached agreement on the operational details of the public regulated service of the Galileo project. I am delighted that, despite the opposition of some Member States, it has been possible to push through my proposal for a guarantee regarding compliance with human rights, including religious freedoms, from third country parties wishing to use this service. No totalitarian or authoritarian states should therefore be able to participate in the project. At the same time, however, I would like to warn of the risk that certain frequencies used by Galileo might be disrupted by the Chinese navigation system, Compass, and I would like to ask the European Commission to address this issue in bilateral talks with China. I also applaud the high level of data and privacy protection, and also the security standards that the European Parliament has managed to push through in opposition to the European Commission proposal.

Unfortunately, the issue of funding has not been resolved, and the European Commission will have to draw up specific proposals in the future for the collection of fees for using the service. On the other hand, it is good that European producers will retain an exclusive position over the production of security modules. As a doctor, I welcome the possibilities this service will bring to the integrated rescue system, including a reduction in the response times of rapid medical assistance health workers.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Robert Rochefort (ALDE), in writing. (FR) Starting in 2014, the future satellite navigation system, Galileo, will provide several services, including the public regulated service (PRS). The PRS will consist of an extremely secure GPS signal that is restricted to certain users. Permitting as it does the location of critical infrastructure and the identification of all forms of trafficking, the PRS will be used, in particular, in the context of police, border control and civil protection operations. In other words, it will be a channel through which to transmit highly strategic information with the aim of ensuring the internal and external security of the Member States. Before it is implemented, then, it is essential to lay down rules concerning its use. With this report, Parliament is stipulating, among other things, that Member States, the Council, the Commission and the European External Action Service will have unlimited access to the PRS worldwide, whereas third countries, European agencies and international organisations, for their part, will be able to access it only if they have received due authorisation. The report also anticipates that each Member State will appoint a PRS Authority responsible for managing and supervising all authorised users. I welcome its adoption.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – Against. Apart from the above issue of balance of power between the national and Community approach to setting security standards, several points were not satisfactory for the Greens. These include, for instance, the fact that until now, the EC and Council have firmly stated that military applications were not the main purpose of the PRS system. However, a survey carried out by the Commission in 2006, and finally published as background to the adoption of this decision, shows that Member States intend to make extensive use of PRS in the defence sector (except for Germany and the UK) – whereby more than 60% of the PRS receivers are expected to be attributed to the defence sector. It is finally clear today, and no longer contradicted, that the main use and purpose of PRS is defence.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing.(IT) The European satellite navigation programme, Galileo, will be able to offer a number of services, among which the public regulated service (PRS) must be regarded as an extremely important one. This service will be restricted to government-authorised users for sensitive applications – such as transport, internal security and emergency services – which require a high level of precision and reliability.

This vote will lead to the establishment of a detailed legal framework governing access to the programme and the administration and supervision of users. This is essential for guaranteeing the security of the system and the protection of information, which is often politically and strategically sensitive and therefore requires an extremely high level of security.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing.(IT) The report looks at the rules for access to the public regulated service (PRS), which is restricted exclusively to government-authorised users for sensitive applications such as security, emergency services and so on. It aims to define the rules for access to the service offered by the Galileo satellite navigation system under the control of the EU institutions. Particular care is taken to ensure the security of the system and the protection of information. The system will come online in 2014 and it is therefore important that Member States ready the authority responsible for effectively administering and supervising each subject authorised to manufacture, own or use a PRS receiver.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. (PT) The Galileo programme, which plays a crucial role in the EU’s independence from other satellite navigation systems, offers the possibility of five services. This report concerns the public regulated service (PRS), which is intended for specific applications – such as internal and external security, emergency services, and critical infrastructure – for government-authorised users of the Member States. It puts forward a fairly detailed legal framework with regard to access to the PRS and the administration of users, to ensure the security of the system and of information. This regulation will only come into force in 2014. It establishes common minimum standards and security issues to be followed by PRS participants, which can be, in addition to the Member States, the Council, the Commission, and, in specific cases following an international agreement, European agencies, non-member countries and international organisations. I would stress that it is important to set out clear rules in relation to access and to the event of non-compliance, since PRS information is naturally very sensitive at political and strategic level for Member States, and can be used in emergency situations. The inclusion of the directive on data protection and privacy is another point that it is important to stress.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing.(IT) I voted in favour of the report by Mr Glante, which sets out the rules for access to the new services offered by the global navigation satellite system. Of particular importance – in my view – is the regulation of one of the services that Galileo could offer to Member States from 2014 onwards, which is service continuity in even the most serious crisis situations.

 
  
  

Recommendation: Vital Moreira (A7-0280/2011)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. (PT) I voted for this agreement on tropical timber since, according to estimates by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, each year, an area of original forest covering the size of Greece is destroyed, with an indisputable effect on irreplaceable biodiversity, threatening it with extinction and increasing the risk of global warming. I would remind you that, although it has been more than 20 years since the first International Tropical Timber Agreement was concluded, over-exploitation and illegal logging remain widespread in Amazonia, in the Congo basin, in South-East Asia and in Russia.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. (LT) I voted in favour of this important resolution on the International Tropical Timber Agreement (ITTA). The current situation facing tropical forests is tragic. Original forest covering an area the size of Greece is lost each year. Consequently, this threatens irreplaceable biodiversity with extinction and increases the risk of global warming. Although it is more than 20 years since the first ITTA was concluded, over-exploitation and illegal logging remain widespread. Almost half of all logging activities in regions such as the Amazon, Congo Basin, South-East Asia and Russia are illegal. I therefore support this ITTA which I believe addresses the most pressing issues of the timber industry. The International Tropical Timber Organisation will continue its work on issues such as deforestation and illegal logging, but more can be done to strengthen forest law enforcement, for instance. The EU should adopt such severe sanctions as fines proportionate to the environmental damage, the value of the timber or timber products concerned and the tax losses and economic detriment resulting from the infringement, seizure of the timber and timber products concerned, or the immediate suspension of authorisation to trade.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing.(FR) I voted in favour of signing this international agreement on tropical timber since it will step up the fight against the illegal trade of certain types of timber. By limiting the profits made from this trade, the European Union will help to reduce deforestation in tropical areas, thus protecting biodiversity and climate. However, because 20% of the producers and importers of products derived from tropical timber are not affected by this agreement, we need to continue the work started so as to ensure that tropical forests are really protected.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. (LT) I voted in favour of this document, through which the European Parliament expresses its support for the 2006 International Tropical Timber Agreement, which addresses the most pressing issues of the timber industry. Significant forest loss threatens irreplaceable biodiversity with extinction and increases the risk of global warming. Therefore, the main objective of this agreement is to promote the expansion and diversification of international trade in tropical timber and ensure sustainable forest management by providing an effective framework for consultation, international cooperation and policy development among all members with regard to all relevant aspects of the world timber economy. The agreement also provides for a licensing scheme to ensure that only timber products that are legally produced enter the market.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  George Becali (NI), in writing. (RO) Illegal logging is a widespread phenomenon, given that each year, an area of natural forest covering the size of Greece is lost. The European regulation lays down the obligations for operators who place timber and timber products on the market. Suppliers must be able to be identified throughout the whole production or marketing chain and the sanctions imposed by Member States should go as far as seizing the timber or timber products and even suspending the authorisation to trade immediately.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing.(ES) I voted in favour of the recommendation on the International Tropical Timber Agreement calling for the Commission to submit any relevant information regarding action plans and programmes relating to this agreement, as well as a review of its implementation, before negotiations are opened on the renewal of the agreement.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. (LT) I voted in favour of this report because it is intended to strengthen the European Parliament’s procedural powers under the Treaty of Lisbon when international agreements are being concluded on behalf of the European Union. The issue of signing the International Tropical Timber Agreement on behalf of the EU was first put to the European Parliament in 2007, but Parliament rejected it, because in its opinion, the procedures followed for approving the agreement were inappropriate. The point of the International Tropical Timber Agreement is to protect tropical forests, which are very important for the planet’s biological and climatic balance, from over-exploitation and illegal logging. Such international agreements have been in force for more than 20 years, but the illegal felling of tropical forests and logging are still very widespread.

According to estimates by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), tropical forest covering an area the size of Greece is lost each year. Above all, the objective of this agreement is to establish ways of ensuring a credible licensing scheme – a measure that only allows legally produced timber products to enter the market.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. (IT) I voted in favour of the report by Mr Moreira because I agree that we need to confirm the 2006 international agreement on tropical timber, which has a duration of 10 years, but which is subject to review every five years. The agreement concluded between producers and consumers has the merit of promoting the expansion and diversification of international trade in tropical timber from sustainably managed and legally harvested forests. Moreover, it provides for effective structures for management, international cooperation and policy development with regard to the various relevant aspects of the world timber economy. We must now focus our attention on the sustainable management of tropical forests and the restoration of forest areas that have been degraded, including by involving citizens and Member States through awareness-raising and educational campaigns. Indeed, one need only think that an area of forest the size of Greece disappears each year, threatening irreplaceable biodiversity with extinction. Lastly, the agreement aims to ensure a credible licensing scheme, sets out an Action Plan for Forest Law Enforcement and establishes measures designed to create multilateral partnerships.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. (PT) For many centuries, tropical timber has been in high demand by those hoping to prosper through the trafficking of this type of material. It is used for its quality and exoticism, but no care is taken to ensure the sustainability of the forest species that are being destroyed. While there has been an enormous reduction in biodiversity, the people of the countries in which this rare timber originates do not benefit in any way from this trade and their lives are frequently jeopardised by the activity of those profiting illegitimately from it. The European Union cannot distance itself from this problem and the conclusion of the international agreement relating to it is opportune. I hope that it will continue with this worldwide effort to put a stop to the over-exploitation and illegal logging of this kind of timber.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. (PT) This report, drafted by our fellow Member, Mr Moreira, concerns a recommendation on the 2006 International Tropical Timber Agreement, taking into account the Council decision to conclude it on behalf of the European Union. Data from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development show that every year, an area of forest covering the size of Greece is destroyed, which is a threat to biodiversity and exacerbates the risk of global warming. This is an issue that has been discussed at several international meetings, and has led to the conclusion of agreements and the creation of international bodies, such as the International Tropical Timber Organisation, which are attempting to implement a credible licensing scheme and prevent the illegal logging of trees that are very often hundreds of years old.

As such, I voted for this recommendation because it reflects the concerns of Parliament, in particular, and of all Europeans, in general, as regards the protection and sustainable management of tropical forests, and advocates the restoration of degraded habitats and promotes a policy of education, so as to prevent the excessive deforestation of these regions.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) The delay in adopting this agreement results from the 2008 failure to adopt it by Parliament, which is now, in 2011, adopting an international agreement dating from 2006. This was reached during the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development and was intended to replace an earlier agreement of 1994, which will remain in force until the 2006 agreement comes into force. We would stress the fact that all the EU Member States have expressed their intention of concluding it and of contributing appropriately to its implementation. The goal of the agreement is to promote the sustainable management of tropical timber producing forests by creating a framework for consultation, for international cooperation and for all members to jointly devise policies regarding all the relevant aspects of the world timber economy.

There are legitimate concerns as to the compatibility of ‘sustainable management’ and the promotion of the ‘expansion and diversification of international trade in tropical timber’ also mentioned in the agreement. For this reason, we share the view that the protection of tropical forests and the restoration of forest areas that have been degraded should be placed at the heart of the agreement during the mid-term review of the current text.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) This agreement has finally been adopted, albeit after some delay. The delay with adopting this agreement results from the 2008 failure to adopt it by the European Parliament, which is now, in 2011, adopting an international agreement dating from 2006.

This agreement was reached during the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development and was intended to replace an earlier agreement of 1994, which will remain in force until the 2006 agreement comes into force. We would stress the fact that all the EU Member States have expressed their intention of concluding it and of contributing appropriately to its implementation.

The goal of the agreement is to promote the sustainable management of tropical timber producing forests by creating a framework for consultation, for international cooperation and for all members to jointly devise policies regarding all the relevant aspects of the world timber economy.

Naturally, concerns can be raised as to the compatibility of ‘sustainable management’ and the promotion of the ‘expansion and diversification of international trade in tropical timber’ also mentioned in the agreement. For this reason, we share the view that greater attention should be paid to the protection of tropical forests and the restoration of forest areas during the mid-term review of the current text.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. (SK) The negotiations of the conference established under the aegis of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) on 27 January 2006 approved the wording of the International Tropical Timber Agreement of 2006. All EU Member States have expressed their intention to sign, and to contribute as appropriate towards the provisional application of the agreement. The objectives of the agreement are, among others, to promote the expansion and diversification of international trade in tropical timber from sustainably managed and legally harvested forests and to promote the sustainable management of tropical timber producing forests by providing an effective framework for consultation, international cooperation and policy development among all members with regard to all relevant aspects of the world timber economy. The agreement identifies ways to ensure a credible licensing scheme as a measure to ensure that only timber products that are legally produced enter the market, and confirms the very existence and operating mechanisms of the International Tropical Timber Organisation (ITTO).

According to OECD estimates, each year, an area of original forest covering the size of Greece is lost, threatening irreplaceable biodiversity with extinction and increasing the risk of global warming. In my opinion, we need to take as many reasonable steps as possible to enforce the law more strictly in the area of forestry. The submitted agreement is therefore welcome, and it would be right for Parliament to approve it.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. (LT) The 2006 agreement, concluded between producers and consumers of timber products, is a 10-year agreement and subject to review every five years. The objectives of the 2006 agreement are, among others, to promote the expansion and diversification of international trade in tropical timber from sustainably managed and legally harvested forests and to promote the sustainable management of tropical timber producing forests by providing an effective framework for consultation, international cooperation and policy development among all members with regard to all relevant aspects of the world timber economy. The agreement identifies ways to ensure a credible licensing scheme as a means of guaranteeing that only timber products that are legally produced enter the market, and confirms the very existence and operating mechanisms of the International Tropical Timber Organisation (ITTO), established by the 1983 International Tropical Timber Agreement (ITTA). More than 80% of the producers and importers of tropical timber products are members of the organisation and contracting parties to the ITTA. I welcomed the document because, in my opinion, it addresses the most pressing issues of the timber industry. The ITTO will continue its work on issues such as deforestation and illegal logging, but even more can be done to strengthen forest law enforcement. For instance, the EU could adopt the abovementioned measures.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE), in writing. (DE) I support the International Tropical Timber Agreement as I believe that promotion of international trade in legally felled tropical timber as well as the sustainable management of tropical forests should be a fundamental concern of the EU. We need to put an end to over-exploitation and illegal logging in order to preserve not only the extraordinary biodiversity, but also the legal supply chain. To ignore this problem would have consequences that would directly affect us all and we must take steps to counter these consequences from the outset. I would like to express my clear support for sustainable trade relations and thus, my support for the International Tropical Timber Agreement.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Vladimír Maňka (S&D), in writing. (SK) The agreement is the outcome of talks between consumers and processors of tropical timber. The aim is to encourage diversification and greater volumes of trade in tropical timber, as well as sustainable management of tropical forests. The Members of the European Parliament have insisted in this case on the correct application of the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon, according to which the consent of the European Parliament is required for all international agreements.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – According to OECD estimates, each year, an area of original forest covering the size of Greece is lost, threatening irreplaceable biodiversity with extinction and increasing the risk of global warming. Although it is more than 20 years since the 1st ITTA was concluded, over-exploitation and illegal logging remain widespread. Almost half of all logging activities in regions such as the Amazon, Congo Basin, South-East Asia and Russia are illegal. The Council of the EU and the EU Commission support the ITTA, 2006, which they believe addresses the most pressing issues of the timber industry. The ITTO will continue its work on issues such as deforestation and illegal logging, but more can be done on strengthening the forest law enforcement, as the abovementioned additional measures adopted by the EU illustrate. In the meantime, I welcome this agreement and am pleased that Parliament has given its consent.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. (PT) Deforestation and forest degradation are the main causes of loss of biodiversity. In turn, illegal logging is the major cause of deforestation, currently representing 20-40% of global industrial timber production. As far as this kind of activity is concerned, sanctions are most commonly applied to tropical timber activities. Therefore, with respect to sanctions, the EU Member States must lay down the rules on penalties applicable to infringements of the provisions of this regulation and take all measures necessary to ensure that they are implemented. Sanctions must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive, and may take the form of fines proportionate to the environmental damage, the value of the timber or timber products concerned, and the tax losses and economic detriment resulting from the infringement; of the seizure of the timber and timber products concerned; or of the immediate suspension of authorisation to trade.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Louis Michel (ALDE), in writing. (FR) The adoption of this resolution clearly illustrates our desire to be kept informed of any measure concerning the implementation of this two-faceted – trade and environmental – agreement, given that its main aim is ‘to promote the expansion and diversification of international trade in tropical timber from sustainably managed and legally harvested forests and to promote the sustainable management of tropical timber producing forests’. Global warming requires strict measures in order to guarantee environmental governance that respects natural resources and seeks to contribute to the sustainable development of our planet. It is estimated that some 20% of the EU’s timber imports come from illegal sources. None of the major tropical timber regions is immune from this. The information requested by the European Parliament is crucial, since this problem is at the heart of the challenges that the entire world faces, such as global warming, food security, the fight against poverty (1.5 billion people are thought to depend on forests for their survival), and the fight against corruption and organised crime. Lastly, illegal logging undermines the rule of law, good governance and respect for human rights.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – As has become known, the agreement has been negotiated between consumers and producers to promote the expansion and diversification of international trade in tropical timber and to promote the sustainable management of tropical timber producing forests. The proposal for a Council decision on the signing, on behalf of the European Community, and provisional application of the International Tropical Timber Agreement, 2006 (ITTA, 2006) is a re-consultation on a procedure that had already been referred to Parliament in 2007. The Parliament adopted a resolution tabled by the Committee on International Trade that explains why Parliament chose not to adopt the draft report on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of the ITTA. The EP was not given the right to give formal consent to this agreement. Therefore, in my opinion, the new referral is the result of Parliament’s insistence and is in line with the new rules of the Lisbon Treaty regarding giving consent to international agreements.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. (LT) I welcome this resolution because this agreement covers both international trade and environmental dimensions and creates legal preconditions for countries producing and using tropical timber. The extension of the 2006 International Tropical Timber Agreement will continue to address relevant issues affecting the timber industry. Furthermore, it will create a more favourable environment for businesses, will ensure a properly functioning licensing system, and also prevent timber products from entering the market illegally. It should be noted that, when renewing the agreement, it is very important to pay significant attention to the protection of tropical forests and their sustainable management, as well as the restoration of destroyed forest areas. Furthermore, education and information policy must be used to make the public more aware of the negative consequences of exploiting timber resources in an abusive manner.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. (PT) According to estimates by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, each year, an area of original forest covering the size of Greece is lost, threatening irreplaceable biodiversity with extinction and increasing the risk of global warming. Although it is more than 20 years since the first International Tropical Timber Agreement (ITTA) was concluded, over-exploitation and illegal logging remain widespread. Almost half of all logging activities in regions such as the Amazon, Congo Basin, South-East Asia and Russia are illegal. The Council and the Commission support the International Tropical Timber Organisation (ITTO), established by the 1983 ITTA, which they believe addresses the most pressing issues of the timber industry. The ITTO will continue its work on issues such as deforestation and illegal logging, but more can be done on strengthening forest law enforcement, as the additional measures adopted by the EU illustrate. As such, I voted for this report on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion, by the European Union, of the 2006 ITTA.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Miguel Portas (GUE/NGL), in writing. (PT) Every year, an area of forest covering the size of Greece is destroyed worldwide, constituting a serious threat to biodiversity, exacerbating global warming and accentuating the planet’s social inequalities. This agreement replaces that of 1994, enabling a credible licensing scheme and ensuring that only legal timber producers have access to the market. This, along with other measures mentioned in the agreement and in other decisions of the European institutions, aims to prevent over-exploitation and illegal logging, which remain widespread and constitute a serious environmental and social problem. I voted for this recommendation for these reasons. Nevertheless, I cannot fail to stress the importance of the need for more measures on really sustainable forest management involving fairer trade rules and trade relations.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. (PT) The 2006 International Tropical Timber Agreement introduces a licensing system with a view to limiting market access to just legally produced goods. In view of Regulation (EU) No 995/2010 of the European Parliament and the Council, adopted on 20 October 2010, it introduces a series of measures that work towards the goal of common action. In fact, the protection of tropical timber is part of the wider problem of forest protection, to which the EU has committed. This constitutes another step towards combating illegal logging, which has been destroying an area covering the size of Greece every year, according to data from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. In line with the European Parliament legislative resolution of 24 September 2008, where the EP considers that when drafting the negotiating mandate for the revision of the International Tropical Timber Agreement, 2006, the Commission should propose that the current text be revised, placing the protection and sustainable management of tropical forests and the restoration of forest areas that have been degraded at the heart of the agreement, stressing the importance of education and information policy in the countries affected by the problem of deforestation in order to enhance public awareness of the negative consequences of exploiting timber resources in an abusive manner. Trade in tropical timber should only be encouraged to the extent compatible with these prior objectives. In particular, this mandate for the revision of the International Tropical Timber Agreement 2006 should propose a voting mechanism for the International Tropical Timber Council that clearly rewards the conservation and sustainable use of tropical forests.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing.(IT) In order to address the increasingly serious problem of illegal logging, the European Union introduced in 2003 an action plan for the implementation of laws to combat this phenomenon. This action plan is the cornerstone of the action plan negotiated by the EU with individual countries that export timber. The signatory countries have committed to promoting better governance and traceability mechanisms along the entire supply chain. Thanks to these measures, Europe has prohibited the marketing of timber or any other product that has been obtained illegally.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Tokia Saïfi (PPE), in writing.(FR) I voted in favour of the adoption of this agreement in plenary because it is entirely consistent with the measures that have already been taken by the European Union on the matter, in particular, the FLEGT agreements (Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade Action Plan). This agreement, although less restrictive than the bilateral FLEGT agreements, does have the advantage of imposing obligations on a larger number of tropical timber producing countries (60 in total, including 33 developing countries), thereby enabling the principles of sustainable development and of the restoration of degraded forest areas to be developed on a wider scale. Furthermore, in 2008, Parliament expressly asked the European Commission for the opportunity to give its consent to this agreement, and not simply to be consulted on it, as the Commission had initially planned. This procedural change entails additional obligations for the Commission, which will have to inform Parliament clearly and without delay of the application of the agreement, including its renegotiation. Having received this information, Parliament will be able to ensure the consistency of measures taken at multilateral level, via this agreement, and at bilateral level, via the FLEGT partnership agreements.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Catherine Stihler (S&D), in writing. – I was pleased to vote in favour of this report which, under the Lisbon Treaty, Parliament had a role to play in. The agreement promotes the expansion and diversification of international trade in tropical timber and promotes the sustainable management of tropical timber producing forests.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. (DE) The International Tropical Timber Agreement (ITTA) is intended to internationalise the trade in legally harvested tropical timber and thus to encourage sustainability. The 2006 agreement is effective for 10 years and is reviewed every five years. In 2004, the EU adopted an action plan detailing additional measures to counter illegal felling. Regulation (EU) No 995/2010 of 20 October 2010 prohibits the placing on the internal market of timber from illegal felling. This regulation is also intended to ensure traceability and ensure that operators have an obligation to exercise diligence. When negotiating amendments to the 2006 International Tropical Timber Agreement, the European Commission should focus on the protection and sustainable management of tropical forests and on cleaning up damaged areas. Appropriate information and awareness measures are a particularly important element of this.

 
  
  

Recommendation: Béla Glattfelder (A7-0247/2011)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE), in writing.(IT) I voted in favour of this recommendation because I think it is important to establish trade cooperation between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation on the free exchange of agricultural products but, above all, in order to ensure the mutual recognition of designations of origin and protected geographical indications.

Such protections do not only enable the mutual recognition of quality products between the two countries, thereby benefiting agriculture. They also protect consumers against possible counterfeiting and impede the use of these denominations by unfair competitors. I therefore hope that this agricultural partnership can continue to improve the terms and conditions of these bilateral trading relations bit by bit, thus safeguarding the value of sustainable rural development.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. (RO) The EU and Switzerland have defined their relations by signing bilateral treaties in various fields. Indeed, Switzerland is the EU’s fourth largest trading partner and the values of exports and imports of agricultural products between both these partners are significant. Although the agreement on agriculture was concluded in 1999 and came into force on 1 June 2002, it has not helped create totally free agricultural trade but only partial liberalisation for some agricultural sectors.

Both parties have agreed to adopt a harmonised procedure for designating and effectively protecting registered origins and geographical indications. Following this common understanding and the convergence of their domestic legislation, both parties have mutually recognised a list of protected agricultural products. This situation is a significant improvement compared with commercial conditions in the past.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing.(FR) The new agreement with Switzerland seeks to change the previous EC-Switzerland bilateral agreement concerning the geographical indications of agricultural products. The European Union and the Swiss Confederation are aiming towards the mutual recognition of Protected Designations of Origin (PDO) and Protected Geographical Indications (PGI) in order to improve bilateral trade conditions, promote quality in the food chain and preserve the value of sustainable rural development. The proposal under consideration is the result of bilateral negotiations held between October 2007 and December 2009. It provides for the reciprocal protection of designations of origin and geographical indications within the respective parties. I fully support this agreement.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. (LT) I welcomed the conclusion of the agreement between the EU and Switzerland. Switzerland is the European Union’s fourth largest trading partner, and the volume of agricultural products exported and imported between the EU and Switzerland is significant. In 2010, the EU exported EUR 6.3 billion worth of agricultural products to Switzerland, making Switzerland the third biggest export market for the EU’s agricultural products. With this agreement, the two parties (the EU and Switzerland) are seeking to ensure the mutual recognition of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications in order to preserve the conditions of bilateral trade in agricultural products, while promoting the quality of the food chain. With the agreement’s entry into force, EU exporters in key areas of agricultural production, such as meat and dairy products, will enjoy a higher level of protection for their designations of origin and geographical indications in one of our closest and biggest export markets.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing.(ES) I supported this report because Switzerland is the European Union’s fourth largest trading partner and the values of exports and imports of agricultural products between the EU and Switzerland are very significant. In 1992, negotiations for commercial agreements were launched in seven sectors, including agricultural products. Thanks to this addition to the agreement, EU exporters in key agricultural productions such as meat and dairy products will now benefit in one of our biggest export markets from a higher protection of their designations of origin and geographical indications.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. (LT) I voted in favour of this report because with it, the European Parliament consents to the conclusion of an agreement between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation on the protection of designations of origin and geographical indications for agricultural products and foodstuffs. This agreement is particularly important for the European Union – Switzerland is the third biggest export market for the EU’s agricultural products. Therefore, the conditions and terms of the bilateral commercial relations must constantly be improved and updated. The agreement on trade in agricultural products was concluded in 1999 and has been in force since 2002. It has not created totally free agricultural trade but has only led to a partial liberalisation for some agricultural sectors.

With the signing of this new annex, both contracting parties aim to ensure mutual recognition of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications in order to maintain the conditions of bilateral trade in agricultural products and, at the same time, improve the quality of the food chain. This agreement is very important and long-awaited because until now, the bilateral agreement with the Swiss Confederation only established protection for the designation of origin of wines and spirits.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Lara Comi (PPE), in writing.(IT) I voted in favour of this recommendation because I come from an area that borders Switzerland and I am well aware of the significant trading relations between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation. Lately, I have been looking very closely at how integrated Switzerland is within the European economy and how much it interacts with its neighbouring countries. I have had the opportunity to have first-hand contact with a country that is generally European in its values and approach to the market, even though at times, it tends to trade on much-vaunted differences. Hence, this decision by the Council represents due acknowledgement of a process of integration which, in truth, has been going on for centuries. The problem that I have found is the views held by a section of the population with regard to the free movement of workers, yet I am delighted to say that the EU is doing its part to facilitate commercial exchanges, so Switzerland must respond with conciliatory measures showing its desire to pursue the four freedoms.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. (PT) The volume of EU-Switzerland trade and the particular fame of the geographical indications and designations of origin of some of the agricultural products and foodstuffs of both parties are cause for reasonable concerns about the possibility of these being used illegitimately and fraudulently by people with no right to them. The trivialisation of their use would reduce their distinctive potential and would tend to lead consumers to make mistakes regarding the origin and properties of the products that they buy. The mutual desire for the protection of these designations to be strengthened and their exclusivity to be respected is, therefore, fully understandable.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. (PT) This recommendation concerns the Agreement between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation on the protection of designations of origin and geographical indications for agricultural products and foodstuffs. Trade between EU Member States and Switzerland is very significant, with Switzerland being the European Union’s fourth largest trading partner, to which it exports agricultural produce to the value of EUR 6.3 billion each year. Several agreements have been concluded with the Swiss authorities regarding bilateral trade relations. The most recent, dated December 2008 (COM(2008)0509), aiming at the facilitation of agricultural trade, was amended in 2009 and the intention now is to include a new annex on protected geographical indications and designations of origin. This represents another step forward as regards the quality of the service provided to consumers in terms of their right to information, as well as a benefit for EU exporters of key agricultural products like meat or dairy, who will, from now on, enjoy greater protection of their designations of origin and geographical indications. I am not therefore simply voting for this recommendation; I also welcome this advance in EU-Switzerland bilateral trade relations.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. (SK) Switzerland is the fourth largest trading partner of the European Union. In 2010, the EU exported to Switzerland agricultural products to the value of EUR 6.3 billion. It is extremely important for the EU to cooperate continuously with the Swiss authorities on improving the terms of bilateral trade relations. The EU and Switzerland have defined their relations by establishing bilateral treaties in various fields. In December 2008, the EU adopted an agreement aimed at facilitating bilateral trade in agricultural products by eliminating technical barriers. By adding the new Annex 12, both parties – the EU and Switzerland – are seeking to ensure the mutual recognition of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications in order to preserve the conditions of bilateral trade in agricultural products while promoting the quality of the food chain. Both sides have agreed to a harmonised approach to labelling, along with effective protection of registered origins and geographical indications.

Following this common understanding and the convergence of their domestic legislation, both parties have mutually recognised a list of registered protected agricultural products. Thanks to this addition to the agreement, EU exporters will benefit in one of our closest and biggest markets from higher protection of their designations of origin and geographical indications, which reflect their know-how and high degree of food quality. I therefore firmly believe that it is right for the European Parliament to approve this agreement.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Pat the Cope Gallagher (ALDE), in writing. (GA) As Chair of the European Parliament Delegation for Relations with Switzerland, Iceland and Norway and to the Joint Parliamentary Committee of the European Economic Area, it is a cause of satisfaction to me that this agreement is being implemented.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. – Provisions to protect designations of origin and geographical indications are an important part of the EU’s work and help encourage quality produce whilst protecting local and national traditions. The extension of these provisions to Switzerland is good news for that country and good news for EU nations.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. (LT) I welcomed this document because both parties have agreed on a harmonised procedure for designating and effectively protecting registered origins and geographical indications. Following this common understanding and the convergence of their domestic legislation, both parties have mutually recognised a list of registered protected agricultural products. The new Annex 12 contains around 800 geographical indications registered in the EU and 22 geographical indications registered in Switzerland. This represents a serious and long-awaited improvement on previous commercial conditions because, until now, the bilateral agreement with the Swiss Confederation only established protection for the designation of origin of wines and spirits.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE), in writing.(PL) The demands of consumers in the European Union market are constantly rising, not only in terms of the quality of foodstuffs, but also in terms of their variety. The agreement between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation will certainly ensure that the EU’s citizens will have broader access to regional products, and will also contribute to an improvement in the quality of these items.

I think that thanks to this agreement, mutual commercial relations will be strengthened, and the greater protection of geographical indications and designations of origin will bring about an increase in the competitiveness of products – chiefly agricultural products – exported from the European Union. Greater competitiveness and an increase in the quality of exported agricultural products will contribute to the stable and sustainable development of rural areas.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE), in writing. (DE) Switzerland is an important trading partner of the European Union. The main products traded are agricultural products that are exported from the EU to Switzerland and vice versa. It is, understandably, in the interests of the trading partners to ensure the mutual protection of designations of origin and geographical indications in order to promote trade in agricultural products as well as to improve the quality of the products. The inclusion of Liechtenstein in the EU-Switzerland agreement entails a considerable improvement in trade relations for this country, too, and is thus very much to be welcomed. I support this agreement, as protected designations of origin and food quality that is guaranteed are very important for all of us.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing.(IT) I voted in favour of Mr Glattfelder’s report because I think it is important to pursue the protection of quality in European agricultural products and foodstuffs through bilateral agreements. According to figures from the Directorate-General for Trade of the European Commission, the EU has so far entered into some 200 bilateral agreements – a sign of the desire to strengthen European commercial policy in many areas around the world. In the agriculture and foodstuffs sector, hence, in the case in question, the agreement between the EU and Switzerland together with initiatives to protect origin marking and geographical indications of agricultural products and foodstuffs assumes particular significance.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Vladimír Maňka (S&D), in writing. (SK) Switzerland is the fourth largest trading partner of the European Union. The value of exports and imports of agricultural products between the EU and Switzerland is very significant. In 2010, the EU exported to Switzerland agricultural products to the value of EUR 6.3 billion, which made this country the third biggest export market for the EU's agricultural products. It is therefore of the utmost importance that the European Union works continuously with the Swiss authorities to improve the conditions and the terms of bilateral commercial relations.

The EU and Switzerland have defined their relations by establishing bilateral treaties in various fields. In order to minimise the negative consequences of the rejection of the free trade agreement by Switzerland in 1992, negotiations aimed at concluding commercial agreements were launched in seven sectors, including agricultural products.

Exporters in key agricultural products such as meat and dairy products will, thanks to the aforementioned addition to the agreement, benefit in one of our closest and biggest markets from higher protection of their designations of origin and geographical indications, which reflect their know-how and high degree of food quality.

I therefore voted in favour of granting consent to the agreement.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I support this report. By adding a new annex (Annex 12), the two parties (the EU and Switzerland) seek to ensure the mutual recognition of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications in order to preserve the conditions of bilateral trade in agricultural products, while promoting the quality of the food chain.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. (PT) Given that Switzerland is the European Union’s fourth largest trading partner, and taking into account the value of exports and imports of agricultural products between the EU and Switzerland, this report is very important. In 2010, the EU exported agricultural products to the value of EUR 6.3 billion to Switzerland, making the country the third largest export market for the Union in this sector. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance that the European Union work continuously with the Swiss authorities to improve the conditions and terms of bilateral trade relations. The agricultural agreement was concluded in 1999 and has been in force since 1 June 2002. However, it has only led to the partial liberalisation of some agricultural sectors and not to genuine free trade in agricultural products. However, this addition to the agreement means that EU exporters of key agricultural products, such as meat and dairy products, to one of our closest and largest export markets will enjoy greater protection of their designations of origin and geographical indications, thereby reflecting their specialised knowledge and the high quality of their foodstuffs.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on trade in agricultural products entered into force on 1 June 2002. Article 12 of the agricultural agreement provides that the agricultural agreement may be reviewed at the request of either party. A joint declaration on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin of agricultural products and foodstuffs has been attached to the final act of the agricultural agreement covered by this report. I abstained.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution because the entry into force of this agreement will strengthen free trade relations between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation. Above all, it will remove the main barriers to trade, thereby providing more opportunities to enter the other party’s market in agricultural products. We should welcome the fact that, following lengthy discussions, it has been possible to agree on a harmonised procedure under which registered origins and geographical indications will be designated and protected. I am glad that both parties have recognised the list of registered, protected agricultural products.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. (PT) I voted for the report on the Agreement between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation on the protection of designations of origin and geographical indications for agricultural products and foodstuffs, amending the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on trade in agricultural products (16199/2010), since I argue that quality EU products should enjoy a high level of protection, specifically by protecting brand and origin rights through designations of origin and geographical indications. This protection should be a priority for the EU, since the charges for products enjoying these quality marks are enormous and represent a financial burden for producers.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. (PT) The importance of the Agreement between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation on the protection of designations of origin and geographical indications for agricultural products and foodstuffs can be understood in light of the bilateral trade relations between the two communities. Indeed, Switzerland is the European Union’s fourth largest trading partner and represents the third largest export market for EU agricultural products. I voted to conclude this report, whose purpose is the reciprocal recognition of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products, which will enable EU exporters of key agricultural produce, such as meat and dairy products, to one of our closest and largest export markets, to enjoy greater protection of their designations of origin and geographical indications, so reflecting their specialised knowledge and the high quality of their foodstuffs.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. Switzerland is the European Union’s fourth largest trading partner and, in particular, the values of exports and imports of agricultural products between the EU and Switzerland are very significant. In 2010, the EU exported to Switzerland agricultural products to the value of EUR 6.3 bn which made this country the third biggest export market for the EU’s agricultural products. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance that the European Union continuously works with the Swiss authorities to improve the conditions and terms of bilateral commercial relations.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing.(IT) I voted in favour of this text because I think it is of the utmost importance that the European Union work continuously with the Swiss authorities to improve the terms and conditions of our bilateral commercial relations. The overarching goal is to ensure the mutual recognition of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications in order to retain bilateral trading conditions for agricultural products while promoting the quality of the food chain.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. (PT) Switzerland is the EU’s fourth largest trade partner. In 2010, the EU exported agricultural products to the value of EUR 6.3 billion to Switzerland, making the country the third largest export market for EU agricultural products. Therefore, it is crucial that the European Union continues to cooperate with the Swiss authorities to improve bilateral trade relations. The agricultural agreement was concluded in 1999 and has been in force since 1 June 2002. However, it has only led to the partial liberalisation of some agricultural sectors and not to genuine free trade in agricultural products. Therefore, by adding a new annex, the EU and the Swiss Confederation are aiming for reciprocal recognition of protected designations of origin and geographical indications, so as to improve conditions for bilateral trade in agricultural products, whilst promoting the quality of the food chain at the same time. EU exporters of key agricultural produce, such as meat and dairy products, to one of our closest and largest export markets, will enjoy greater protection from designations of origin and geographical indications. I voted in favour of the agreement for the above reasons.

 
  
MPphoto