Verbatim report of proceedings

Tuesday, 25 October 2011 - Strasbourg

1. Opening of the sitting

IN THE CHAIR: ISABELLE DURANT
Vice-President

(The sitting opened at 09.00)

2. Documents received: see Minutes

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

4. Agenda

  President. – I shall start with a small piece of information. Yesterday, our Parliament decided to include on this afternoon’s agenda Council and Commission statements on the state of play of the negotiations currently being held in the European Council concerning the economic crisis, followed by a round of political group speakers.

The Council and the Commission have informed us that they will not be present for this debate, and following contact with all the political groups, I therefore propose that, in accordance with Rule 140(2) of our Rules of Procedure, this item be amended as follows: Statement by the President of the European Parliament on the state of play of the negotiations of the European Council concerning the economic crisis, followed by a round of political group speakers.

Are there any comments on this change to the agenda?

If not, it is agreed.

5. European Semester 2011: first lessons (debate)

  President. – The next item is the debate on:

- the oral question to the Council on the European Semester 2011 – First Lessons, by Sharon Bowles and Pervenche Berès, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (O-000219/2011 – B7-0625/2011), and

- the oral question to the Commission on the European Semester 2011 – First Lessons, by Sharon Bowles and Pervenche Berès, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (O-000220/2011 – B7-0626/2011).

  Sharon Bowles, author. – Madam President, the European Semester is an important innovation of economic governance in the EU, synchronising the calendars of multilateral surveillance for the fiscal and the macro dimensions in the Stability and Growth Pact, and also regarding EU 2020 targets in the national reform programmes.

The first exercise led to the release of country-specific recommendations adopted by the Commission in June, and had the aim of providing ex-ante guidance to Member States in both fiscal and structural objectives. These recommendations were endorsed by the Council in July following the introduction of changes. As part of Parliament’s role of ensuring maximum transparency and accountability at the Union level, the European Parliament is eager to foster a debate on these recommendations, as well as more generally on the outcome of the first instalment of the European Semester.

These oral questions to the Commission and Council seek to review the Semester with the aim of improving it. Do the Council and the Commission believe the Semester lived up to expectations, and if the exercise was not perfect, how do they think it should be improved next year? Does the Council consider that the changes it made to the recommendations in June and July of this year were made in a sufficiently transparent manner? It looks a little like the old habit of the Council weakening draft recommendations by the Commission, about which we are justifiably nervous.

Of course the Council has the right to alter those recommendations, but it is also in line with Parliament’s new role as guarantor of EU-level transparency and accountability to seek answers to the questions as to why certain changes were made. The committee is planning to organise a more detailed hearing on exactly that question on 7 November, to which both the Commission and the Council have been invited.

Parliament is also asking about the interaction between tools of different legal natures – for example, the national reform programmes, which are non-binding, and the stability and convergence programmes, which are binding – and is seeking an assessment of Member States’ commitment to and ownership of the European Semester. All of this is crucial to implement the significantly enhanced economic governance that Europe needs as a result of the ongoing crisis.

  Pervenche Berès, author. – (FR) Madam President, Mr Dominik, Commissioner, Parliament’s intention in tabling this oral question was to contribute to a debate that we feel is absolutely crucial.

When the Commission took the initiative to present this European Semester proposal, the idea was that economic governance should include a period of time for establishing European guidelines. This is, to some extent, a step towards the creation of this infamous economic government. We, the European Parliament, are worried about the fact that there might be an economic government without an economic ‘parliament’.

We would like to hear your assessment of the democratic legitimacy of this European Semester. How does democratic debate on this European Semester fit in?

Political debate on economic policy guidelines is the foundation of every democracy. If you raise the level at which economic policy guidelines are decided, then you must pay heed to the democratic debate and deliberation on those guidelines. That is what the European Parliament is trying to ensure and what we are challenging you on.

I note that, during the European Council on Sunday, you brought up the European Semester and you managed to do so without once mentioning the European Parliament, or even, I have to say, the national parliaments. Do you think that that is acceptable?

Similarly, the Commission pledged to present its next Annual Growth Survey in December. Very well. So be it. Why, then, have you not discussed it with us? Where is the democratic debate on this issue? When you table your new proposal, which assessment of the cycle that has just ended will you base it on? How are you incorporating the achievement of the Europe 2020 strategy objectives in your analysis of this European Semester? Furthermore, as Ms Bowles said – and I fully support her on this and on many other points in this matter – we are asking you to be completely transparent with regard to the amendments that you make to the country-specific recommendations after discussing them with the Member States. Otherwise, this exercise has no legitimacy and is meaningless.

When you adopt the Annual Growth Survey, how much importance do you really attach to that document? Is it just a bureaucratic document to keep the European Parliament happy, or is it a genuine policy document? Unless we are mistaken, and your real objective is the Euro Plus Pact. We want some explanations on this point, Commissioner.

  Jacek Dominik, President-in-Office of the Council. – (PL) Madam President, I would like to thank Ms Bowles and Ms Berès very much for their questions. I think this is the first time we could be tempted – at least initially – to evaluate the operation of the European Semester and draw at least a few possible conclusions at this stage as to its implementation in practice.

I would like to stress that we can, in fact, only provide an initial assessment, as the Semester itself and the whole process have not yet ended. This process, or at least its annual function, will only end when the national parliaments have approved their national budgets. This will be our first opportunity actually to assess whether the whole procedure, which began in January 2011, has had any positive results, whether there is any added value in national budgets compared to the situation previously, whether there has been greater synergy between the economic policies of the Member States as we had all hoped, and whether there has been a greater concentration of resources in accordance with the main priorities of the European Union. This is something which as yet we do not know. This process is still ongoing, so only in a few months’ time will we be able to assess how effective this European Semester has been. However, based on our initial experience, it seems that this process is the right one, one that is required, and one which has been taken very seriously both by the Member States and the national parliaments, as well as by all European Union institutions involved in the process.

I would briefly like to remind you how this process works. It begins, at the moment at least, in January when the European Commission presents its annual analysis of economic growth. Based on this, the Economic and Financial Affairs Council adopts certain guidelines for Member States in February. Then the Member States have until April to prepare national reform programmes, stability and growth pacts or convergence programmes, depending on whether they are members of the euro area. Then there follows a period when the European Commission prepares recommendations with the participation of the Member States, and responds to comments submitted by the Member States. There follows a very busy period in June, when both the relevant sector councils, their groups and preparatory bodies, as well as the European Council, finally approve the guidelines, which are ultimately – as was the case here – approved by the Economic and Financial Affairs Council on 12 July. At this time, the deadlines are very tight. We now have some conclusions and some suggestions for the future on how to streamline the process.

However, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that we should be assessing the European Semester from two different points of view, the first aspect being the technical functioning of the European Semester which I have just discussed, when certain documents are approved and there is a timetable to be followed. The second aspect is the influence of the European Semester on macro-economic dialogue in the European Union and the engagement of Member States in that dialogue, its influence on the macro-economic situation and on public finances. This is actually the main element of the European Semester, the linking of macro-economic priorities with the possibilities and priorities of public finances.

With regard to the technical aspect, after the initial process of preparing recommendations for Member States, which took several months, it is clear that this is a very technical process which requires a great deal of work on documentation all through the process. During the first six months, over 600 documents are drafted. Please remember that the majority of these documents must then be translated into all the national languages within a set time. Logistically, this is therefore a very complicated process. Then, in June, we have a very busy diary and very short deadlines for all the appropriate bodies to give their opinions and approve the relevant documents. There is not much room for manoeuvre, as the Council’s diary is so full that not much can be changed.

In this regard, the question arises as to how this could be improved. One suggestion which, at the moment, is becoming increasingly clear – and I hope this will be finally agreed – is to start the whole process a little earlier. There is a proposal for the European Commission to present its annual report in December, which would give the Member States and EU bodies several weeks to prepare for the beginning of the dialogue. In this case, in April we would already be much further along the line of discussing and agreeing the Member States’ responses to the priorities indicated in the Commission’s annual report, and our preparations regarding reform programme documents and stability and growth pacts would be more advanced and better discussed. This would probably help to alleviate the pressure at the end of May and in June – the pressure to ensure that all the EU bodies are working effectively and can approve all the documents efficiently.

I would like to point out how determined the Member States have been to implement the process effectively this year. As I have said, there are many documents – over 600. There are very short deadlines for comments. As a result, Member States accepted certain departures from the current rules. In cases where there was a large volume of documents, the process was expedited even if not all the language versions were available. This is very difficult for many Member States to accept, but they did agree to it, thus confirming their commitment to the process. They were prepared to work with the English or French versions available at the time in order to expedite the work, so that the dialogue could continue and all the recommendations could be approved in the time available.

I would now like to move on to the second element, which is much more important to us: the assessment of the influence of the whole European Semester procedure on macro-economic dialogue in the European Union. We must remember that the European Semester is only one of several factors which have emerged in recent months in the European Union as new instruments for greater economic cooperation between Member States and for improving the implementation of EU priorities in this area. We have the European Semester and the ‘six-pack’, which has only just been adopted, and we also have normal implementation of the Stability and Growth Pact. All these elements form a whole and also bring greater transparency to the procedure as well as a much stronger dialogue between Member States and much greater transparency in relation to the actual economic situation in each Member State. They also enable greater pressure to be exerted mutually on Member States, so that the discussion on macro-economic priorities can proceed in the right direction and so that everyone is fully aware of the direction the EU is going in and what challenges are being faced by the Member States.

In my opinion, the ‘six-pack’ has, in practice, fostered greater involvement of the national parliaments in the process of incorporating EU macro-economic developmental priorities into national policies through the strongest instrument existing in each country – the national budget. The national parliaments are informed, during the initial stage of discussion, which priorities each Member State intends to put forward in its national reform programme and approximately which budgetary approach will be adopted by each Member State, as the information in both documents submitted to the European Commission is given to them. Secondly, they know the results of the European Council’s recommendations. They know what the EU has recommended in this area. Later, the national parliaments have the final say on the form the national budget should take, so they have a very good instrument which monitors the way in which national governments incorporate EU priority recommendations into national measures. It is important that the European Semester should shape the direction taken by EU measures, providing one specific direction that Member States should follow. If the priority turns out to be one of maintaining or increasing growth in some Member States or implementation of the Europe 2020 agenda, this clearly shows and points to where the EU should proceed, at the same time providing flexibility for individual Member States, as we are not all starting from the same place, but we do all have to go in the same direction. This is very important. There is not a single gold standard with which everyone should comply, irrespective of whether they need it or not. We hold individual discussions regarding Member States and their economic situation, we give them a clear signal in which direction they should proceed, but we also give them a great deal of freedom in choosing the methods they need to attain their objective.

A second element which is becoming increasingly important is greater coordination and better targeting of EU resources for the implementation of EU priorities. National reform programmes which specify how a particular country would like to spend at least the majority of funding received from the EU are linked into the whole process. Through coordination of this document with others relating to the management of the public finances of a particular Member State, as well as with EU priorities, and by adapting them all further down the line, we give a clear signal that the EU has chosen these priorities and is ready to fund them and that we would also like – in the view of the EU – that Member State to subordinate its expenditure priorities in its national budget to these targets. Then we will have achieved the target designated for all EU Member States. This message is now very clear. I think that in this area – in the opinion of the Council – the European Semester has, for the time being, fulfilled its role very well.

How will this finally affect national budgets? This we do not know, as it depends on decisions made in national parliaments. However, the instruments are in place, the possibilities are there, and they should be used. However, it may happen that our final assessment for this year will continue to raise many questions and indications that something could have been done better. We must, however, remember that the European Semester was introduced at a rather bad time. We have a huge debt crisis in the EU and we have quite significant problems with the banking sector. In fact, the economic situation of the EU is very volatile. What we saw as priorities in April or May – as targets which could be achieved within that set of economic realities, the realities of the spring of this year – may be insufficient or impossible to achieve at the present moment. As a result, in a few weeks’ time, it will be easy to criticise the fact that despite the European Semester, Member States have not achieved certain things. However, the dynamics of economic change in the EU and the development of the crisis are so great that it really is difficult at the moment to foresee all the right measures which should be taken one year into the future. We should remember that all these instruments – the European Semester, the ‘six-pack’ – are there to help us bring stability to the macro-economic situation in the EU and give direction to what we do. However, they are not instruments which will solve the crisis in two or three weeks. These instruments were never planned as such, so we cannot expect implementation of the European Semester to improve the economic situation in the EU immediately. However, we believe that as a result of the European Semester, macro-economic dialogue will improve markedly in the EU, and this is its fundamental aim.

At the moment, the Council’s assessment of how the process is progressing is positive. We have learned some lessons – more from the technical point of view – about how to improve the process and give Member States more opportunity to implement the process well, and about how to participate fully and achieve better dialogue with the Commission concerning the recommendations made. Questions have been asked here as to where the European Parliament is in all this and whether this is a transparent process. The answer is yes, it is. All the documents are available on the Internet and are in the public domain. Everyone can take part in the process. In accordance with the new procedures, the European Parliament can also invite representatives of the European Council and the Council to participate in discussions, taking into account the macro-economic situation. That is why I think that everything is moving in the right direction.

  John Dalli, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, thank you for giving me the opportunity to share with you our assessment of this first European Semester and also our plans for the coming year.

The first European Semester has been an important step in strengthening our economic governance. It is part of an effort to rebuild confidence through a clear focus on building the foundations for employment and growth and through stronger policy design and implementation.

We had clear expectations of what a European Semester should mainly achieve in substance. Firstly, we wanted to ensure a closer integration of the policy analysis and guidance across fiscal and macro-economic policies, but also of the policy formulation in Member States. Secondly, we wanted to ensure that the policy guidance given to Member States has a stronger effect on implementation, through a better ex-ante timing of policy guidance and through clearer and more concrete country-specific recommendations. At the same time, the European Semester was supposed to ensure that the EU-level dimension in terms of policy spillovers was taken into account from the start when formulating policies at national level.

Against these expectations, the first European Semester has been successful. We have made significant progress on these key elements. When it comes to assessing the effectiveness of ex-ante policy guidance in terms of the follow-up by Member States, it is a bit too early to tell: we are, after all, only part way through the ‘national semester’. A measurable answer will therefore only be possible when Member States’ budgets and structural reforms have been decided and we have assessed them. I count on this House to play a full part in making this assessment. We will then have to follow up on the implementation and examine what is the impact of the measures taken.

There is a clear recognition on the part of most stakeholders that the policy guidance has become more integrated across policy areas and is more focused on countries’ central priorities. It has also been clearer and more concrete, which should facilitate implementation. With the joint presentation of their SCPs and NRPs, Member States have set out their views on how the key policy challenges should be addressed. The Commission has assessed these policy plans and proposed integrated recommendations based on the broad economic and employment policy guidelines and on the Stability and Growth Pact in terms of legal instruments. The Annual Growth Survey has set the horizontal policy priorities for Member States and ensured that national programmes take account of the EU dimension from the start.

While I consider the European Semester a clear success and an important step forward, there is naturally also scope for improvement. In 2012, the most important aspect is certainly going to be a stronger focus on the growth dimension. As President Barroso outlined here on 12 October, bolstering growth, through full implementation of key reforms on the single market, but also through new and innovative financing instruments such as project bonds, is a central dimension of putting Europe on the course out of the crisis. You will certainly see EU-level action on growth and employment at the heart of the next Annual Growth Survey. The Commission has also decided to advance the presentation of the Annual Growth Survey to late 2011. This should allow for a fuller debate from the outset.

In our democratic societies, reform efforts can only be sustained if they have legitimacy, both in terms of being anchored in the democratic process and carried by the elected representatives of the European citizens as well as in terms of delivering what serves the common good. This means, of course, that this House, as well as national parliaments, will have to play an important role in the European Semester.

A strong link between the EU dimension and the national dimensions of key policy challenges can only be established if these perspectives are brought together through true ownership. This can only be achieved if parliaments have a strong role. I believe that the spring interparliamentary meeting which you organised in 2011 could, if repeated, become an important institutional way of better involving national parliaments to ensure legitimacy. And, of course, the new economic governance legislation underlines the need for national parliaments – and other stakeholders – to be fully involved in the Semester, and in the elaboration of the SCPs and NRPs.

  Jean-Paul Gauzès, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (FR) Madam President, Mr Dominik, Commissioner, I note from the Commissioner’s speech that the Semester has been a success. I can only be pleased about that. With Europe in the throes of a major crisis, this tool, as it is called, needs to help move the situation forward.

I should like to address, in particular, the Council representative. It took you 16 minutes to explain the mechanism, which we were familiar with, and to tell us that all this is very technical, that it is ultimately too much for one to understand and that, if Parliament wants to be informed, then it is in luck, because it can consult the documents that are updated for the general public online.

You might also tell us to read the newspapers, which we do as a matter of course. I find it quite shocking that the only response to the question that was asked about Parliament’s role in the European Semester was that we should read the newspapers and search the Internet and we will learn just as much about it. You know, when we meet our fellow citizens – and I wonder whether you ever have cause to meet them yourself – they ask us: ‘What is Europe doing with regard to these issues?’ Until now, we would tell them: ‘Ah, we have developed the European Semester!’ Well today, the European Semester is a damp squib.

That is what I wished to say to you, Mr Dominik. The method that has been applied excessively for some months now is certainly not one that will enable Europe to overcome the crisis.

(Applause)

  Anni Podimata, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (EL) Madam President, from the outset, a very large majority in the European Parliament supported the European Semester procedure, which it saw as a very promising procedure designed to promptly bring national budgets and structural reform programmes into line with the targets for growth in the European economy in particular, rather than with EU objectives in general.

However, if we are to be able to make the necessary structural moves in time, we need to learn a number of initial first lessons from this procedure. During the first application of the European Semester, we had a text on substantive divergence on the part of the Member States from growth targets based on the EU 2020 strategy of rather restricted orientation and failure to comply with certain recommendations made by the Commission for each of the Member States at the Council’s initiative.

As delays, failure to apply decisions on time and, most importantly, the lack of cohesion between the various Union policies seem to be developing – as other speakers have said – into a fundamental problem for the Union in the present crisis, we want to insist on this point. We insist that, within the framework of the European Semester, we need a substantive and weighty proposal for viability and growth and the full application of the Community procedure, with the European Parliament involved at all stages.

  Sylvie Goulard, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (FR) Madam President, I should like to echo what Mr Gauzès said. I ask you, Mr Dominik, what planet are you on? As for you, Commissioner, your speech certainly showed that you are slightly more aware of the need for democratic legitimacy in economic decision making, but do you talk to people who are currently in turmoil? Do you see what state the euro area is in and how we are perceived throughout the world? A little more self-criticism would not go amiss, if you ask me.

The European Semester is a useful initiative that has got off to a good start but which is nowhere near enough. I should like to emphasise one point: to be perfectly honest, it is an insult to this Parliament to tell us to go and look on a website so that we can participate in the decision-making process. It is an insult to democracy. We are not asking you to give us your information as an act of charity. We are asking to be involved in making economic, social and fiscal decisions that are going to be absolutely crucial if we want the euro area, on the one hand, and the EU 27, on the other, to be able to function slightly better – to put it mildly – than in previous years.

We need debates beyond borders. We need the national parliaments to mobilise. We need a general mobilisation and a bit more than information and communication. We need a comprehensive European public debate, and this Parliament really must be one of the forums for it.

  Ivo Strejček, on behalf of the ECR Group. – (CS) Madam President, I listened attentively to the speech from the Council, just as my fellow Members did, and I am clearly going to be the only one here who will express satisfaction with the speech and its communication. This is simply because the Council lives in the real world, politically and economically speaking. A Council representative has finally said it here. He understands that there is not just a European Parliament, but there are also national parliaments, and the debate in the national parliaments is not a simple matter and is not one-way. That is the first point.

Secondly, the Council communicated an obvious truth here between the lines, that the development of national economies is heterogeneous and cannot be harmonised overnight. Thirdly, the Council has declared that the process is very complicated. If the Council says that there are 600 documents that are not even in the official languages, and the national parliaments must somehow grapple with this, it will naturally take some time.

Finally, there is the point I regard as being the most serious. The static set objectives from six months ago are fundamentally out of step with today's turbulent economic developments. I am satisfied with the Council’s response.

  Bas Eickhout, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (NL) Madam President, according to the President-in-Office and the Commissioner, the European Semester is a great success. I have my doubts, however. In all the recommendations that have been made to the Member States, there is a major common factor, which is that they have only looked at government expenditure, which needs to be cleaned up as much as possible. That is the dominant theme in the Commission’s recommendations.

Commissioner Dalli says that the Commission will take a broader approach next time, which will encompass employment. That is an improvement, but it is not what the European Semester is intended for. The Semester is supposed to help realise the Europe 2020 strategy. There are five key indicators for the strategy – namely, employment, research and development and innovation, education, poverty or social exclusion and climate change and energy. These issues are supposed to be the core issues and the recommendations need to home back in on them.

We have looked into what account has been taken of all these different indicators. Our investigation showed that the Commission had put forward all kinds of recommendations that do not correspond to the key indicators. I will give some examples. When it comes to the important issue of energy saving, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands have not even set a target, yet the Commission does not even mention these two Member States in the recommendations. A second example concerns the R&D budget. Here, too, the Netherlands has said that it will not attain the stipulated three per cent target, but will instead reach 2.5%. I have put questions to the Commission about this. What was the Commission’s response? They said that 2.5% is also good. In other words, the three per cent target is absolutely not important to the Commission. In that case, it should say so.

If that is the Commission’s position, simply make it clear that the Europe 2020 strategy is no longer important and that we simply need to look at the economic indicators. Be honest about it. We want the Europe 2020 indicators to be properly looked at and for that to be a democratic process. Involve the European Parliament, the national parliaments and civil society organisations and look at all the indicators, or else be honest and ditch the Europe 2020 strategy.

  Nikolaos Chountis, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (EL) Madam President, the replies by the Council and Commission representatives to the question put by my colleagues basically presented the problem as a procedural problem. However, the issue of the European Semester is, above all, a political issue. In my opinion, the application of the European Semester is anti-social, anti-democratic and reactionary, because the Member States, under political pressure and threats from the Commission, are adapting their fiscal targets and budgets.

Its application basically denies each Member State any facility to apply an alternative growth policy, regardless of the government it has put in power. On the contrary, regardless of the policy approved by each nation, they must apply the neoliberal austerity policies of the European Union. Ultimately, Mr Barroso or his successor, or Mr Rehn or his successor, will decide if unemployed people in Greece are to be paid unemployment benefits, if poor homeless people in Ireland are to be paid welfare benefits, or if workers in Portugal are to be paid EUR 300.

Ultimately, a measure such as the European Semester, which has no democratic credentials, which infringes the EU Treaties, which breaches and circumvents national parliaments, which circumvents the European Parliament and, more importantly, which circumvents and infringes and disregards the interests of the people, is a threat to democracy.

Commissioner, Members of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, at this time, when decisions on debt management are being taken or have been taken by the leaders of the European Union and by the Greek Prime Minister, if these decisions move in the same direction, then European semesters will not be able to save the day. On the contrary, we shall see an explosive pan-European semester of demonstrations by European workers taking their fate into their own hands.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI). – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the European Semester is a political instrument of taxation to bolster the potency of the Europe 2020 strategy. Since its advent, Member States have to put their economic policy plans on the table in the spring – a procedure that definitely was necessary in order to get to grips with the disastrous financial situation of a number of Member States.

However, I would like to say, at this point, that I do endorse the technical criticism articulated by my colleagues. Fully realising the potential of the internal market – the economic foundation of the EU – is one of the ten goals in the Annual Growth Survey for 2011 that are supposed to be realised by 2012. We are all called upon to realise this potential, for example, by means of funding infrastructure projects and improving competitiveness, while giving particular consideration to small and medium-sized enterprises and creating green jobs in order to help bring about sustainable growth in Europe.

  Burkhard Balz (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, the Heads of State or Government clearly wanted to pre-empt our critical demands here today. At the summit on Sunday, they stressed that they were very much minded to carry out an ambitious European Semester. There was also much talk of learning from the past. The first findings from the current European Semester are sobering, in my view. They confirm the experiences that we, the European Parliament, have had to face in applying the Stability and Growth Pact that has been in place hitherto. Self-monitoring by the Council is not working. It has not worked so far and it never will. Hence, the time is now ripe to move from sweeping lip service in public to useful preventive budgetary policy and coordination and, indeed, for that to be put into writing.

In the end, we come back to the same conclusion – we must not rest on our laurels when it comes to strengthening the Stability and Growth Pact. The Community method needs to be further strengthened – there is no doubt about it. We parliamentarians should insist on more transparency and on a public discourse for the annual growth report, for the Commission recommendations and for use by the Member States. The great hope, however, remains with the Commission, and quite rightly so.

I therefore urge that we should exhaust our full potential for improvement together, as simply creating a new instrument does not get us anywhere – it also needs to be used efficiently.

  Roberto Gualtieri (S&D). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, even though it is too early for a conclusive assessment, it is difficult to escape the impression that this Semester is producing weak coordination and inadequate democratic legitimacy. The two things are linked because without full democratic legitimacy, the Semester runs the risk of being more a bureaucratic exercise than a coordination of substance.

This limitation certainly relates to the crucial issue of the Union’s competences and Parliament’s prerogatives, which should lie at the very heart of any Treaty reform, which would otherwise be pointless or harmful. This limitation also highlights a problem of effective political will to make immediate use of all the instruments offered by the Treaty in order to strengthen coordination and give Parliament a greater role.

Then there is a problem of content. A reading of the Council’s recommendations shows an obvious limitation in the line of economic politics that inspired them: deficit reduction and development of the internal market are necessary but not sufficient conditions for tackling the crisis, and unless there is a major investment plan, they are liable to trigger a vicious circle that may bring us to collapse. The political line of the Semester therefore needs to be the subject of a genuine political debate, which can only take place in the context of the discussions between Parliament and the Council.

  Carl Haglund (ALDE). – (SV) Madam President, when we go out and meet with citizens, we are more and more frequently hearing the question: ‘why are you debating structures in Europe instead of solving the crisis?’ I now see that we are once again guilty of contemplating our structures rather than considering what we should do to resolve the problems that we have. I am among those who believe that it is possible to solve the current crisis with the instruments that we already have in place.

It was not so long ago, more specifically, only a month ago, that we approved the legislative package of which the European Semester also forms part. It is easy for us to focus already on what is wrong with it instead of using it to our advantage to actually tackle the economic concerns that we have.

There is certainly a need for a general and open debate, here in Parliament, for example, on the Commission’s recommendations. However, to condemn the system at this stage is not a particularly wise thing to do in my opinion, because we have not actually seen any tangible results from it.

A lot of sensible things have also been said here today, for example, concerning the fact that the Commission has every reason to reflect on its recommendations with regard to growth. Simply issuing recommendations for how to make savings is hardly likely to lead us out of the crisis in the long term, even though there are countries that do, in fact, have to save money.

Therefore, let us consider the fact that we have actually created a whole host of new instruments that can help us to solve the crisis, instead of concentrating on criticising them.

  Vicky Ford (ECR). – Madam President, the citizens that I represent are not necessarily concerned about what is happening in some faraway European Semester, but they are very concerned about what is happening in Europe and in the eurozone. Right now, they see that Greece cannot afford to repay its debt and that the crisis is just getting worse.

From a UK perspective, there are many of my citizens who are fed up with bailing out our own banks, but who do think that it is time you restructured the banks across the continent. That is not easy and it is painful, but it does need to be sorted out and it needs to be sorted out now.

As for my own contribution on the European Semester, I hope that our Member States will live up to the expectations of the Budgetary Framework Directive because, fundamentally, our citizens need to know where their money is going, how it is being spent, and how forecasts are being put together by our governments. So I hope that one of the first actions of next year’s Semester will be to ensure that our countries fulfil their obligations.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI). – (DE) Madam President, relocation to European level neutralises the disciplining powers of the markets. The result is that the whole of Europe has to pay a bitter price. Instead, for example, of giving the Greeks a chance to recover by being outside the euro, they were dragged along within it whatever the cost, thus making further indebtedness easier.

The EU’s way of supposedly ensuring greater financial transparency is to employ the latest marketing trick. Brussels’ monitoring of the national budgets, in the form of the European Semester, will end up – in very short order – turning into pure planning bureaucracy that lacks any real content and merely pays lip service to monitoring. The butter mountains and milk lakes of the past are, of course, testimony to the failures of a planned economy at EU level. Growth and success, moreover, cannot be produced to order, as the Troika involved in the Greek rescue has now learnt the hard way.

It would seem that Brussels refuses to see that the single currency has a faulty design and was doomed to fail from the outset as a result of the differing economic conditions of its members. Instead of more centralisation, what we need is to move back to an association of States with equal rights, pursuing their own economic policies. There could, if need be, be a small hard currency zone, provided that the key economic indicators of the countries in question allow this.

  Marianne Thyssen (PPE). – (NL) Madam President, Presidents, ladies and gentlemen, decisions and legislation stand and fall on the basis of their implementation. It is precisely for that reason that we are so satisfied with the launch of the European Semester and the integration of the Semester into the ‘six-pack’. If the governance cycle of the Semester is well applied, it can work wonders for the absolutely necessary economic and budgetary integration of the Union.

Yet I do smell a rat, and I smell it on the side of the Member States. While it is clear to all observers that the Union lacks the muscle to follow rapid series of realities and events in its reform, we can see that in various Member States, resistance is growing and that national parliaments are beginning to brace themselves.

Secondly, I also share the criticism about the lack of democratic legitimacy. It is high time that there was a fundamental debate about a properly understood subsidiarity approach. Is it on a structural or a political basis that we find ourselves stuck? In any case, we have barriers that need to be removed. In the meantime, however, we must not rest on our laurels – it is not five to midnight, it is actually five past midnight, and all the Member States must implement the agreed measures.

I therefore have the following question to ask: do you not think it is necessary for the Member States to now commit in their own laws or constitutions to balance their budgets? Secondly, I would like to ask: is it not necessary for the national parliaments, as such, to explicitly commit to take the European recommendations in connection with the European Semester and the budget for Europe 2020 seriously? Thirdly, I endorse the question about a more active role for the European Parliament, since without democratic legitimacy, no serious measures can be justified.

  George Sabin Cutaş (S&D). – (RO) Madam President, by coordinating Member States’ economic and social policies, the European Semester marks an important step towards introducing sound European economic governance. Fiscal policy must be a joint action area from now on at EU level. At the same time, the national reform programmes and stability and convergence programmes cannot fail to include requirements for stimulating economic growth and investment, guaranteeing a high level of education to all European citizens, providing social protection and creating jobs. In this regard, the annual recommendations made to both Member States and the EU must be sufficiently ambitious to enable the targets set by the Europe 2020 strategy to be met.

Following this first exercise in implementing the European Semester, the Commission will have to analyse the main problems the EU and Member States are facing and propose clear guidelines for reducing the macro-economic imbalances and stimulating balanced economic growth. I also think, as do other colleagues, that the European Semester can only be improved by fully complying with the powers granted to the European Parliament, in accordance with the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and by fully involving Parliament in the process of drawing up the recommendations.

  Olle Schmidt (ALDE). – (SV) Madam President, I have, essentially, a very positive view of the introduction of the European Semester, which is helping to establish greater economic cooperation and greater budgetary discipline. However, the signal from the summit at the weekend in the form of the proposal to further strengthen the Euro Group is worrying. The EU is a union of 27 countries in which all Member States should be involved on equal terms. To create further division now in the EU is the wrong path to take and also a dangerous one. In the European Parliament, too, there is currently talk about a division into euro area states and non-euro area states.

I understand the euro area countries’ will to act, but in troubled times, it is much more important to keep the Union together rather than divide it, even with regard to the European Semester.

The economies of all 27 Member States of the EU are closely interwoven. We are interlinked.

  Andrew Henry William Brons (NI). – Madam President, crises are calamities to ordinary people, but to the EU, they are opportunities for extending the power and competence of EU institutions and for encouraging key EU projects, like fiscal and political union. Harmonisation for its own sake borders on obsessive behaviour. Economic policy should not be about congruence or symmetry: it should be about the particular needs of very different economies.

Large budget deficits, other things being equal, should be avoided, but there are circumstances in which they might be necessary. Quantitative easing might be necessary as a reflationary measure – something which, of course, is not possible unilaterally within the eurozone.

It might be argued that the mechanisms are simply providing a necessary external discipline, forcing Member States into good, rather than bad, economic habits. However, we need to look several steps ahead. How long will it be before the Commission decides the budgets of every Member State, with the Member States themselves having only a consultative role?

  Diogo Feio (PPE). – (PT) Madam President, the European institutions were right when they determined that there should be a European Semester. Coordination of budgetary policy is very important as a means of coordinating economic policies too, but there have been practical problems with the implementation of this good idea. The European Semester requires genuine cooperation between the various European institutions. It is impossible for the European Parliament only to be informed over the Internet. The public did not vote for Members of the European Parliament who are mere e-mail addresses; they voted for representatives of their interests and that is the first lesson that must be borne in mind. Secondly, however, has the European Semester already gone as far as it can? The answer is no. The European institutions need speed, they need an effective response to the current crisis and, for this very reason, I must say that the news that has been reaching the public over the last week is worrying.

To be completely honest, I can see further postponements, I can feel excessive indecision, and I can hear talk of studies. Europe does not need studies; it needs decisions for effective economic governance that are based on the European Commission and monitored by the European Parliament, and that take into consideration the interests of all the EU’s citizens rather than simply those of national governments.

  Olle Ludvigsson (S&D). – (SV) Madam President, I would like to emphasise one issue that several speakers have already touched on in this debate. The influence of both the national parliaments and the European Parliament on the European Semester needs to increase. If the process merely results in horse trading between national governments involving very little transparency, as it did this year, it cannot have any great value. Creating real legitimacy requires openness and a proper debate.

I would also like to emphasise the social perspective, which has consistently been significantly under-represented in this year’s Semester. Poverty, unemployment, inferior working conditions, the social divide and a weakened social security system are aspects that have been ignored, despite the fact that they currently play an absolutely key role in the European economy. The crisis that we are having to deal with is just as much a social one as an economic one.

One important reason for the distorted set of priorities and analyses is the fact that the social partners and the socially active non-governmental organisations have still not been given a clear role in the process. That is something that must be assigned to them now. Without active, dynamic work in the social sphere, it will not be possible to establish sustainable growth.

  Theodor Dumitru Stolojan (PPE) . – (RO) Madam President, we already have two responses to the question about how we should prevent poor management of public finances and macro-economic imbalances. The financial market has given an extremely robust response in that it has dispelled the illusion that Member States in the euro area were borrowing at relatively equal interest rates. Each Member State is now judged according to its own financial situation and pays interest commensurate with this situation. The second response is given by the new economic governance regulations in the European Union. As part of these new regulations, the European Semester is the main instrument for providing a structured analysis of each Member State’s economic situation.

This is why we are responsible for ensuring that this Semester is as effective as possible, and we insist very firmly on the responsibility which the Council has for explaining publicly, with sound arguments, the reasons for rejecting some recommendations made by the European Commission.

  Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE). – (HU) Madam President, the documents concerning the first year of the European Semester clearly show that Member States are trying to change the wording proposed by the Commission. Why? Are they trying to make things easier? I do not think so. Today, all Member State governments are fully aware of their responsibility and it is clear that the crisis hits everyone, smaller and larger countries alike. If so, what is the problem? Is the idea bad? No, I think the problem lies in the execution. The evaluations I read are full of clichés: pensions, structural reforms, fiscal stringency, the same things everywhere, and mountains of documents.

Is this what the European Semester is about? Is this what we wanted? Even the best methods can fail if those involved in planning, execution and monitoring do not have a common ground. I would like to believe that Member States do not pursue easier options for their own sake, but rather because of a very clear and simple reason: they cannot do more in this crisis, they have no other options, due to debts, budgetary problems or economic slowdown.

My question to the Commission is this: do you have a proposal that can transpose best practices into the future, and, of course, not in a static environment, but in a climate characterised by dynamic changes and crisis? The intended economic coordination of the European Semester can only work if it is based on mutual values and objectives, on consensus, where the European Parliament has a central role, since this is the only institution that can maintain independent democratic control over both the Commission and Member States.

  Danuta Jazłowiecka (PPE). – (PL) Madam President, for many months now, we have been having an ongoing debate about the future of the European economy. The measures proposed by the European Commission are being implemented hastily, only to be found inadequate after some time. Today’s debate suggests that a similar situation is taking place in the case of the European Semester.

At this point however, I would like to express my concern with regard to the calls for the division of the European Parliament into a group of Members who are included in the work relating to overcoming the crisis and a group of Members who are excluded from this process. Attempts to create a two-tier Europe at all levels still exist. Depriving Members from non-euro area Member States of the right to decide about the fate of the single currency is likely to contribute to the entrenchment of divisions rather than to the creation of effective solutions. We should not forget that the majority of these Member States aim to adopt the euro at some stage, and that they are equally interested in improving the mechanisms governing Economic and Monetary Union as are the other Member States.

Currently, we require more cohesion and closer cooperation. The crisis is affecting all Member States. Parliament does not represent Member States or the euro area; it represents all the citizens of the European Union, and the existence of a single currency determines the fate not only of the residents of France, Germany or Greece, but also of the countries striving to adopt it.

  Liisa Jaakonsaari (S&D). – (FI) Madam President, this Semester is a very important tool among an entire set of tools by means of which we have to try to strengthen the European economy and predict what is going to happen. In fact, the only drawback with it is that we will be leaving the European Parliament at the mercy of the Internet.

There are also some alarming aspects to this. On behalf of the Commission and the Council, it has been stressed here that time is short and that there are logistical problems. That is certainly true. If we are already on the train, to reach our destination, it is most important that the train is on the right tracks, and not what speed it is travelling at.

If and when these tracks are decided in 2012, how can they be changed if something radical and new takes place in the economy, so that we do not continue with a faulty policy, such as we have done partly this time, by which I mean that we have simply made savings?

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Madam President, Mr Dominik’s response on behalf of the Council regarding the advantages of the so-called European Semester, which is aimed at the permanent and anti-democratic monitoring of and interference in the drafting of the Member States’ national budgets, clearly demonstrates the central goals of this political process of power centralisation for large companies and financial institutions.

What is happening in Portugal is a clear example of this. There has not been such a direct and profound attack on social and labour rights for decades. This draft national budget is designed to lead to major wage reductions, a brutal decline in the people’s purchasing power and the social functions of the state, an increase in the working week of two and a half hours without any compensation for workers, and the general impoverishment of the people, which will also lead to the closure of thousands of small and medium-sized enterprises, and an increase in social inequality, in unemployment and in social exclusion to unbearable and scandalous levels. In the end, that is the intention ...

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Andreas Schwab (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, Mr Dominik, Commissioner, I would say to Mr Ludvigsson that this is certainly not the juncture to discuss how we implement the content of the Europe 2020 strategy. At this point, we are only discussing its formal and technical organisation.

Mr Dominik, you do not have things easy this morning. You were, however, correct and honest in your assessment that the European Semester does not contain any instruments that help to overcome this crisis. I agree with you. It can deliver only a small contribution. I do believe, however, that we must both attempt to find a solution to the crisis together. I would therefore ask you – do you seriously believe that macro-economic dialogue is actually something that is already taking place at Member State level? I find that highly doubtful. Governments create programmes in order to get re-elected, and you cannot blame them. However, a macro-economic dialogue on the long-term direction of economic policy simply has not taken place thus far. That is something that the governments need to learn first.

Secondly, do you therefore support the idea that we should have a larger European budget in order to balance out these macro-economic deficits, to a certain extent, on the basis of the Member States?

Thirdly, do you also support the call for single market governance, in other words, that we should have more EU regulations and therefore have to regulate less?

  Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (S&D). – (HU) Madam President, today’s debate reminds me of the legendary horse used as a teaching aid for veterinary students which demonstrates all conceivable veterinary diseases. We have a good instrument, and on this I fully agree with Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz: the Financial Semester is an excellent economic instrument for forcing Member States to pursue responsible policies.

However, the European Commission fails to provide authentic information for the European Parliament. The European Commission should understand that we, the Parliament, could be their ally in exercising control over Member States. That is why democratic control is necessary, and I fully agree with those who have taken the initiative, because there is no guarantee that an appropriate debate on this issue will take place in the national parliaments.

I call on Mr Dalli to have the Commission prepare a summary of the debates that have actually taken place in national parliaments on the execution of the Financial Semester.

  Marisa Matias (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Madam President, what we have been told here today in the Council declaration is that, for technical reasons, democracy will have to be sacrificed with regard to the European Semester. However, what we are talking about here is a political issue and the question I would ask is as follows: can we have political coordination without democracy? What, in the end, happens to European Parliament scrutiny? What happens to national parliaments’ scrutiny of their own major budgetary choices? However, if the issue were technical, as has been said here, we would then be talking about a variable technique, because, as we know, the Council has substantially eased the conditions for the four countries on the waiting list – France, Italy, Hungary and Spain – in comparison with those for countries that have been bailed out. What model of intergovernmentalism is this, then, that allows Germany to express its opinions about Portugal, but does not allow Portugal to express its opinions about Germany? I ask only that you pay attention to this, Commissioner: no problem of democratic legitimacy can be solved by asking the Members of this House to consult information on the Internet. That is a problem of exclusion from information, not of exclusion from democracy, and that is what we are talking about here.

  John Dalli, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, I would like to thank everybody for their contribution to this debate. The most fundamental change introduced by the European Semester is the fact that European-level coordination of fiscal and economic policies now happens before national decisions are finalised. Until this year, national policies and budgets had been assessed at EU level only after national decisions. This is a major change and, as has been mentioned by many Members today, it implies an increased democratic responsibility for EU institutions.

This calls for more participation of the EU institutions in national debates. We need to find a way to do this. The Commission has so far preferred to avoid challenging national policies in public debate.

The European Semester and the ‘six-pack’ will be instrumental in delivering stability, growth and jobs in Europe in the coming years. They will help us avoid the emergence of the kind of fiscal and market economic imbalances that resulted in the current crisis. But you are right: the European Semester is not a crisis management tool. It will deliver results in terms of stability and growth within a few years, which is why two weeks ago, we presented the stability and growth road map, elements of which have been addressed by the European Council and will feature in the Euro summit tomorrow.

In the short term, we need to agree on a substantial recovery path for Greece, coordinated recapitalisation of banks and maximising the firepower of our financial backstops. In the longer term, we need to agree on measures for growth and strengthening of economic governance. With the European Semester, we are already making good progress on the last element: building a true economic union.

As a final note, let me just underline my conviction that the introduction of the European Semester represents a very important step forward. This House has already made an important contribution to making the European Semester more effective, including by bolstering its legitimacy. It will also, in the future, be the crucial role of the European Parliament and national parliaments to continue ensuring the democratic ownership of our joint policy coordination. We are all now called on to put this into practice together.

  Jacek Dominik, President-in-Office of the Council. – (PL) Madam President, I would like to thank all of the speakers who have expressed their opinion regarding the European Semester. The dominant recurring theme in your statements was the issue of democracy within the entire process and the question of who should really be the decision maker in this process. I frequently have the pleasure of taking part in the sittings of a national parliament, in my own country of Poland. The opinions I hear there are exactly the same, only expressed from a slightly different point of view.

The national parliaments continue to assert that they should be making the ultimate decisions in relation to national issues, since in their opinion, they know what is best for their citizens. This is precisely the objective of the European Semester. On the one hand, as the Commissioner pointed out, the European Parliament is, for the first time, involved in the entire decision-making process. On the other hand, the national parliaments are aware of the opinions of the European institutions regarding the economies of particular countries and the fulfilment of priorities as determined by the European Union. They know the position of their governments on budgetary plans and national reform programmes and, acting in complete autonomy, they decide on the extent and manner of implementation, since it is national parliaments which make the ultimate decisions regarding the structure of state budgets – the most important instruments for implementing macro-economic policy in any particular country. I therefore find it hard to agree with the opinion that the entire process is lacking in democracy and transparency, since the institution which is most influential in the whole process is very much included in it.

It is hard to say whether the whole process, the whole European Semester, is a resounding success or not, since it has not finished yet. We do not know how the national parliaments will accommodate their budgets to EU recommendations concerning the priorities of their countries in macro-economic policy. The objective of the European Semester was, first and foremost, to include national parliaments in the process, to show them and other, mainly national institutions – since they are the ultimate decision makers – future or existing risks to their countries. The aim is to eliminate the macro-economic imbalances that have emerged between the Member States. As outlined by the Commissioner, when monitoring of the entire process was secondary to the process itself, taking place after the budget and the majority of its implementing legislation had been passed, the European Commission and the Council could only indicate to the Member States that the direction that they had taken was wrong, and that certain actions would have a further negative impact on the economic circumstances of a particular country.

The process has now been reversed and the final decision is left to national parliaments, which are the most democratic institutions in the whole process and are most in touch with the issues facing their citizens and the actions that their countries require. In my opinion, therefore, the structure at least of the European Semester is appropriate and there are no grounds for stating that it is lacking in democratic rules. However, we will not be able to assess how it has been used by its primary addressee, the national parliaments, until a number of months have passed.

  President. – The debate is closed.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Semester is one of the tools created to consolidate economic governance in the EU. Its purpose is, alongside the ‘six-pack’ and the Stability and Growth Pact, to coordinate macro-economic and budgetary oversight, so as to achieve the Europe 2020 strategy’s targets. However, this first European Semester exercise has demonstrated serious failures in institutional terms, since Parliament has only been informed of the Commission’s recommendations and of the Council’s amendments, without the right to any type of political dialogue. As the representative of 500 million European citizens, Parliament cannot just be consulted: there must be space for greater transparency and political debate, thereby creating the legitimacy that this instrument needs. I eagerly await the evaluation of the European Semester once the national budgets and national reform programmes have been approved, so that the improvements in this mechanism can be reanalysed in order that the proposed objectives can be achieved. Once again, I would stress the need for cooperation and for quick decisions, in order that genuine economic governance based on the Commission and monitored by Parliament can be implemented.

6. 2009 discharge: Council (debate)

  President. – The next item is the report by Crescenzio Rivellini, on behalf of the Committee on Budgetary Control, on discharge in respect of the implementation of the European Union general budget for the financial year 2009, Section II – Council (SEC(2010)0963 – C7-0213/2010 – 2010/2144(DEC)) (A7-0328/2011).

  Crescenzio Rivellini, rapporteur. – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, alea jacta est: the die is cast. I would like to begin my speech opening the debate on discharge for the Council with this phrase uttered by Julius Caesar when he crossed the Rubicon with his legion, the Invincible Tenth.

Then, as now, this quotation marks a decisive moment, a genuine watershed in the history of this legislative period and of this Parliament. It is through its power to scrutinise all the Union bodies and its budgetary power that the European Parliament expresses and, at the same time, asserts its own political priorities, and to deprive it of those powers would mean emptying the democratic principle and the right of representation of their meaning.

What we are discussing today is not therefore the assertion of a privilege; it is not, as the Council would have it, the manifestation of a desire to extort and appropriate political power at anyone’s expense. Instead, it is the affirmation of the legitimate, inalienable and inviolable role of the European Parliament, of its duty to constantly scrutinise all expenditure by the European institutions, and of its right to be acknowledged as the discharge authority.

Parliament is not a self-referential authority but an authority and institution that represents the European people. As emphasised by the legal service, that role involves a two-prong approach whereby, on the one hand, an initial accountancy stage takes place represented by the closure of accounts, culminating (as laid down in Article 319 of the Treaty) in the granting of discharge to the Commission; and, on the other, the political side of discharge is developed, in other words, Parliament’s judgment on how all the institutions, without exception, have managed their accounts.

We regretfully acknowledge the fact, however, that we have all too often been sidelined; we have all too often been obstructed by the lack of cooperation shown by the Council, which is often reluctant to exchange documents, and by its unwillingness to recognise that we are the legitimate discharge authority.

These are the grounds that enable us today to issue a strongly negative assessment of the Council’s execution of expenditure and to vote to refuse discharge. It is precisely this latter stage of the process that we have to examine today, while respecting the diversity of views, and with the sole objective of furthering the integration of Europe, which, in a word, is finally becoming a Europe of the people.

That is why we strongly believe that Europe – precisely because of its age-old civilisation and because it is a community with a destiny – represents hope and a point of reference for a soulless world, plundered by mercantilism and shaped by an absurd concept of the world and of life, which would like to strip its own role of any principles and fundamental values, such as belonging and putting down roots.

Today’s vote is also about all this: the Treaty of Lisbon has guaranteed us a high degree of efficiency and a difficult task to perform in accordance with the principles of transparency and democracy, which form the basis of the system by which Europe protects its citizens. It is in accordance with those principles that we believe we cannot yet consider the Council’s execution satisfactory. As we are certain that we are working for a just cause and the common good, we have no reason to fear a possible confrontation in the Court of Justice; nor should we fear the intergovernmental institution after our vote. I therefore call on the whole of Parliament to vote against discharge for the Council.

  John Dalli, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, the Commission takes note of Parliament’s recommendation not to grant discharge to the Council for the 2009 budgetary year. The Commission can only regret that the two arms of the budgetary authority have not been able to find a suitable solution to this dispute that has been going on for three years. The Commission hopes that the issue of the Council’s discharge will be solved rapidly in a way that contributes to improving interinstitutional cooperation.

  Ingeborg Gräßle, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I am happy to see the President-in-Office of the Council here today – my group is very pleased about this as we think it is important that there should be a mutual exchange between us here.

What we have here is what you could call the corpus delicti. It consists of 34 questions about the implementation of the 2009 budget put to the Council by Parliament, or, more specifically, by the Committee on Budgetary Control and its members. I need hardly remind you that this House put forward over 200 questions in this connection. You had a little over 10% of those to answer. These included issues as important to us as the linking of potential external policy expenditure with administrative expenditure. You will be aware that this is always an issue for us. This issue will resolve itself over the next few years, however, as a result of the establishment of the European External Action Service.

In other words, we could approach a solution over the next few years so long as there is some goodwill. I am calling on the President-in-Office at this point because we believe that, since the Hungarian Presidency, as well as during the current Polish Presidency, we have been going backwards and not forwards. The greatest progress was made during the Spanish Presidency. We would thus like to encourage you to acknowledge the Treaty, which states that Parliament is the discharge authority. In other words, we cannot allow our rights to be ridden roughshod over. When it comes down to it, we do not have that many. We intend to insist that you give way to our power of discharge. There cannot be reciprocity until MEPs supervise fellow MEPs. I cannot accept officials hunkering down over a Parliamentary budget. For us as parliamentarians, that is unacceptable in itself. I will therefore close by saying that, while a solution is possible, it will require considerably more goodwill than has so far been the case.

  Jens Geier, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (DE) Madam President, Mr Dominik, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the question of discharge for the Council has been an institutional bone of contention between Parliament and the Council for years. According to our interpretation, the process is governed by Article 319 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which governs the discharge of the Commission’s budget, and the corresponding article in the Financial Regulation. So far, the Council has not been in agreement with this view. It presently argues that, as it uses operational funding from the Commission’s budget, it is also discharged along with the Commission’s budget. I do not wish to repeat the statements and positions that I and the other members of the Committee on Budgetary Control have heard from the Council in this connection. All I would say is that there have been many of them and, in my view, they have not always been coherent.

I think it is an important development that the Council is now ready to negotiate at a political level, rather than at the level of the Secretaries-General – who I do not believe have sufficient political mandate for this – as it informed us by means of a letter following the Committee on Budgetary Control’s decision on the granting of discharge to the Council. I would like to express my sincere thanks to the Presidency of the Council for this new offer.

I take the view that we should take up this offer of negotiations with the highest-ranking negotiating delegation we can muster. I also believe that we should not go into the negotiations with predetermined ideas. I therefore recommended to my group that we should abstain at this point.

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

  Søren Bo Søndergaard (GUE/NGL). – (DA) Madam President, the Committee on Budgetary Control is completely unanimous in recommending that discharge should not be granted to the Council. I would therefore like to know whether this is still also the opinion of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament. I do not think that this has been made clear. There are rumours going around that, at its last meeting, the S&D Group decided to change its position and now intends to vote in favour of granting the Council discharge. I would like to know whether this is the case and, if so, what the reasons are for the S&D Group’s change of position. The rumours suggest that it is to do with the new president for Parliament, but I would like to hear Mr Geier’s explanation.

  Jens Geier (S&D). – (DE) Mr Søndergaard, I am happy to give you the answer to this, which is that these are simply rumours. At this point, I could simply fall back on the position of not commenting on rumours. However, I have just presented our group’s position, namely, that we are going to abstain at this juncture in order to enable negotiations to take place with the Council on a level not encumbered with predetermined ideas. We acted in a similar way when it came to your discharge report for the Council.

  Theodoros Skylakakis, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (EL) Madam President, the European Parliament, as the only directly elected institution of the European Union, has the competence to grant discharge for the implementation of the Union’s general budget. At the same time, the administration of the Council needs to be subject to democratic accountability to the citizens of Europe, in terms of the funding of the EU budget, and to comply with the relevant rules.

Nonetheless, for a long time, the administration of the Council has not accepted any invitation to meet with the parliamentary committee responsible for the discharge procedure, which has yet to receive answers to the questions it has raised. However, the citizens of Europe are entitled to better information on how their taxes are being spent.

I therefore feel that discharge should not be granted and, if the final effort to negotiate also fails and if the Council continues to take a different legal view of the competences of Parliament on the matter – given that the dialogue to date has reached a stalemate and the fact that this legal issue is outstanding puts all the institutions involved at risk – we now only have one choice: to refer the matter to the Court of Justice of the European Union, so that it can settle this issue once and for all and the institutions can get back to business as usual.

  Ryszard Czarnecki , on behalf of the ECR Group. – (PL) Madam President, in the words of Mr Rivellini: the die has been cast. A rather small die at that. I do not see a Caesar in the European Union, and to be honest, while the Rubicon at one time signified a certain boundary, we are now most definitely crossing neither the Rubicon, nor the Rhine. We are now quite definitely dealing with yet another of those European tangos which are repeated every year, a competitive dual between the Council and the European Parliament. Those of us who have served at least one parliamentary term remember that this is practically a regular annual occurrence. It is a never-ending story, which suggests that the powers of the European Parliament are still not sufficiently recognised by the Council, while in this case, the case of budgetary control, these powers are very, very important. We cannot grant this discharge.

  Bart Staes, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (NL) Madam President, Mr Dominik, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, like Ms Gräßle, I am very pleased to see the Council here for this debate. I have just checked the list of speakers and I see that you have not asked to address the House. I would like – and I do think that I am speaking on behalf of the rest of the House – to ask you to respond to the end of the debate and our comments straight away so that we can have a proper exchange of views ...

(The President explained that the Council will be given the floor)

... OK, duly noted. It was not on the list of speakers.

The debate that we are holding today has actually already been going on for more than three years. That is a bad thing, really, as we are trying to reach a solution. This is not happening. The Council is truly pig-headed and we keep hearing in this debate about a gentlemen’s agreement that was concluded forty years ago. Maybe there is a gentlemen’s agreement, but the Council is certainly not behaving like a gentleman in this situation.

What is it that we are asking for? We are simply asking for there to be supervision of the Council’s budget, just as happens for the other institutions. Is that really too much to ask? The use of resources garnered from taxpayers must be monitored. That is what this is about. Our group, the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, thus does not want to grant discharge to the Council because we want to keep the pressure on, because we want to make it clear that resources must be spent properly.

In all fairness, no one in this debate is saying that the Council commits fraud with the funds allocated to it. No one is saying that there are irregularities – this is simply about democratic supervision by a Committee on Budgetary Control that has been appointed for that purpose and whose role this is. The only response that we have had to our question is a letter dated 2 June, which said ‘Look, our interpretation of the Treaty on European Union is that, if discharge is granted to the Commission, that covers everything’.

I would like to ask the President-in-Office: surely you cannot be serious about this? First of all, it contradicts years of what has been done in practice, and, secondly, it is ultimately a Pyrrhic victory. The reason for that is, if we follow that interpretation, just as we ask other agencies to appear before the Committee on Budgets in connection with the granting of discharge with regard to the Commission, we will also ask the Council to appear before that Committee.

  Søren Bo Søndergaard, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (DA) Madam President, I would like to thank the rapporteur and the Committee on Budgetary Control for presenting a clear and unanimous recommendation. We cannot approve the Council’s accounts as things currently stand. This situation is not a new one. In the spring of 2009, we postponed approval of the Council’s accounts to the autumn. They were only approved then because the Council made some concessions – not many, but they were moving in the right direction towards more cooperation and greater openness. The same thing happened in 2010. This year, however, it has been different. For example, as we have heard, the Council is still refusing to answer our questions. How can we approve accounts if we cannot obtain answers to even the simplest of questions? We obviously cannot, at least not while retaining our self respect. I very much regret the fact that the majority in the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament has changed its position. I regret the fact that we no longer have unanimity within the Committee on Budgetary Control, with the S&D Group having decided to go its own way. However, I nevertheless hope, and am certain, that there will still be a majority here in Parliament that will fight for more openness and transparency, also with regard to the Council’s accounts.

  Marta Andreasen, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Madam President, the approval this Parliament gives to EU institutions on the management of taxpayers’ money, the so-called ‘discharge procedure’, has become a joke. We were elected to scrutinise and protect our people’s interests, yet year after year, the biggest part of the budget – that under the European Commission’s responsibility – is riddled with irregularities, and still this Parliament is happy to grant discharge to it.

Members here today are also happy to grant discharge to the European Police College’s 2009 accounts even after serious misappropriations of funds surfaced that year. A nod and a wink from the new management that it will put its house in order is all it took, yet then when it comes to the Council, Parliament refuses discharge even if the auditors make no criticism at all of the institution’s financial management.

Why such inconsistency? Power games. Parliament thinks this is a way of flexing its muscles. In reality, this is an act of total disrespect to the taxpayers it is supposed to serve. However, even more disrespectfully, this House will not allow any other institution but itself to approve its own financial management. This is a total conflict of interest. The reports by the internal auditor of this Parliament for 2007, 2008 and 2009, which came to light last week, show this House is far from meriting a clean bill of health.

I voted against discharge for the Commission. I voted against discharge for Parliament and I will vote against discharge for the Council, as I cannot be certain that the money has been properly spent.

  Monika Hohlmeier (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, in contrast to the previous speaker, I would like to begin by observing that, in my view, the European Parliament does not wish to express a resolution of no confidence in the Council. In other words, the motion that we are tabling does not mean that we have a lack of confidence in the Council or assume that funds are misspent.

I do have a concern that the Council should give much more consideration to stronger cooperation with Parliament and collaboration between the three institutions. I will illustrate with an example. I am the rapporteur for real estate. It would be highly beneficial if the three institutions would coordinate with each other much better when it comes to buildings. The taxpayers would also be grateful, as perhaps then we could act more effectively and more in concert instead of as three institutions doing everything separately. The same applies, as I see it, to interpreters and other areas. We should work together. The general population can no longer be expected to understand how we do not even answer each other’s questions.

  Inés Ayala Sender (S&D). – (ES) Madam President, I shall begin with a Spanish saying which is less Caesarean but closer, I think, to what citizens are demanding from us in these days of anxiety for Europe: ‘the best is the enemy of the good’. That is, they are asking us to cooperate, to make an effort, rather than trying to gain advantage or fame.

I sincerely believe that the road we have chosen is the wrong one, and I also think that the two amendments put forward by Mr Rivellini are very revealing in this respect, as they backtrack on the first proposals, which I believe are, let us say, too risky.

We in the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament have debated this thoroughly, and we continue to demand transparency and clarity in all accounts, as we have always done and as we continue to do, but we regret that the road that has been decided on involves abandoning the majority of our institutions. I believe that a high-level group from both institutions, like the one suggested by my colleague, Mr Geier, was the mature way to go, if you, Ms Gräßle, dislike bureaucrats – I think they are doing their job. Moreover, certainly, giving the Court of Justice the final say is a poor solution. I believe that, given the mature nature of both institutions, they should show a little more strength, a little more discipline.

  Richard Ashworth (ECR). – Madam President, I rise to make two points. Under the interinstitutional agreement of 2005, the Council entered into an agreement with this Parliament and it is not acceptable that too many of the Member States continue to ignore those commitments. In particular, in light of the Lisbon Treaty, it is high time they realised the obligation to find better cooperation with this House. The Council must meet its obligations.

Secondly, would the Council and Commission both please understand that the continuing adverse commentary from the Court of Auditors is extremely damaging to the standing and the integrity of the European Union amongst the general population. It is not good enough to give technical explanations. What we need is clear action, because the Council and the Commission must give greater urgency to the achievement of an unqualified statement of assurance.

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE). – Madam President, the Council stated that Parliament concluded the 2009 discharge procedure when it granted discharge and closure of accounts to the Commission. This is wrong.

I cannot believe that the Council wants to spend money without scrutiny. However, this is what I see. This is neither responsible nor an example of good governance, transparency or accountability and is even more appalling during this time of financial crisis and a crisis of trust, when every euro must be accounted for and transparency and accountability enhanced.

In democratic regimes, parliaments have the right to scrutinise the executive and its expenditures. The European Union should not depart from this practice, and this is why I fully support the position of the rapporteur in not granting the discharge to the Council.

  Bogusław Liberadzki (S&D). – (PL) Madam President, Mr Geier has presented our position in this matter – the position of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament. The Committee on Budgetary Control also works according to the following principle: while respecting the balance between individual institutions of the European Union, we still emphasise the importance of transparency in the financial clearing process. It is our position that it is we, the European Parliament, who represent the citizens, the electorate. We are at an important moment in history, where every euro of public money spent should be accounted for publicly. We have been concerned with a trend which has been growing for years, namely, the Council’s reluctance to embrace such full, open dialogue, regardless of the position of the Presidency, whether social democratic or right-wing. The Council’s position has always been the same. In our opinion, there is a certain factor in the decision-making process which is found in the administrative, bureaucratic side of the Council, and we would like to begin working together much more closely.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D). - (SK) Madam President, I am afraid that the problem we are discussing has not only a legal and an institutional dimension, but also a political dimension. I would like to emphasise that Parliament is fully entitled to its decisions, and that it has generally exercised this right correctly in situations such as the current one, where the Council has failed to meet its obligations. The actual fact that a legal conflict has arisen between institutions of the EU is, however, very unfortunate for the legitimacy of the Union and for the entire project of European integration.

It is extremely counterproductive for the two institutions to be arguing about who has done – or has failed to do – what, and who has the right to what. In my opinion, the Union already has enough problems on its plate, and can well do without disputes such as this. Citizens are not interested in our interinstitutional squabbles, but want us to solve their problems. The critical dispute over the matter of discharge must therefore be resolved legally as soon as possible. The facts are clear, in my opinion: the Council bureaucracy should bow to democratic accountability and the EU’s citizens as far as utilisation of the EU’s financial resources is concerned.

  Jan Mulder (ALDE). – (NL) Madam President, there is no doubt about Parliament’s position. Under the Treaty, Parliament is the body with the ultimate responsibility for granting discharge. All European institutions delegate responsibility to the Committee on Budgetary Control in respect of the policy they have implemented and I absolutely do not see why an exception should be made for the Council of Ministers. In the end, the solution might be for us to turn to the European Court of Justice, but that does not seem to me to be an ideal solution.

Parliament is still open to dialogue and I would like to call on the Council to discuss with the Committee on Budgetary Control in an entirely frank and open manner at the administrative level, at the political level, how this can be resolved, and to desist from refusing to even appear, in any case. We may be able to resolve this situation through discussion, but that cause is not helped if the Council continually refuses to enter into dialogue with the Committee on Budgetary Control.

  John Dalli, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, we have noticed the various comments throughout this House, and also some calls for cooperation between the institutions, which we welcome. The Commission can only emphasise the political nature of this question. The Commission is of the opinion that all the institutions should cooperate together for the smooth functioning of their work. In any case, the Commission will continue to actively participate in the procedure, and I can assure you once again that you can count on committed interlocutors on the Commission side.

  Jacek Dominik, President-in-Office of the Council. – (PL) Madam President, honourable Members, the position of the Council was presented to the European Parliament in its letters of 2 June and 17 October this year. The Council is of the opinion that the discharge procedure was completed on 10 May this year when the European Commission was granted discharge. We are aware of the discussion which has been taking place and, consequently, the Council has submitted a proposal to the European Parliament to begin discussions on a new long-term agreement between the European Parliament and the Council on the rules for granting discharge, which will regulate relations between the two budgetary institutions.

It is my hope that the European Parliament will, within a short timeframe, be able to make positive decisions regarding the initiation of such discussions on the new agreement. The Council has not imposed any preliminary conditions as to the form or content of this agreement. Our core objective is to bring this period of misunderstanding between the two institutions to a close and, as Mr Dalli has also said, to reach a situation where both institutions cooperate effectively with regard to budgetary issues.

  Crescenzio Rivellini, rapporteur. – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I am asking myself a question: if it is our right to grant or not to grant discharge to the Council, and if the Council itself considers discharge an already established fact without cooperating in the slightest, what kind of right is that? What power does this House have?

We should not be afraid that our vote may not consider the gentlemen’s agreement and a possible appeal to the Court of Justice to be valid. Parliament has decided – a majority of Members have expressed their support – and I also appeal to those who are still hesitant to collaborate fully and defend Parliament’s rights, which must be respected.

I appeal to the Council – and I hope it will agree – because if it changes its attitude from now on, if we can have genuine cooperation, and if it acknowledges Parliament’s role as the democratic representative of the citizens’ rights, then we will be able to review our position. Therefore, I appeal to you, knowing full well that the discharge given to the Commission on 10 May has nothing to do with the present decision, because these are two completely separate prongs, and that this is a political Chamber and today’s vote represents a political outcome of great political importance.

I therefore appeal to the Council, but in the absence of a positive response from it, I call on all my fellow Members to defend the rights of the people of Europe by denying discharge to the Council.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place today at 12.30.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This debate is to discuss the lessons on what has been called the ‘European Semester’. The first lesson could well be ‘how to hide the causes of the crisis’. The problem, they tell us, is lack of coordination. Coordination is thus presented as an end in itself, so that the fundamental issues will be hidden: coordination using what policies and what means? The second lesson is ‘shuffle the pack and deal again’. Greater rigidity for the Stability and Growth Pact, more liberalisation and privatisation, development of the market, free movement of capital, and the devaluing of labour and workers’ rights: it is in all this and for all this that they want to impose ‘coordination’. In other words, in everything and for everything that they have been doing to date, with results that we all know. The third lesson is ‘ride roughshod over democracy’. National governments and parliaments are being relegated to simple functions of implementation; mere puppets for a power that is increasingly concentrated in the hands of a directorate that dictates from Brussels – or Berlin – the rules best suited to the defence of its interests. In truth, the most important lesson is being given at the moment by struggling peoples across Europe, who are rejecting this path and fighting for another way forward for Europe and its countries.

  Sławomir Witold Nitras (PPE), in writing. – (PL) The ongoing debt crisis has demonstrated that the current European system of economic governance is not effective in averting crises or preventing them from spreading. The European Semester is a system of peer review of the budgetary plans of the Member States which allows for the surveillance of economic policy in the EU, in order to prevent the occurrence of significant fiscal as well as structural problems. The first European Semester was inaugurated on 1 January 2011 and, as experience has shown, the procedure requires improvement. In the majority of cases, the Commission’s recommendations for the Member States were reduced in scope by the Council, which, in the future, may frustrate effective economic coordination. It also proves that in this area, a community approach is more effective than an intergovernmental approach.

Therefore, when formulating new regulations in the future, we should endeavour to strengthen the role of the European Parliament at the expense of the Council, since such a solution will allow the scope of the final recommendations to remain independent from national political interests. The position of Parliament can be strengthened, for example, by institutionalisation of the Economic Dialogue, and, in particular, by the establishment of a special parliamentary committee on the European Semester. Within the scope of the committee’s work, Members could, for example, demand an explanation from the Council regarding changes to the Commission’s recommendations, as well as request that finance ministers from Members States that have not implemented the recommendations attend the committee’s meetings. The clear inclusion of Parliament will increase the democratic legitimacy of the procedure as a whole while, at the same time, supporting the integrity of the European legal system and the transparency of institutional structures.

IN THE CHAIR: DIANA WALLIS
Vice-President

7. Question Time (Commission)

  President. – The next item is Question Time to the Commission.

  Dagmar Roth-Behrendt (S&D). – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, medicinal products are one of the most important things that help people to get healthy, but, at the same time, they pose an enormous risk. Do you agree with me that our approach needs to be more harmonised? Do you agree with me that the ‘notified bodies’ in the Member States do not work well? Do you agree with me that the new legislation that you are going to bring forward over the next year must therefore ensure, on behalf of patients, that there is a body that checks in a uniform and harmonised way whether a medicinal product really is safe for patients? Do you further agree with me that it is necessary, for the wellbeing of patients in the European Union, for us to clearly define the use of any given product – whether on a one-off or repeated basis – and not to leave this in the hands of the industry.

  John Dalli, Member of the Commission. – I fully agree with the various comments that you have made on medicinal products. Medicinal products are an integral part of a cure, and as time goes on, we are going to find that they are going to be increasingly integrated with pharmaceutical products to provide a cure for our citizens. I agree that at the moment, there is no harmonisation of the notifying bodies across Europe. I agree that we need more harmonisation and coordination, also for the sake of the competitiveness of the industry, which is a very important consideration, but, most importantly, with a view to assuring quality for our citizens.

I do agree that there is a big disparity in quality across the various notifying bodies, and this is why some coordination of standards and operations is important. I hope that in the proposal we will be coming up with, we will be proposing a focal point where this coordination will take place.

  Sarah Ludford (ALDE). – One of the 12 priorities is the issue of intellectual property rights, including patents, and emphasis has been placed on how essential patents are for innovation, jobs and, of course, research. What is the Commission’s reaction to the recent ruling of the European Court of Justice that patents for the use of stem cells are not possible?

I have to say that as a layman, I have struggled to understand the ruling, but what does the Commission make of this? What is its reaction, and what is it going to do to stop medicinal research in Europe being blocked with the result that it all goes to Asia and the United States, where you can patent such therapeutic inventions – which are, of course, essential, not only for research and innovation and jobs, but also for medicinal treatments?

  Michel Barnier, Member of the Commission. – (FR) I am going to be relatively brief on this subject because, as you have said, it concerns a very recent ruling of the Court of Justice.

This ruling is important because it concerns a highly sensitive matter, that of research and the patentability of research into what we call stem cells. All I would ask you, therefore, Baroness Ludford, is to understand that the European Commission will, of course, respect this Court of Justice ruling, and I and those of my colleagues who, like me, are directly affected by this patent issue will be obliged to work on this ruling and to analyse all of its implications.

I therefore ask you to recognise that we need time, since this ruling was only delivered a few days ago. We will return to Parliament to discuss the conclusions we draw from it. This will not stop us, of course, from pursuing our work under the authority and impetus of the Polish Presidency so that, basically, we finally manage to resolve this patent issue, which has been pending in Europe for around 30 years now, and which we hope to resolve in a few weeks’ time, on the basis of the European Commission’s proposal to introduce one formal protection right today, under the Treaty of Lisbon, and through what we call ‘enhanced cooperation’ by 25 countries.

Moreover, I continue to hope that the two countries that have not participated in this enhanced cooperation – Italy and Spain – will be able to do so. In any case, the door is open.

  Sarah Ludford (ALDE). – I agree with that up to a point. It has only been a week or so since the judgment, but I think that some reaction from the Commission would be better sooner rather than later. I think the research community is quite dismayed and disorientated. After all, stem cell research – which we were supposed to be leaders in – is not banned, but it appears that you cannot do anything with the results of that research. So, of course, the investment is not going to come and we will lose our leadership. I do not think we can afford to wait long before we hear a very positive message from the Commission about how we are going to go forward on this question.

  Michel Barnier, Member of the Commission. – (FR) We do not intend to wait. Quite simply, this is a subject, as you said, that touches on many sensitive issues, particularly strategic ones, such as Europe’s ability to maintain its leadership in research.

All I can add, by way of supplementing my earlier answer, is that we are not going to spend years or months assessing the impact of this Court of Justice ruling. We are going to review the situation with regard to the application of the Biotechnology Directive very carefully, since this ruling has a direct impact on it.

The Commission will therefore report back to Parliament on the implementation and application of this directive in the light of the Court of Justice ruling.

  Danuta Jazłowiecka (PPE). – (PL) Madam President, Mr Barnier, one of the most significant shortfalls of the single market is the underdevelopment of European online trade. It is estimated that the elimination of barriers resulting from differences between Member States in the terms contained in sales contracts could result in a 40% increase in turnover. Therefore, the introduction of the ‘blue-button’ approach proposed by the Polish Presidency seems a good solution. What action does the European Commission intend to take in order to accelerate work on this solution?

The European Commission has proposed the introduction of a ‘European Skills Passport’. Bearing in mind that some of the Member States lack regulation in the area of certain occupations, is it not necessary for the directive which is currently being prepared to impose an obligation on Member States to establish minimum requirements for occupational qualifications?

  Michel Barnier, Member of the Commission. – (FR) Ms Jazłowiecka, I should like to inform you – and I say this in cooperation with my colleague Neelie Kroes, who is here beside me – that we are indeed working on all aspects of the digital single market, which is a tremendous challenge as well as a source of growth.

To say, as you did, Ms Jazłowiecka, that electronic commerce is not working properly is an understatement. Electronic commerce accounts for, I believe, 5% to 6% of all trade. We clearly have the will to develop a strategy in this area so that we can make better use of European law and prevent this fragmentation.

You referred to the blue-button proposals and ideas and to other very proactive ideas of the Polish Presidency. I will shortly be presenting a cross-cutting approach to bring into line all the EU measures in these areas, whether concerning remedies – because electronic commerce brings with it many administrative and fiscal obstacles or problems, which obviously hinder the development of the online market – payments, delivery, protection, consumer information or the development of the legal offer and the cross-border offer.

We have no plans to review the Electronic Commerce Directive, but we may announce additional measures with regard not only to notification and withdrawal procedures, but also to other issues relating to payments and delivery – areas which I have just mentioned and which will be addressed in green papers – data protection and dispute settlement.

Those are all of the measures that will be addressed in this strategy and in this proposal that the Commission will be making very shortly to the European Parliament.

  Danuta Jazłowiecka (PPE). – (PL) Madam President, I have not been given an answer to the question regarding the European Skills Passport and the differences between Member States with respect to establishing minimum occupational qualifications.

  Michel Barnier, Member of the Commission. – (FR) I thought that you wanted to continue with the same question. We will doubtless have an opportunity to respond to other MEPs who, like you, are very committed to this idea, not of the passport, but of the professional card. As part of the major task of implementing the directive on professional qualifications, which many MEPs are interested in and which I would like to see take on a very dynamic dimension, we are working with a number of professions on this idea of facilitating exchanges, information and the verification of skills through the professional card. We are therefore working very actively on this issue.

  Neelie Kroes, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, just to add to the honourable Member’s comments: there is indeed a great opportunity in the digital single market for boosting our economy. It is the major source of growth, and I could not agree more with what Michel Barnier said earlier.

The Internet sector alone is the size of the Belgian economy; it is growing at 12% per year; and it created one million jobs between 2005 and 2009. So investing here and finding the right type of standardisation and a common approach really makes sense. We could make quite a difference here for every European citizen, and I appreciate the initiative the Polish Presidency has taken in talking about the ‘blue button’, which is just a start in terms of increased closeness and efficiency.

The e-signature, e-government, the e-ID and e-procurement are all part of the same approach, which Michel Barnier and I are promoting as a priority.

  Louis Grech (S&D). – (MT) Madam President, with regard to the Commission’s study on citizens’ top 20 concerns, I would like the Commission, in 2012, to consider both the problems and their possible solution. I would like to know whether the Commission is considering the introduction of top 20 solutions next year, in order to finally translate words into actions. It is only by doing so that European citizens can finally start believing in the single market.

One other question I would like to ask is whether the Commission might consider a citizen’s charter. This would make people feel they belong in the single market. This charter would list the rights and obligations of citizens in the context of the single market. I think it would be a step towards addressing the negative perception people have of the single market. Lastly, I think the biggest problem with the single market is not a legislative one, or one that involves the drafting or approval of legislation; but rather, of the adoption of legislation by the various Member States. The Commission might consider coming up with a governance plan sometime next year, one with specific deadlines and targets.

  Michel Barnier, Member of the Commission. – (FR) Thank you for that question, Mr Grech. It gives me an opportunity – in connection with this major effort to bring citizens, consumers and economic operators, on the one hand, and small and medium-sized enterprises, on the other, closer to the market, because some of them really feel that this single market was not made for them, that it is more an area of constraints than an area of opportunities – to pay tribute to the work of your committee, to this work that you yourself have begun in line with the report by Mario Monti. Mr Grech, we have taken up in this document, in the form of the top 20 concerns, one of your ideas, as well as the idea, as Mr Harbour knows, of this ‘introductory paragraph’ in the Single Market Act, this description provided by the European Parliament.

I want to pay tribute to this work that we, Commission and Parliament, are doing together in a concerted manner.

I am very committed to ensuring that these top 20 concerns are followed up. I am not, and never will be, an advocate of intellectual, ideological or theoretical regulation. We are talking here about very specific issues, about practical concerns and obstacles, which we are going to eliminate one by one, and on which we will report once a year, during each of these forums.

I think that the idea of a charter of rights for the internal market, which came out of the Kraków forum, is a positive one. We need to establish a clear and practical tool that helps citizens and businesses to understand their rights, and to enforce and exercise them. We are already doing this with the ‘Your Europe’ portal, which serves as a handbook of European rights, and this charter idea that you have announced could provide information on these rights and on their implementation to a far wider audience.

I shall support this idea because it is, as you know and as we wish, a practical idea for citizens and SMEs. I shall support it all the more because, together with other ideas, it will make what we do here, together, in Parliament, with the Commission and the Council, more accessible to citizens, businesses and those operating at local level.

  Wim van de Camp (PPE). – (NL) Madam President, I wanted to ask the Commissioners about the sense of urgency of economic growth in Europe. It is to be hoped that there will be an agreement about the euro crisis tomorrow, but we constantly read that this must go hand-in-hand with economic growth. It is not possible to just solve the euro crisis, we are told; you have to create economic growth.

It strikes me, however, that the Commission’s proposals manage to get delayed every time. Proposals that we were supposed to get this autumn are heading towards 2012. That is my first issue. The second issue I want to raise relates to the Services Directive. There are still constantly any number of debates about the failure to implement the Services Directive. What is the Commission going to do about this, in specific terms? My final question is: what general measures are we taking to speed this up? Copyright is also being delayed again. Specifically, what do the three Commissioners plan to do to speed up economic growth?

  Michel Barnier, Member of the Commission. – (FR) You raise an extremely important issue, Mr van de Camp. From our point of view, it represents a major source of growth and competitiveness for Europe, through the proper implementation of the Services Directive. The latter has already allowed for many obstacles to be eliminated in the sectors covered by this directive, which make up 40% of the European economy.

The figures I have available to me show that over 1 000 implementing laws have already been adopted. Today, 23 of the 27 Member States have finished transposing the necessary legislation. Four countries are still finalising this transposition: Germany, Austria, Belgium and Greece. The Points of Single Contact – to which many of you are committed, as am I, in order to make European laws more accessible to the citizens and to provide them with interactive tools – are up and running in 24 Member States. There is some delay in Slovakia, Slovenia and Romania.

Mr van de Camp, I will shortly have completed my visits to each of the capitals, something which I promised Parliament I would carry out. In every one of them – I will shortly be travelling to Malta and Latvia as the final stops on this tour – I organised a workshop with all of the national officials responsible for implementing this and other directives, such as the directive on professional qualifications and the directive on public procurement. I am committed to ensuring that these laws achieve their full potential in every country, because there is nothing worse than making laws here in Brussels that are not implemented in the Member States, than having a legislative wheel that turns in Brussels and Strasbourg and another one that turns at the same time at national level. We need to join them together. That is what I have done with these workshops, and, believe me, it is extremely useful.

The Services Directive clearly represents a source of growth – 1.5% of additional growth, or EUR 60 to 140 billion, according to our estimates. My priority, before you and with you, is to ensure the proper implementation of this directive, the potential of which has yet to be sufficiently exploited, as you said.

  Neelie Kroes, Member of the Commission. – (NL) Madam President, Mr van de Camp has hit the nail on the head that really needed to be hit. We should move away from just talking about a financial-economic crisis, preferably as soon as possible and certainly in decision making tomorrow evening or at the end of the afternoon tomorrow, when matters will really come to a head.

However, what we also need to do is think – and not just think, but act as well – about what kind of economy we want for Europe, because the outside world is not standing still. This always makes me think straight away of the term ‘the digital internal market’. We have a unique opportunity, precisely as Europe, to turn this to our advantage.

In the current economic situation, we are looking for sources of growth and we are looking at how we can create jobs. There are a number of areas where this is ours for the taking and one of those is in the ICT world. Fifty per cent of European productivity and growth is in that area. If we employ the right tools and if we allow our European companies to make use of them, then we will get a much higher productivity out of it. This boils down to the field of competition and to us really providing the opportunities.

In this connection, I would like to touch on a few things which are of the greatest importance. Broadband is one of them.

Broadband can increase GDP growth – there is no doubt about that – as well as opening up the wealth of public data available in Europe. To put it in a diplomatic way, we are not yet making 100% use of the huge potential of the digital market for kick-starting Europe’s economies. So let us go for open data, let us go for utilisation of all the instruments available to that end!

Europe’s digital strategy covers technologies in all policy areas, and it was presented in May 2010 as the first flagship initiative of Europe 2020. It ticks all the right boxes, but in the light of current economic developments, we need to focus on accelerating those measures that will bring the greatest benefit in the shortest term. That is what the road map is, and will be, all about.

What are the issues that need to be addressed as priorities? One point that has been made concerns the need to talk not about what is missing but about what we have to do, so what are the top priorities? One of them, on my list anyhow, is the digital single market. I no longer refer simply to the ‘single market’: it is the ‘digital single market’. Let us change our vocabulary to keep pace with the realities. We need very high-speed broadband connections, and we need them throughout Europe, so we must be aware that we have to invest and that, with that investment, we should be creating opportunities, putting Europe in a competitive position, promoting ongoing growth and creating jobs.

  John Dalli, Member of the Commission. – I will be very brief. Economic growth comes from the new innovative technologies that we have to roll out in the market, but there can be no economic growth if there is no consumer confidence in the market. Whatever products we roll out in the market have to be accepted by the consumer, who has to feel comfortable in the market to participate. That is why the total involvement of the consumer in the market is an important element for economic growth.

  Wim van de Camp (PPE). – (NL) Madam President, I thank the Commissioners for these inspiring answers. That is the tone I like to hear. However, allow me to make one point: everything that we agree on in Strasbourg and Brussels has not yet been accepted by the European on the street. You know that. Mr Barnier has been to Warsaw. These are commissioners who spend enough time in the field. Let us not forget, therefore, that a great deal of psychological work still needs to be done before everything we agree on, and the internal market, can work in practice.

  Emilie Turunen (Verts/ALE). – (DA) Madam President, the Commission frequently cites the Single Market Act as a way to kick-start growth and to help get Europe out of the crisis. We in the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance agree with this approach, particularly if it is combined with the right green adjustments. The problem is that the Single Market Act has been delayed, and therefore my question for the Commission is: you promised to present all 12 proposals before the end of 2011. Is this schedule still valid, or will it be the new year before some of the proposals are presented?

My second question relates to posted workers. There is a proposal to safeguard their social rights. Could the Commission provide details of the main points of, and the timeframe for, this proposal?

  Michel Barnier, Member of the Commission. – (FR) Ms Turunen, I confirm that the European Commission will honour the commitment that it made, and which President Barroso has reiterated, to present all of the 12 key proposals by the end of this year. Indeed, a number of them have already been presented. Some are even at a very advanced stage. Earlier, I talked about the European patent. We presented it more than a year ago now, and it may come to fruition, I hope, under the Polish Presidency, with a political agreement in the Council.

I would also add, to be completely objective, that, in addition to the 12 key proposals that we pledged to present by the end of this year, we are making progress on the other additional proposals, Ms Turunen. I would cite the example, under the watchful eye of Ms Kroes, of the additional proposal on roaming, which was, in fact, a specific request of many MEPs. Ms Kroes has not waited until next year. She has already presented this proposal, which is one of the additional proposals for the Single Market Act.

On the posting of workers, the aim of the new directive that you mentioned will be to harmonise the implementation, under the authority of my colleague, Mr Andor, of the directive on the protection of posted workers. At the same time, we want to eliminate the unjustifiable obstacles to the freedom to provide services. We want to ensure the proper protection of workers while improving the functioning of the internal market. This proposal will contain provisions on administrative cooperation, access to information for posted workers, the prevention of abuse and circumvention – we know that they exist – monitoring instruments, penalties and judicial remedies.

The directive that I just mentioned, for the implementation of the Posting of Workers Directive, will seek to ensure that it is applied better in practice. We think that the primary objective of this instrument will be to improve the information that is due to workers and businesses, to improve administrative cooperation so as to increase the effectiveness of checks, and once again, to prevent abuse, which we know exists. Our aim is not to overturn the case-law of the Court of Justice on this point, but we are going to draft this directive so as to improve the implementation of the Posting of Workers Directive.

  Sylvana Rapti (S&D). – (FR) Madam President, I shall speak in French in order to be clear. Two words, Commissioner: collective redress. I am sure that you must be aware that the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection has already adopted, by a very large majority, an opinion on collective redress.

You are no doubt also aware of the outcome of the recent consultation that Mr Dalli commissioned. The fact is, the fourth lever of the Single Market Act says nothing about collective redress. Only alternative dispute resolution is mentioned. Given that the two tools are complementary, could you explain to me why there is no reference to collective redress?

  John Dalli, Member of the Commission. – We are committed to finding a balanced approach and ensuring that collective redress exists for all EU consumers, while building on strong safeguards against abusers. Over the past months, we have been involved in consultation on both the issue of ADR – on which we are progressing very fast, and we should be coming up with some type of proposal at the end of this year – and also on collective redress, which, as you know, has also been through a consultation process and is now being analysed. We are also coordinating with the Committee on Legal Affairs in Parliament to see what their position on this issue is before coming up with our final proposal so that we can have, as far as possible, a coordinated approach.

I am working on this with Vice-President Reding and we hope that, in conjunction with the Legal Affairs Committee and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, we can move forward fast, including on collective redress, taking into account cross-border collective redress.

  Sylvana Rapti (S&D). – (FR) I asked my question in French because I thought that Mr Barnier would answer it. I must nevertheless insist because, in the speech he made in November, on 16 November to be precise, Mr Barnier made some interesting remarks with regard to collective redress. However, I must stress and reiterate that there is no mention of this in lever 4 of the Single Market Act. Thank you, Mr Dalli.

  Michel Barnier, Member of the Commission. – (FR) Ms Rapti, I am aware that you spoke in French so that I could understand you better. Even if you had used your own language, your determination would have come across clearly. We are making progress on these two topics, Ms Rapti – on collective redress and alternative dispute resolution. I have nothing to add to what Mr Dalli said on that point. The contents of the Single Market Act, on which the commitments that I reminded Ms Turunen of just now, concerning these first 12 proposals, have been made, especially in the past, are not only my work. They are the result of a collective effort. They are the work of the three Commissioners who are present here and of 10 or so other Commissioners who worked together to develop this proactive legislation aimed at promoting growth and employment.

We are therefore committed to presenting a proposal on alternative dispute resolution. I would simply like to say that this legislation will also cover e-commerce, and that we of course intend to address the issue of dispute resolution, since disputes occur quite frequently and hinder the development of e-commerce for cross-border sales. Those are the points that I wished to clarify.

  Simon Busuttil (PPE). – I wish to come back to the issue of alternative dispute resolution, to which Commissioner Dalli just made a passing reference. I believe this to be a very cheap and quick tool with which consumers can assert their rights without having to go through expensive and time-consuming processes in the courts. I would like the Commission to tell us a little bit more about its plans for ADR, and whether it feels that this will indeed be a tool that will help and empower EU consumers to resolve their disputes, including online and real offline disputes, in an accessible and cost-effective manner.

  John Dalli, Member of the Commission. – Consumers and businesses, particularly SMEs, still lack confidence in the retail and digital single market. One way of addressing the situation is to build an effective redress framework across Europe.

ADR is a low cost, simple and efficient way of resolving disputes out of court, as you said, Mr Busuttil. The same can be said for ODR in the online context. My aim is to offer all European consumers and businesses a simple and accessible way of solving their problems without going to court, no matter what, where and how they buy in the European Union, whether online or in a shop. This will help to increase consumers’ confidence in the single market and to free up resources that can be reinvested in the economy.

I do not want to create new structures and costs, but to improve the efficiency of the systems which already exist and to introduce effective and simple tools to solve consumer disputes where they do not yet exist. The proposal for a directive on ADR will build on what already exists in Member States. It will respect the great variety of ADR schemes put in place across the EU. It will leave it to the Member States to decide how they achieve the aim of full ADR coverage.

Those Member States with ADR schemes covering specific sectors can keep them, provided that those schemes respect the quality principles. They could, for example, cover the remaining areas by establishing a residual ADR scheme.

  Simon Busuttil (PPE). – Madam President, I have a question for the Commissioner: did I understand correctly earlier that the Commission will come out with this proposal before the end of this year? Can you confirm that?

  John Dalli, Member of the Commission. – I confirm that the Commission will come forward with its proposals on alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and online dispute resolution (ODR) before the end of this year.

  Morten Løkkegaard (ALDE). – (DA) Madam President, I have two brief questions and I would like to address the first of them to Mr Barnier. I am pleased to hear, and to have confirmation, that there will be a legislative proposal in each of the 12 areas before the new year. That is good, because I have had my doubts about this. I have just one follow-on question in this regard. With regard to the question of copyright and also of collective societies, could you give a more precise date for when we can expect a proposal? There is considerable pressure at the moment to get an initiative on the table. I would just like confirmation that we will get one before the new year.

I have a question for Ms Kroes regarding roaming. As we know, it has recently emerged that the costs incurred by the industry in connection with roaming are extremely low. We are talking about EUR 1 per gigabit. In light of this, I would like to know whether the Commissioner and her office will perhaps reconsider the price ceiling that has been set and whether it could even be set lower still. That, in any case, is something that we would welcome.

  Michel Barnier, Member of the Commission. – (FR) Mr Løkkegaard, copyright is also a very sensitive topic, and we are indeed going to propose, as I promised, a European legal framework for the collective management of copyright and related rights. This proposal will, I believe, be tabled in the first half of 2012, that is, in a few months’ time.

Our aim is to ensure better governance and more transparency with regard to the work of collective management societies, as well as to propose what I will call a facilitating framework for copyright management in the field of online music services.

I do understand your concern regarding the time it is taking us to prepare this extremely serious and long-awaited text, which must be understood properly by all of the collective management societies Europe-wide.

I wanted to make a proposal which would be ambitious and responsible. We want to have a directive with two sections, Mr Løkkegaard: a horizontal section comprising transparency and governance rules, which will apply to all collective management societies in Europe, and a second section including specific tasks for societies which manage copyright for online music services. I believe that, in this way, we will cover all sides of the issue thoroughly, while also taking on board many aspects that you yourself suggested in relation to collective management.

That is why it has taken us time – and why we still need time over the coming weeks – to come up with a coherent and effective text.

  Neelie Kroes, Vice-President of the Commission. – I am grateful to Mr Løkkegaard for this question, for roaming is one of the main problems to be solved. We are aware of the lack of competition in the roaming market, so our new proposal is focused on a structural remedy: facilitating entry of new players and increasing consumer choice. It is about competition, as well as giving more choice to the consumer. There needs to be real competition.

We are running out of time. Before June next year, we have to fill in our new system, so I am grateful for all the remarks that have been made. Mr Grech made a remark about that, as did Mr van de Camp, that Parliament, the Council and the Commission have to cooperate in a speeding-up attempt. I am grateful to come to Parliament – I will be seeing some of you this afternoon – to speed up our proposal. We are aware that it needs both the cap and more competition in this market.

  Morten Løkkegaard (ALDE). – (DA) Madam President, I will be very brief. I asked if you would reconsider the ceiling that has been set. Could the Commissioner tell us whether this is being considered?

  Neelie Kroes, Vice-President of the Commission. – For me, the cap is indeed an in-between proposal, because we need a cap until we know that this new situation of competition in the market in data is working. Otherwise, we are just confronting the consumer with prices that are too high. We have experience in this area and I think we have to learn from that. So, all in all, we are talking about decoupling roaming, as it were, both from what has been done and what is at stake for the future.

  Malcolm Harbour (ECR). – I think it is very important that we have three Commissioners here on this all-embracing proposal of a Single Market Act. As Commissioner Barnier pointed out, it has been something that this Parliament has been closely associated with, but it is absolutely a collective enterprise.

The question I would like to pose to our distinguished panel of Commissioners is: how are we going to get the Member States to engage with us and understand the importance of driving growth for implementing single market measures? I was very pleased that the Council conclusions over the weekend put the Single Market Act at the top of the list receiving support from Member States, and they are talking about informing ‘economic operators’ about new opportunities.

What are our Commission team going to do with Member States? How are they going to engage with Member States and what advice would they give to us about how to get these growth deploying measures out there and really working over the next 12 months?

  Michel Barnier, Member of the Commission. – (FR) Mr Harbour, Ms Kroes and Mr Dalli may, of course, have their own opinion to share on this topic as, I repeat, the originality and the exemplary nature of what we are doing with the Single Market Act is also due to the fact that we have worked together cooperatively, on the basis of the report by Louis Grech, and of the work of your committee and other committees such as the Committee on Legal Affairs, for example. Furthermore, 13 or 14 of us Commissioners have worked together for several months. That is not enough to succeed. We are presenting legislative proposals which are all aimed at proactively encouraging growth.

Honourable Members, we are well aware, and this is an understatement, that there is no public money left to hand out for creating growth, or at least not much. We must therefore adopt a different approach, because it is our duty to create growth. Citizens expect that. They do not only expect regulation, austerity, supervision and governance. This is the objective of the Single Market Act. I was very pleased to see, as Mr Harbour just said, that in the conclusions of Sunday’s European Council – which, I imagine, will be reinforced by the conclusions of the next European Council tomorrow – the issue of the Single Market Act was also included, perhaps for the first time, as a priority in the field of economic policy. It is our duty to pave the way for innovation (through the patent), investment (through funding for SMEs and risk capital), exports and mobility within this large market of 500 million consumers and 22 million businesses.

The priority now, Mr Harbour, is for governments to take ownership of this Single Market Act. That is why it is encouraging to see that, at the highest level, Heads of State or Government are taking account of this act and even stating that they wish to proceed quickly with it, and that a fast-track procedure must be developed with Parliament, between colegislators.

I am now going to pursue the work that I have been patiently accomplishing at local level, Mr Harbour. One cannot be office-bound in Brussels and be a good Commissioner. I shall therefore continue what I have started. I have almost completed a tour of all the capitals to meet civil servants, national parliaments and economic operators, and I am now going to visit each Member State for a second time. I will be going out in the field, as we did together in Kraków for this internal market governance, which must be improved on the basis of our proposals and those of Parliament.

  Neelie Kroes, Vice-President of the Commission. – The honourable Member, Mr Harbour, is touching upon an issue that is quite sensitive. In general, everybody agrees that we should take opportunities, but in daily life, sometimes thoughts are a bit different from actions.

One of the issues that are a real challenge is that of connecting Europe’s facilities. Talking about my own shop, so to speak, out of the money that is made in the proposal as a reservation – EUR 9.2 billion for broadband investment – if you leverage the 9.2 billion, this goes up to EUR 100 billion. So do not tell me that there is no money for that type of investment. However, there, we badly need the involvement of the Member States and also the attitude and the approach of Member States. That is all connected: it is connected not only with our sectors but also with the sectors of everything that is at stake, such as the economy, creating jobs, culture, social welfare and so on.

So we must make full use of structural funds for broadband, and spend unspent funds. I was quite disappointed with the figures showing that the spending fund is not 100% accessible. The money is there but we have to make it available, and here the Member State is absolutely crucial. So we need regulation according to the fixed EU-wide end dates for the Single Euro Payments Area (SEPA). Michel is quite involved in that, agreeing with the radio spectrum policy programme.

And then there is the wireless services market: EUR 250 billion, double growth rates per year predicted for mobile data and the Member States to accelerate the allocation of spectrums for mobile communication. I am grateful to Parliament that we are near to reaching an agreement on spectrums. It seems possible that at the end of this week, there will be an agreement with Parliament. I am crossing my fingers and will be glad to help.

So we have the fast-tracking upcoming Commission proposals; the revised directive on reuse of public sector information and revision and reuse of the Commission information; the growth potential of the public sector information market and indirect impacts (EUR 140 billion); a consumer sales law to support cross-border e-commerce, which was discussed earlier on; the revised data protection directive to enable cloud offers; the revised e-signature directive and regulation on mutual recognition of EID; and the revised procurement directives, saving EUR 50 to 75 billion.

I could go on, but I can see from your body language that I should stop.

  John Dalli, Member of the Commission. – I have just a few short points to make, otherwise Malcolm Harbour will persecute me if I do not say anything on this.

Again, I reiterate that consumer confidence in the market is key if we want growth. The market is demand and supply, and unless we give consumers the confidence in the market to increase their demand, then all attempts will fail. So what we are doing is buttressing consumer empowerment in the European Union. We are working with Ms Reding on a consumer strategy, which I hope we will bring forward very shortly and which will be based on issues that we can bring to the Member States.

One issue is safety: we already have quite good arrangements on safety, which, with Commissioner Tajani, we will be strengthening through the Product Safety Directive. Information is another issue, and here, Parliament has already contributed quite a lot in relation to labelling and other information aspects.

Redress is a further issue, which we talked about previously in relation to alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and collective redress. And then there is the question of enforcement, on which we would probably need rather more gumption in order to make all these directives we have mentioned implementable in the various Member States.

  Malcolm Harbour (ECR). – With due respect to my three friends, I think you rather missed the point. We are well aware of what you are doing, but how many citizens in Europe are connecting the single market with growth? The first thing I would expect you to say to governments when you go out on your missions (Michel Barnier has certainly been most energetic in this respect) is: where is your growth agenda? How are you using the single market? How are you promoting the Points of Single Contact as they pledge to do here?

The problem, Madam President, as you and I know, is that what is agreed at prime ministerial level is often not carried out by ministers or local authorities to get that message across. How are we going to achieve this between us?

  Michel Barnier, Member of the Commission. – (FR) Mr Harbour, the fact that the European Council is taking ownership of the Single Market Act is already a genuine step forward. If prime ministers or Heads of State or Government are committed to it, then their ministers are also more likely to commit themselves to it in turn. However, you are right; the process does need to be monitored. That is what I am doing, for example, in the course of my visits to each of the Member States.

Since you mentioned citizens: how are they themselves going to take ownership of this single market? How are we going to reconcile them with the single market? Some very concrete tools exist. You mentioned the Points of Single Contact. I am referring to Solvit and ‘Your Europe’.

These are some of the tools that I check are working during each of my visits. They did not always work: in my own country, I discovered, for example, that until a year and a half ago, the Solvit system was being operated by an intern. Things have since improved. I am therefore performing these checks on the ground to ensure that the tools that are closest to citizens and businesses are working properly. This is the first priority in this national and European strategy for growth.

  Neelie Kroes, Vice-President of the Commission. – I recently had a cup of coffee with Martha Lane Fox, the ‘Digital Champion’ in the United Kingdom. She is doing an extremely good job not only for the UK and its government, but also by way of example and providing inspiration, at least for me.

What I decided after that meeting was to ask Commission President Barroso to write a letter to every colleague in the Heads of State Council, asking for the appointment in each of the 27 Member States of someone like Martha Lane Fox as digital ambassador.

I will follow up with a letter to my own counterparts in the Member States. For, while I admire Michel, with his travelling experience – and John and I are doing our utmost to follow his lead – at the end of the day, this is something that should be done within the Member States. They should have someone who is not only a role model but who is also aware of what is, in most of the fields concerned, missing or lacking.

  John Dalli, Member of the Commission. – We are constantly working on the ground with Member States to implement the directives that are under their responsibility: safety, for example, and passing on best practice from one country to another. We could train Member States’ staff to make sure that they can adhere to the directives and implement them properly. I think this is the practical way of ensuring that citizens are connected with whatever we are doing.

  President. – I am just going to say at this stage that our three Commissioners are such a popular trio that I have a very long list of speakers here. So I would ask our very popular trio if they could try to limit the length of their answers.

  Raffaele Baldassarre (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, Mr Barnier, ladies and gentlemen, in the field of innovation, European small and medium-sized enterprises are still suffering from slower growth than their counterparts in the United States and in other emerging economies.

In this context, unitary patent protection can provide an excellent opportunity to boost the role of SMEs in the area of innovation and research, and contribute to the relaunch of the internal market at the same time.

Therefore, I would like to ask whether you intend to propose, in the medium or short term, specific measures to facilitate the access of SMEs to the European patent market – for example, a European fund with the responsibility and power to pay registration fees on behalf of SMEs – and whether you believe that the legislative procedure under way can help and offers a good opportunity to attain this objective.

  Michel Barnier, Member of the Commission. – (FR) Mr Baldassarre, I should like to start by extending my personal thanks, publicly and before your fellow Members, for your work as rapporteur on this important text.

At my hearing before this House on 13 January 2010, I expressed my ambition to be the last Commissioner to mention the patent. That is why I am passionately committed to this proposal, which now has the support of 25 Member States. I hope that Italy and Spain will soon join us in supporting this proposal, which will help bring the price of the EU patent down to a competitive level.

Mr Baldassarre, you mentioned small and medium-sized enterprises and young inventors. They are the ones for whom this patent, this single protection right, must be established first and foremost. I have met small and medium-sized enterprises and young inventors who, because of the high expense, do not protect their work, except for in two or three countries. This allows counterfeit products, which, in some cases, pose a risk to health and to the economy, to enter the single market by other means.

Therefore, we are aware of what is at stake, and that is why we want to make a success of the legislative process under way, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises, which have a right to this competitive advantage.

The first benefit for small and medium-sized enterprises, Mr Baldassarre, would be a reduction in the currently very high cost of the patent, for them as well as all the others who are the main casualties of the current situation.

Spurred on by you, Parliament has come up with another solution which would further benefit small and medium-sized enterprises. It would enable extra reimbursements to be granted to these enterprises for the translation costs arising from the patent process. I consider this to be a good proposal, which would be in line with the policy that we want to implement concerning the simplification of the patent system, the reduction of costs and the deals that we want to introduce across the board for small and medium-sized enterprises.

Mr Tajani and I are, as you know, working on taking things further, as some national governments have done, with a national fund for patents, which could become a European fund. Personally, I think it is a good idea to go further, to go beyond the reimbursement of registration fees and translation costs by setting up a European fund. However, we need to explore this idea in the context of the next financial perspective.

  George Sabin Cutaş (S&D). – (RO) I wish to begin by expressing my appreciation of the efforts made by the three Commissioners to adopt the framework required to ensure that we have a fully integrated European market. I also want to mention that the single market is the nucleus for cooperation between the European Union’s 27 Member States, guaranteeing the free movement of goods, services, capital and people. However, these fundamental freedoms guaranteed by treaty are subject to disparities when they are transposed into certain national situations.

There is also the current economic and financial climate in addition to this, which encourages protectionist policies. One of the 12 levers for stimulating economic growth is workers’ mobility.

I would like to know, Commissioner Barnier, how you think that this desired situation reconciles with maintaining the obstacles preventing citizens from the new Member States from exercising the right both to freedom of movement and employment.

  Michel Barnier, Member of the Commission. – (FR) Mr Cutaş, in your question, you mentioned an important point which should be of concern to all of us, namely, protectionist reactions. Personally, I am struck by certain examples of rising populism and protectionism in many of our Member States, which call for swift action on our part. Behind these movements, which are based on social or economic concerns, or sometimes on anger, there indeed lies protectionism, Mr Cutaş. The first victim of this revival of protectionism, or this national, or even nationalist, withdrawal, is the single market, along with what it represents today in terms of Europe’s strength in the world.

We are working on one of the levers, but the 11 others are levers against protectionism, which does not mean that they are against certain types of protection. Europe must also be capable of protecting its citizens and its consumers better, but protection is not synonymous with protectionism. With regard to mobility, which is one of the 12 levers, we are working, as I said just now, on several chapters, including one on professional qualifications. We are going to promote mobility by simplifying the procedures involved in the mutual recognition of qualifications, and by making them more efficient. We are going to propose a European professional card to facilitate mobility throughout the Member States. This is something that Parliament is working on and would like to see introduced.

At a time when we in Europe are faced with a population problem in the shape of the falling number of people of working age, it is, of course, very important for us to have this mobility solution so as to overcome the lack of qualified labour in some countries, through the internal market. Some professions are directly affected, particularly in the health, education and engineering fields, and this is where we want to facilitate mobility.

  George Sabin Cutaş (S&D). – (RO) Briefly, I just want to say to the Commissioner that, unfortunately, these measures still do not amount to very much. I believe that more needs to be done to modernise the European legislative framework to make the barriers preventing European citizens from working in any other Member State disappear.

  Michel Barnier, Member of the Commission. – (FR) Mr Cutaş, just a few words to complete my answer in accordance with your instructions, Madam President. By the end of this year, we shall put forward this proposal to broaden the scope and make better use of the texts on professional qualifications. Automatic recognition currently applies to seven regulated professions, and we wish to develop mobility by building upon this experience. Therefore, I shall put forward a proposal on behalf of the European Commission in the next few weeks.

  Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL). – (EL) Madam President, my question is addressed to Mr Barnier, who is au fait with the matter. I shall therefore speak in Greek.

Commissioner, I have been putting questions to you about the illegal sale of the Hellenic Telecommunications Organisation (OTE) to Deutsche Telekom for two years now. In your initial reply, you accepted that the provisions of the relevant public procurement directive had not been correctly applied. Since then, you have replied that you are looking into the matter in order to reach a final conclusion.

Commissioner, may I say that both the Greek Government and the Greek minister admit that EU law has been infringed in connection with this particular sale. The question is: have you finished your investigation? What action will you be taking so that we can protect EU law?

  Michel Barnier, Member of the Commission. – (FR) Mr Chountis, I have not forgotten your question, which, incidentally, dates from less than two years ago, since I have not been here for more than two years. We examined this situation having regard to European texts and looking very closely at the way in which they apply. I am speaking from memory on this matter, not having a legally accurate note in front of me. As I recall, we had difficulty identifying clear infringements of European legislation. This is why this matter has not progressed further. You say that there is new information. I am ready to continue discussions with you on this issue and to put further questions to the Greek authorities, albeit they have many other concerns at the moment, concerns that we share. If there is new information, I am ready to examine it afresh within the framework of scrupulous respect for European legislation on public procurement.

  Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL). – (EL) Madam President, I do not wish to catch the Commissioner by surprise, but this new procedure probably has that element too. Quite simply, I am saying that the illegal procedure of selling Hellenic Telecommunications Organisation shares to Deutsche Telekom continues, without any respect for EU legislation.

I would also point out, Commissioner, that a series of privatisations – regardless of whether or not anyone has agreed to them – is being prepared in Greece that will be carried out in the same illegal manner. You therefore need to intervene. In other words, will you ask the Greek Government to change the law and to apply the relevant Union directive?

  Michel Barnier, Member of the Commission. – (FR) Mr Chountis, your country is facing very great difficulties, which, as I have already said, we share. Therefore, we must be very serious and very precise in the questions that we ask and the answers that we give, as you are and as I am. In my role, I am very anxious to confirm the legality of all procedures, whether they concern the privatisation process, which is very much under way in Greece for reasons with which everyone is familiar, or whether they concern the award of public contracts, in particular, regarding the 150 projects that we wish to relaunch.

I am going to look at this issue again very closely, with great objectivity and rigour. We also have a task force comprising some highly skilled officials from my Directorate-General, notably our former Director-General, Mr Holmquist, and my former Deputy Director-General, Mr Wright. Each of them understands that we are in a grave, serious and also exceptional situation. Both Greece and we must get ourselves out of this crisis.

I cannot say that in this exceptional situation, we are not going to implement a number of exceptional procedures. However, I will examine very carefully the new information that you have mentioned, and I will come back to you, in writing if you so wish.

  Constance Le Grip (PPE). – (FR) Madam President, I wanted to return to the subject of recognition of professional qualifications, which Commissioner Barnier has taken the opportunity to mention several times already.

I wanted to ask the Commission about the precise timeframe within which it intends to put forward its revised directive, or its recommendations with a view to revising the 2005 directive. I heard Commissioner Barnier confirm that the Commission will table its proposal for a revised directive by the end of this year. I am delighted. We in the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection were very much hoping for a series of amendments to the 2005 directive aimed at greater mobility, because this is really about ensuring that European citizens’ right to greater freedom of movement and mobility is guaranteed.

We in the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection also called for the procedures for recognition of professional qualifications to be made simpler and more efficient, and I note that these recommendations will also be taken forward by the European Commission.

At this point, I would just like to mention the European professional card, to which we are really very attached, as we stated in the report we recently voted on in our committee. Our hope was that this European professional card could be backed up by the Internal Market Information System (IMI). What plans does the European Commission have for extending and reinforcing this Internal Market Information System if it is to accommodate more data and more information for the implementation of a European professional card?

  Michel Barnier, Member of the Commission. – (FR) Thank you for that question, Ms Le Grip. It gives me the opportunity to confirm that the Commission will honour its commitments and that we will present – on 13 December, to be absolutely clear – this legislative proposal to revise the 2005 directive on professional qualifications. It is by means of this instrument, which is very important and which is, moreover, the subject of a collaborative effort between my own Directorate-General and a number of you, in your committee, that we will address the issue of extending the scope to cover a number of regulated professions. The number of regulated professions is not, in fact, a problem. We wish to carry out a country-by-country analysis, notably within the framework of our Europe 2020 strategy and of the memoranda of understanding concluded between the Member States. I see that in many countries, efforts are being made in this direction. Take Portugal, for example: as a minister explained in the Competitiveness Council the other day, the national efforts being made there have helped to open up and remove a number of barriers for some 15 professions.

On the subject of the professional card, which you just mentioned, I want to use this idea, which, incidentally, comes from the European Parliament, as a means of simplifying the recognition procedures. The card must rely upon new technologies and, in line with your suggestion, Ms Le Grip, we are going to use the Internal Market Information System (IMI). It works well. Furthermore, in order to complete the list of tools that I outlined in my response to Malcolm Harbour, tools for bringing the internal market closer, namely, the one-stop shop Solvit and ‘Your Europe’, I will take this opportunity to mention the IMI system, which mainly affects public authorities. Today, we have between 6 000 and 7 000 authorities that are directly linked to each another via this system and which can ask each other questions and obtain a response, each in its own language. We are going to use this IMI system to develop the professional card system. The costs will thus be improved. Of course, before making any proposal, we will carry out an impact assessment on the implementation of this idea. This card must be voluntary for professionals. On the other hand, if it is to remain beneficial, it must be obligatory for the Member States, once we have achieved a result, adopting a bottom-up approach, with the professions in question.

  Christel Schaldemose (S&D). – (DA) Madam President, thank you for an interesting debate. I believe that all of us in this Chamber would like a strong and well-functioning single market, and therefore we are also looking forward to seeing all 12 of the Commission’s legislative initiatives relating to the Single Market Act. However, I would like to return to a question that has been raised by several Members, and that is: what are we actually doing to ensure that the legislation that we produce in the EU is also implemented and monitored properly in the Member States? When it comes to market surveillance of safe products, for example, we actually have very good legislation, but we know that the Member States do not have sufficient resources to ensure that that legislation is implemented. This is also the case in the food sector, the animal welfare sector and others. What will you do in the Commission to ensure – once we have good legislation in place – that it will also be adequately implemented and that the Member States allocate resources to this?

  John Dalli, Member of the Commission. – In the Commission, we exercise all the powers that we have to make Member States adhere to the directives that are on our statute book. As you know, enforcement is a competence of Member States. This is a borderline which is quite difficult because the Commission is often held responsible for the final implementation in every corner in Europe, but we know that we cannot cross borders. Member States, in fact, have the full competence of enforcement in their own areas.

What we do is try to coordinate the enforcement aspects. On food safety, for example, we have systems such as RAPEX and the RASFF that I would say are working very well in all Member States, and in the health sector, also the information on health security. All these work, but we are constantly monitoring what is happening. As I said, we are in constant contact with the various agencies in the Member States at grassroots level to try to assist in whatever way possible – by training and also sometimes by subsidising initiatives that would ensure general safety for the whole of Europe and the protection of the food chain in Europe.

The food chain in Europe, I believe, is one – if not the only – sector that has a real single market in operation. That is also due to the efforts that are made by Member States and by the Commission to keep safety at the highest level of importance.

  Pablo Arias Echeverría (PPE). – (ES) Madam President, I would like to thank the three Commissioners for being here today. We are experiencing a crisis that can only be overcome by reviving trade. There is no doubt that SMEs are the pillar underpinning the European economy and there is no doubt that we need more Europe and less market fragmentation.

The digital revolution offers us many possibilities, and one of these is, without any doubt, electronic commerce. An increasing number of consumers buy online, but they only do so at a national level – things are more complicated at a European level. Market barriers do not help, and electronic commerce is almost non-existent at this pan-European level.

In my opinion, and I have said this several times, the way out of the crisis is digital, and the time has come to go from poetry to prose. It is time for action. Our SMEs need concrete measures to increase their pan-European options and to develop their full potential in a market of more than 500 million consumers. Consumers, meanwhile, need a pan-European market that offers sufficient guarantees to allow them to trust in a true digital single market, in which they can buy products in the knowledge that their rights are assured, with freedom of choice and at a good price.

The Consumer Rights Directive is a good first step. I would like to know what next steps the Commission has in mind with regard to copyright, data protection, VAT, accounting rules, a single domain for online transactions, conflict resolution, product shipping, etc.

  Michel Barnier, Member of the Commission. – (FR) Mr Arias Echeverría, I appreciate the extent of your commitment and I have not forgotten the quality of the report that you drafted, which will also shed useful light on the work that we are carrying out. As you will see, our agenda is very full, but over the next few weeks, and, in any event, before the end of this year, I am going to present a communication on the e-commerce strategy that I mentioned earlier.

To be completely clear, we are not going to revise the E-Commerce Directive because, in the analysis that we carried out, and following consultation with our services and the Member States, it seemed to us that there was no clear requirement to revise this directive. We are going to clarify and cover a number of areas. Thus, I should like to cite the example of payment infrastructures, which, in fact, you mentioned. It is a very important subject because it clearly constitutes one of the obstacles to the development of e-commerce, both for consumers and for traders.

We will propose a regulation for the move towards pan-European payment instruments through the single euro payments area, which relates to bank transfers and direct debits. These are very specific but also very important matters. I note that this proposal is currently making progress within the trialogue framework, and I hope that it can be adopted before the end of this year.

We are also preparing a green paper on an integrated European market for card, Internet and mobile payments. It will deal with questions such as security of payments, transparency, the cost of payments for consumers and traders, which you mentioned, market access for payment providers and standardisation issues.

In this strategy and in this communication, I would also like us to deal with everything relating to the fight against abuse and disputes, in collaboration, of course, with my colleague Mr Dalli, who, as we said earlier, will very shortly present his proposal on alternative dispute resolution.

  Pablo Arias Echeverría (PPE). – (ES) Madam President, I would just like to say a word about the Working Group on e-Commerce.

Thank you very much for your answer, Commissioner. The Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) has a Working Group on e-Commerce, and we would like you to take part in this so that we can discuss these proposals in greater depth and find out about the specific measures, enabling the IMCO Committee to gain a proper understanding of them.

  Michel Barnier, Member of the Commission. – (FR) As ever and as you can see, Mr Arias Echeverría, the Commission is ready to cooperate. I am aware of the efforts made and the studies carried out within that working group. I am, of course, available to meet with you when you wish.

  Mitro Repo (S&D). – (FI) Madam President, Commissioner, I would like to return briefly again to the matter of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), especially for consumers. It is good that this is now one of the priorities in the internal market package. The actual weakness with the scheme, however, has been the general ignorance of its existence.

Since, in cases of dispute, consumers are normally always the party in the weaker position compared with traders, they are also, for this very reason, unwilling to complain about the improper treatment they receive. In general, few consumers know that they and traders can use the ADR scheme to resolve their differences without going to the trouble of taking legal action.

Could you tell us beforehand what sort of concrete action the Commission intends to take in order to make consumers in the Member States more aware of ADR?

  John Dalli, Member of the Commission. – I am very pleased to see that support for the rights of consumers is quite prevalent in this Parliament and I am very comforted by this. What I can say is that you are completely correct: unless consumers know of their rights and unless they have full access to exercise those rights, whatever rights that we put on paper are meaningless. Therefore, the directive has to consider issues of how consumers are going to be facilitated into exercising their rights of redress without abusing them. We are not here for abuse. We are here for exercise of rights.

In this context, we already have organisations within the European Union. We have the consumer protection centres; we have the European consumer centres that are organised in all Member States to give advice to consumers on their rights, and also to assist them, even today, to exercise their rights, even for redress across borders. This is a function that we can consider: expanding the scope to maybe develop it into being the advocates of consumers when it comes to exercising their right of redress.

  Claudio Morganti (EFD). – (IT) Madam President, I would like to ask Commissioner Barnier a question: services are included among the 12 priorities of the Single Market Act, and an analysis of the famous Bolkestein Directive is used as a starting point. In Italy, the application of this directive created many problems, but I would like to highlight one in particular: seaside establishments.

Seaside establishments are peculiar to Italy: only in Italy are they so well developed; they are a genuine home-grown Italian offering. They are often family-run microenterprises which provide work for a large number of people, especially in the summer season.

At a time of general crisis, uncertainty regarding the future is an additional factor for this sector. One of Europe’s slogans is ‘think small’, but the danger is that it will be precisely these smaller establishments which will disappear to make way for large multinationals operating in the tourism sector.

I would therefore ask you whether it is possible to grant a derogation for this category or, in any case, to lay down special measures for this sector.

  Michel Barnier, Member of the Commission. – (FR) The task of European Commissioner is both exciting and difficult because, understandably, I am expected to ensure that this Services Directive, which, as I have said, covers 40% of GDP, realises its full potential, in order to facilitate the development of the service economy in Europe, but also to resolve the problems that crop up in this or that country when efforts are made to do so.

Mr Morganti, I am aware of the sensitive matter of beach concessions. Our legal analysis of this directive – which has not been called the Bolkestein Directive for a long time now, and which was considerably enhanced by Parliament and indeed adopted by a large majority of its Members – under European law leads me to say that the renewal of these beach concessions cannot be agreed without an invitation to tender. Therein lies the problem. I well understand the difficulty that this poses for small concessions, but we have to prevent large enterprises or large companies from having some sort of monopoly. I am engaged in constructive dialogue with the Italian authorities on this issue, Mr Morganti. We will demonstrate the utmost pragmatism and the greatest flexibility within the framework of respect for European law. That is what I am able to tell you. I am engaged in constructive dialogue with the Italian authorities on this issue.

  Claudio Morganti (EFD). – (IT) Madam President, Commissioner, I do not believe that small and medium-sized enterprises can compete with large multinationals, and we cannot remain silent while Europe robs us of our excellence, our small enterprises and our traditions.

The other question I wanted to put to you is the following: other categories were excluded from the directive, such as pharmacies, health services and newsstands, but also private security services. These establishments also provide and carry out services for the protection of tourists, providing them with the necessary daily information on bathing safety, but also keeping a watch on the sea and the coasts. I would therefore like to know why private security services were excluded, but businesses which carry out this kind of security service are not excluded.

  Michel Barnier, Member of the Commission. – (FR) Mr Morganti, I do not think we should confuse different issues. I was Environment Minister, I have also been Minister for Fisheries in my own country, and I know all about monitoring marine and coastal zones. These are matters often dealt with by public authorities or by volunteer professionals. We are talking about something else when we talk about beach and seaside concessions, which, in some cases, do actually have safety issues.

However, Mr Morganti, at least give me some credit because, as a Commissioner, it is my duty to act as guardian of the Treaty, along with my colleagues, and to ensure that European law, resulting from the work of the colegislators, is implemented rigorously, fairly and objectively. It happens that the choice made by the colegislators, that is, you here in Parliament and the Council of Ministers, was not to exclude that profession. I am well aware that other professions were excluded, professions which are, incidentally, covered by specific texts. However, the one to which you refer and find problematic was not excluded from the Services Directive.

Therefore, the only thing I can say is that I will try, as intelligently as possible in my dialogue with the Italian authorities, to find pragmatic solutions, but ones that are in keeping with European law, by which I am bound.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – (GA) Madam President, I would like to thank the three Commissioners for being here all morning.

It is particularly appropriate that Commissioner Barnier is here, as he was here last night when we discussed the modernisation of public procurement. In relation to that report, I drafted paragraph 10 of the opinion of the Committee on Regional Development, which reads: ‘Calls on the Commission to promote the deployment of a credible ‘procurement passport’ electronic registration system for a given period, which could help reduce the administrative burden for SMEs in procurement procedures’. I would ask the Commission whether it will promote the procurement passport as a model of good practice, so that the administrative burden on SMEs can be lowered.

  Michel Barnier, Member of the Commission. – (FR) Thank you for your question, Mr Kelly. To continue the debate which we had last night on public procurement – which, may I remind you, honourable Members, currently accounts for 17%, maybe even 19%, of Europe’s GDP – the text which we are to present in December will cover both the simplification of public procurement, specifically the issue of concessions, and, as you are aware, an instrument that I am preparing with Mr De Gucht, on the reciprocity that we expect of other countries in terms of their opening up their markets in return for us opening up ours.

Yes, I am all for electronic signatures and electronic procurement – and Ms Kroes will, of course, support this work as it falls within her duties. Last night, I pointed out that we have to make use of all modern communication tools, as we do elsewhere with local authorities through the Internal Market Information System (IMI). The situation is clear, Mr Kelly: we will promote the development of the single market through this simplification of public procurement using electronic procurement and electronic signatures.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – Mr Commissioner, very briefly, when do you see the procurement passport becoming a reality?

  Michel Barnier, Member of the Commission. – (FR) My response to that, Mr Kelly, is yes. The idea of a passport will be one of the proposals we put forward in December in the public procurement package. Obviously, we must look closely at what it will mean, because the word ‘passport’ does not have the same meaning when it concerns the instrument used, the document used by citizens, as the passport that I will propose for venture capital or the public procurement passport.

  President. – I would like to thank our Commissioners.

That concludes Question Time.

IN THE CHAIR: ALEJO VIDAL-QUADRAS
Vice-President

8. Voting time

  President. – Mr Obermayr now has the floor for a point of order.

  Franz Obermayr (NI). – (DE) Mr President, today, a peaceful demonstration by members of the Coptic religious community is taking place in front of Parliament. As we all know, the Copts are one of the oldest Christian religious communities in existence. Following the bloodbath of 9 October in front of the Maspero building in Egypt, which is the sad peak of Christian persecution in Egypt so far, these Coptic Christians are calling for our help. They are issuing a call for help to Europe. They are issuing a call for help to the European Parliament. Too often we feel responsible for the whole world, yet a look outside the door today should convince us that we should be ready to help our brothers and sisters in Egypt, a Christian community that finds itself in distress.

(Applause)

  President. – The next item is the vote.

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

8.1. Draft amending budget No 5/2011 - Section IX – European Data Protection Supervisor. Section X – European External Action Service (A7-0346/2011 - Helga Trüpel) (vote)

- After the vote:

  Jacek Dominik, President-in-Office of the Council. – (PL) Mr President, honourable Members, the European Parliament has just adopted an amendment to the Council’s position on Draft amending budget No 5/2011. In accordance with Article 314(4)(c) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, I agree for the President of the European Parliament to convene the Conciliation Committee. At the same time, I would like to reassure you that the Council will examine this amendment in a spirit of goodwill and will adopt a position as quickly as possible, within 10 days, so that this meeting of the Conciliation Committee can be avoided.

8.2. 2009 discharge: European Police College (A7-0330/2011 - Georgios Stavrakakis) (vote)

8.3. 2009 discharge: European Medicines Agency (A7-0329/2011 - Georgios Stavrakakis) (vote)

8.4. Tyres for motor vehicles and their trailers (A7-0349/2011 - Antonio López-Istúriz White) (vote)

8.5. Alternative dispute resolution in civil, commercial and family matters (A7-0343/2011 - Diana Wallis) (vote)

8.6. 2009 discharge: Council (A7-0328/2011 - Crescenzio Rivellini) (vote)

- Before the vote on recital C:

  Inés Ayala Sender (S&D). – (ES) Mr President, I would simply like to propose that recital C reflect the fact that an agreement has been reached with the Council on the issue of the correlation tables, and that where it says: ‘Parliament reiterates its resolve to reach an agreement with the Council as soon as possible on the subject of correlation tables’, it should now say: ‘Parliament welcomes the agreement reached with the Council on the subject of correlation tables’.

(Parliament accepted the oral amendment)

8.7. Application of emission stages to narrow-track tractors (A7-0282/2011 - Salvatore Tatarella) (vote)

8.8. Engines placed on the market under the flexibility scheme (A7-0080/2011 - Sirpa Pietikäinen) (vote)

8.9. Mobility and inclusion of people with disabilities (A7-0263/2011 - Ádám Kósa) (vote)

8.10. Modernisation of public procurement (A7-0326/2011 - Heide Rühle) (vote)

8.11. Promoting worker mobility (A7-0258/2011 - Traian Ungureanu) (vote)

- Oral amendment to paragraph 7:

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D). – Mr President, I would like to move the following oral amendment to paragraph 7: ‘Calls on the Member States to remove obstacles to workers’ mobility by offering persons (the majority of whom are women) who follow their spouses or partners to another Member State appropriate services such as courses to facilitate their integration into their new social and cultural environment, for example, language courses and vocational courses’.

(Parliament accepted the oral amendment)

8.12. Mutual evaluation process of the Services Directive (A7-0324/2011 - Małgorzata Handzlik) (vote)

8.13. Global economic governance (A7-0323/2011 - Gunnar Hökmark) (vote)

8.14. Situation of single mothers (A7-0317/2011 - Barbara Matera) (vote)

- Before the vote:

  Barbara Matera, rapporteur. – (IT) Mr President, this is the first time that this Parliament has set out its position on the situation of single mothers in Europe, an increasingly vulnerable category of women at risk of poverty and social exclusion.

I should like to thank all the shadow rapporteurs and my colleagues from the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality who worked with me, and I will conclude with my hope that in the future, the European Commission will also address the situation of single fathers, who account for 15% of single-parent families in Europe. We talk about equal opportunities, so we need to consider women and men alike.

8.15. Organised crime in the European Union (A7-0333/2011 - Sonia Alfano) (vote)

- Before the vote:

  Sonia Alfano, rapporteur. – (IT) Mr President, I would like to request a roll-call vote for the final vote on the report on organised crime. My thanks go to all the shadow rapporteurs: Mr Iacolino, Mr Crocetta, Mr Albrecht, Mr de Jong, Mr Kirkhope, Ms Borsellino and Ms Costa, since they all made a decisive contribution to the drafting of the final report.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, relatives of mafia victims, judges and witnesses are here in the gallery. If Parliament adopts this report today, we will be giving due recognition, and be able to dedicate this work, to all the innocent victims of organised crime and mafias.

Their memory, the memory of those who paid with their lives for choosing not to give in to the foulness of moral compromise must guide us, and it compels us to send strong, unequivocal signals, such as the one I hope we are about to send to Europe’s citizens today.

(Applause)

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

8.16. High-level forum on aid effectiveness (A7-0313/2011 - Cristian Dan Preda) (vote)

- Oral amendment to paragraph 5:

  Cristian Dan Preda (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, in an attempt to achieve as broad a compromise as possible, I suggest inserting the term ‘global’ before the phrase ‘financial transaction tax’.

(Parliament rejected the oral amendment)

- Before the vote on recital J:

  Cristian Dan Preda (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, as this is a similar proposal to the one made earlier, I expect that there will be opposition to it, just as in the first instance. Therefore, I prefer to withdraw the oral amendment.

9. Explanations of vote

Oral explanations of vote

Report: Diana Wallis (A7-0343/2011)

  Raffaele Baldassarre (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, ADR (alternative dispute resolution) in civil, commercial and family matters is a valid alternative to the traditional confrontational approach between parties, offering an effective, inexpensive solution to disputes. I therefore support Ms Wallis’s horizontal approach, which extends the benefits of ADR to business-to-business civil and commercial transactions and to family disputes.

That said, I hope that the Commission’s forthcoming legislative proposal will satisfy the key points highlighted by this Parliament: above all, the need to ensure a high level of impartiality and transparency of the systems, the application of ADR to electronic commerce by means of an online multilingual platform, and the promotion of ADR as a valid, cost-effective alternative to forms of collective redress.

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur for her excellent work. Indeed, wherever possible, alternative dispute resolution is an excellent solution which reduces the length of proceedings and cuts administrative costs with full respect for the wishes of the parties to the dispute.

With regard to family law, too, where both parties are willing, mediation may be helpful in finding amicable common ground and points of agreement, in order to avoid, especially for children, upset and frustration caused by the uncertainty and slowness of proceedings, which, unfortunately, do not always take the best interests of the child into account.

As European Parliament Mediator for International Parental Child Abduction, I can testify that when the parents are willing to find a solution, this guarantees a swift resolution that respects all the parties.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, I voted in favour of Ms Wallis’s report. Although it does not prejudice the usual means to access justice, I am persuaded that alternative dispute resolution (ADR) constitutes a quick and cost-effective alternative to litigation.

Apart from being an effective instrument for small and medium-sized enterprises, ADR has considerable development potential, including in an online context, when it comes to the settlement of smaller claims. Therefore, through a joint action with the Member States, we need to encourage the creation of a harmonised legal framework which, by strengthening citizens’ faith in the internal market, can help boost Europe’s economy.

Report: Crescenzio Rivellini (A7-0328/2011)

  Jens Geier (S&D). – (DE) Mr President, I would like to issue an explanation of vote on behalf of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament. The question of the granting of discharge for the Council by the European Parliament has been an institutional bone of contention for years. The Council and Parliament have not yet managed to resolve this issue amicably.

The European Parliament bases its argument for its right to grant discharge on Article 319 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and the corresponding articles in the Financial Regulation. It goes without saying that the S&D Group shares this position. We insist on Parliament’s right to monitor and evaluate the proper use of taxpayers’ money by the Council.

So far, the Council has not been in agreement with this view. At present, the Council argues that it is granted discharge along with the Commission budget. The S&D Group does not share this view. We want to see a clear and balanced procedure that has been negotiated with the Council and that sets out the rights and obligations of the institutions. We are convinced that we should take the negotiated route first. This is because the non-granting of discharge to the Council will have no impact, as the EU Treaty does not provide for any consequences for such an occurrence. However, since the non-granting of discharge remains legally without consequence, the S&D Group decided to abstain.

Report: Salvatore Tatarella (A7-0282/2011)

  Mario Pirillo (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, I voted for Mr Tatarella’s report, which seeks to postpone by three years the entry into force of Stage IIIB for the placing on the market of more efficient tractors for the reduction of CO2 and pollutant gases.

In the case of tractors, a number of reasons led to the parameters laid down by Directive 2005/13/EC being revised: the sudden fall in sales caused by the current economic crisis and the lack of technical solutions capable of limiting CO2 emissions. It will be particularly important to transpose the amended directive rapidly so that it may be applied without delay.

I hope that the European Commission will take into account the European Parliament’s call for it to examine in advance whether the technology available will be capable of meeting the requirements of Stage IV, scheduled for 2014.

  Paolo Bartolozzi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the report on provisions for tractors placed on the market under the flexibility scheme, for which we voted in favour, is based on a measured, realistic approach which, on the one hand, has refrained from laying down impractical requirements that are impossible to meet, and on the other, has provided for a so-called flexibility scheme. By laying down stages and corresponding quantitative limits of permitted emissions, this scheme provides for the placing on the market of a pre-established annual quota of tractors meeting certain characteristics, and thereby enables the manufacturing and industrial sectors concerned to adapt to the pre-established standards gradually, without causing them disruption.

Mr Tatarella has produced an important piece of work and has managed to strike a careful balance between the requirements arising from the major challenges which the EU needs to tackle at this time, and the requirements relating to environmental protection and the present economic crisis.

  Peter Jahr (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, I, too, voted in favour of this motion and believe that this is also a typical example of the fact that there is often a major difference between having good intentions and actually achieving or – as the saying beautifully puts it – between theory and practice. We should seize the opportunity to re-consider whether, in this field, we really need such a depth of regulation, or whether normal scientific and technical progress would not, in any case, offer methods of resolution without the distress and without the time pressure. Therefore, I will reiterate that we should reconsider whether we will not still find a solution for this area. Furthermore, it would also be a small help to the population, to the people of the European Union, to put in place a confidence-building measure and not to regulate everything that can be regulated at European level, but only what is necessary.

Report: Sirpa Pietikäinen (A7-0080/2011)

  Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, although it is important to reduce the emission of gaseous pollutants and pollutants produced by internal combustion engines in non-road mobile machinery, we cannot turn a blind eye to the current situation in which manufacturers find themselves.

Since 2008, the financial and economic crisis has hit the non-road mobile machinery sector hard. It was essential for us to further extend the flexibility scheme for the transition from Stage III A to Stage III B. The increase in the number of engines used for application in land-based machines under the flexibility scheme, from 20% to 37.5%, is, in my opinion, an unsatisfactory result for European industry in this sector.

However, given the situation and Parliament’s continual delays, manufacturers were demanding a rapid response. I would like to specify that it is for this reason alone that I decided to support the report with my vote.

Report: Ádám Kósa (A7-0263/2011)

  Sergio Gutiérrez Prieto (S&D). – (ES) Mr President, today we adopted the report on the way this Parliament believes we should work within the European Disability Strategy. This is great news because it represents the first effort towards coordination and approval of actions to bring about equality for people with disabilities within the European Union. We adopted it with its three goals: to bring about full social inclusion through education and the labour market integration of people with disabilities; to combat the double discrimination faced by those who are young and disabled, female and disabled, or disabled in a rural or urban environment; and to move towards Europe-wide approval of what should be the fourth pillar of the welfare state, at a time when we are debating the sustainability of the welfare state as a whole.

However, what is most important is that we are calling upon all countries to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and, especially, to unblock the directive on discrimination within the Commission itself, because Europe cannot employ, and it cannot apply, a piecemeal policy on discrimination against people who are today on the fringes of public efforts: what we need is a comprehensive and integrated policy.

  Carlo Fidanza (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, in order for people with disabilities to be fully included in society, the Member States must, in accordance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, invest in accessibility – both in terms of means of transport and modern, state-of-the-art infrastructure – to provide mobility that will guarantee the full and effective inclusion and participation of people with disabilities, on a footing of equal dignity.

In the context of a new European disability strategy, with particular reference to the tourism sector, it is important to provide people with disabilities with access not only to means of transport, but also to accommodation, catering and to all tourist services in general.

Moreover, we should remember that it is vital to provide information in formats accessible to people with sensory disabilities, an aspect which must be given increasing importance in rules on the rights of passengers and tourists. This is even more important in view of Europe’s 80 million or so potential disabled tourists – and the resulting economic activities – who must be put in a position to travel and must be considered tourists for all intents and purposes. This is why I voted in favour of the Kósa report.

  Giommaria Uggias (ALDE). – (IT) Mr President, in order to evaluate the report adopted today, we need to start by extrapolating two fundamental facts: the fact that the number of dependent people with disabilities will supposedly double by 2050, and the fact that, at the moment, we do not have a sufficient amount of data to gauge the severity of the problem.

The challenge being addressed by means of this Disability Strategy 2010-2020 is to allow people with disabilities not only to enjoy human rights, just like everyone else, but also to ensure that those rights can be put into practice effectively. It is therefore essential to bring out disabled people’s full potential by encouraging them to train, providing them with freedom of movement and enabling them to access the labour market: by so doing, we will also be able to combat one of the biggest problems that adds to the misfortune of these people, namely, poverty.

  Mario Pirillo (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, there are still many obstacles hindering the full social inclusion of the 80 million people with disabilities. I hope that the Member States and the Commission will heed the call to prepare legislative acts that facilitate their inclusion.

The Member States have not yet signed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Despite this time of economic crisis, I hope that the national governments will prove capable of protecting them by putting in place policies in line with the European Disability Strategy 2010-2020.

I welcome and endorse the report tabled by Mr Kósa, who, by drawing on his own experience, has managed to give heartfelt, practical suggestions in order to offer people with disabilities non-discriminatory access to social protection and to health and education services.

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, we are already familiar with the statistics, but perhaps it is worthwhile recalling them: 80 million people in the European Union have disabilities – over 15% of the population – and one European in four has a disabled relative.

People with disabilities are three to four times more likely to be unemployed than the rest of the population. People with disabilities have 50% less chance of reaching university-level education than able-bodied people. Half of disabled people have never taken part in leisure activities or a sport, and one third of all people with disabilities have never travelled abroad, or even been on a day trip, owing to the inaccessibility of structures and services.

Europe must genuinely commit to doing more to eliminate the discrimination which, unfortunately, creates first and second class citizens. I would therefore like to sincerely thank the rapporteur for his work.

  Jim Higgins (PPE). – Mr President, it gave me great pleasure to vote for this report today and I want to say that I totally support the Commission’s 10-year European Disability Strategy. It aims to increase to 75% the proportion of working-age people across Europe in employment by 2020. This increase simply cannot be achieved without inclusive and specially adapted training programmes. Last week, you and I hosted the signing of the Microsoft and Workability International Education Alliance. This is an exciting initiative and an example of a step towards realising our common vision of changing public and industrial perceptions of people with disabilities.

This partnership will help people with disabilities to break out of their previous confinement to blue-collar jobs and to realise their full potential through the provision of technology courses aligned with industry and industry’s hiring needs. The technologies are practical and they will be made to work, but ultimately, they will work only if Member States adopt and implement them.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE). – (ES) Mr President, many initiatives have been undertaken, but hitherto, we have not been able to achieve equality of treatment for people with disabilities. We have only to look at the statistics on unemployment, poverty, work and education.

It also seems to me regrettable that the Communication on the European Disability Strategy does not include a women’s perspective, when women are doubly discriminated against within this group. Integrating them will give them an independent life and dignity, but it will bring innovation and quality new jobs to the European Union.

In order to go forward, we need to apply existing legislation and I thought that the only way to do this was to take action against those States which do not comply with this legislation. That is why I voted for Amendment 1, which was not adopted.

That was what people with disabilities were expecting from us. I think we have failed them, but we must continue our work in the future.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, not only do I wish to congratulate Mr Kósa, but I would like to thank him for his work and for this splendid report. Each of us carries with them their life baggage, made up of different personal experiences and lifestyles; every person is unique and special, and therefore different. This is how we should view diversity: as a resource in terms of growth and enrichment for society as a whole, and a heritage of culture and skills.

Acknowledging a disability does not mean doing a good deed, but recognising the true value of a person’s being. Unfortunately, the barriers still in place today are not just architectural, but mainly mental. We must eliminate all the obstacles which society continues to put up so that we can finally move from a culture of handicap to one of normality. While on the one hand, the States intervene with specific laws, on the other, society is not always ready to accept them fully and spontaneously apply them. With this report, the European Parliament is sending its own message: people with disabilities are one of society’s resources and must play an active part in society on an equal footing with the rest of us.

  Csaba Sógor (PPE). – (HU) Mr President, the report by my colleague, Mr Ádám Kósa, has many valid points. I would like to focus on one of these points, namely, the issue of equal opportunities. The report states that equal opportunities do not mean that we provide the same opportunities for everyone, because opportunities can be considered equal if the same amount of effort leads to similar results for everyone.

For example, in the case of indigenous ethnic minorities, whose language is different from the official language of their Member State, we can only speak of equal opportunities if they have the same conditions as the majority ethnic group, meaning that they can study in their mother tongue and also use it to succeed later in life.

Women with disabilities and the elderly suffer from multiple disadvantages, but the same goes for people with disabilities who belong to one of the indigenous ethnic minorities. Equal opportunities therefore also mean positive discrimination for those who would suffer disadvantages under equal conditions.

  Peter Jahr (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, the rapporteur has come to grips with an important problem in this report. It goes without saying that people with disabilities in the European Union should have the same opportunities as everyone else. It is true that we have a lot of catching up to do in this area and the rapporteur has rightly recognised and explained this.

Nevertheless, against the background of proportionality, I would like us to consider how we can clarify and resolve the situation, naturally while making efficient use of funding. What do I mean by this? I have one bad example from Germany. Over recent years, we have made a huge effort, and rightly so, to give disabled people barrier-free access to public buildings. No one disputes that this is the right thing to do. However, it has resulted in small primary schools with fewer than 100 pupils having to install a lift at a cost of EUR 150 000, despite the fact that these schools have never had a disabled pupil since they were established. This is not going to change. I do not regard this as proportionality. I am sure that the rapporteur also sees things in the same way and will take this into consideration.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE). – (LT) Mr President, last year saw the adoption of the European Disability Strategy. Accessibility and health are among this strategy’s priority strands. Every time, we adopt new measures giving disabled people more opportunities to use general infrastructure. However, the tempo of work being carried out by Member States to improve infrastructure is still too slow for disabled people to be sufficiently included in the labour market and for them to obtain the health care services they need. Above all, the Member States must therefore take more intensive measures and, by enhancing and implementing various infrastructure projects, ensure that when new infrastructure is built and existing infrastructure is renovated, disabled people are guaranteed real opportunities to use that infrastructure, regardless of whether the builder is a private or public entity.

  Hannu Takkula (ALDE). – (FI) Mr President, I naturally voted in favour of Mr Kósa’s report. It is very important that we discuss the mobility and inclusion of people with disabilities in Europe, and that there should be a specific strategy for that issue.

Of course, we in the European Union have already agreed on common rules for disabled people, so that they enjoy the same rights as everyone else. That was ten years ago when Directive 2000/78/EC was passed. The basic principle must be that human rights apply to everyone. Unfortunately, not all Member States of the European Union have applied this fine principle. Instead, we have various measures in place which allow us to discriminate against the disabled. That is evident with employment, for example.

I hope that this strategy does not simply remain a strategy, left to gather dust on a bookshelf or in an archive, but that it is also put into practice at grassroots level. In this way, we can actually show that we are acting in accordance with this strategy and that we are treating our fellow disabled human beings as genuine fellow human beings, conferring on them all human rights.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – (GA) Mr President, I was also delighted to support this report and I would like to praise my friend, Mr Kósa, who is sitting in front of me, for the good work he has done as rapporteur.

It is, of course, very important that we treat all people equally. Unfortunately, people with disabilities have suffered more than most as a result of the economic recession, especially in terms of employment opportunities. Hopefully, that can be addressed as we come out of recession.

In relation to facilities, I think we should be utilising particularly the structural funds to ensure that facilities are up to the required standard so that everybody can have access to buildings, etc.

Thirdly, I would like to highlight the role that sport is playing in helping people with disabilities, particularly movements like the Paralympics and the Special Olympics, which are helping to highlight people’s abilities – as opposed to their disabilities – and giving them a new lease of life.

Report: Heide Rühle (A7-0326/2011)

  Raffaele Baldassarre (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, public procurement can play a decisive role for the EU budget: indeed, public expenditure on works, goods and services accounts for roughly 17% of EU GDP and almost a fifth of this expenditure – approximately EUR 420 billion – falls within the scope of the EU directives on public procurement.

I would therefore congratulate Ms Rühle for setting out what I believe to be the red lines of the forthcoming reform of the directive on public procurement: in particular, I am referring to the criterion of lowest price, which can no longer be the determining one for the award of contracts and should be replaced by the criterion of most economically advantageous tender in terms of economic, social and environmental benefits.

Similarly, I agree entirely with the urgent need to simplify the rules in order to make procurement procedures simpler, less cumbersome and more in line with the needs of SMEs and small contracting authorities.

  Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, I, too, fully agree with the general approach of Ms Rühle’s report, and I therefore voted in favour. I am convinced that the measures adopted will provide legal certainty, on the one hand, and clearer rules and more flexible procedures for public procurement, on the other.

I endorse Ms Rühle’s view that it is the public procurement directives themselves which are the main impediment to involving public contracting authorities in the pursuit of general social aims: the criterion of the lowest price cannot carry the same weight as that of the most economically advantageous tender. It must be stipulated that contracts are to be awarded to the most economically advantageous tender. Only then will the criteria for selecting what is most economically advantageous be easier to implement.

  Giommaria Uggias (ALDE). – (IT) Mr President, I voted in favour of the report on the Green Paper on the modernisation of public procurement policy for two reasons in particular.

Firstly, identification of the most economically advantageous tender which takes into account the entire life-cycle costs of the relevant goods, works or services and therefore not just the lowest price – a common, widespread consideration in all countries and all contracting authorities – which will improve quality, and, at the same time, place greater emphasis on the environmental and social sustainability of goods and services.

Secondly, simplification, which will be achieved through greater flexibility, and which will allow for simpler procedures and offer small and medium-sized enterprises greater opportunities in the awarding of contracts. I would add, in particular, that in this regard, we should promote electronic procurement, which currently accounts for less than five per cent of all public procurement in the EU, and that the publication of calls for tender, divided into lots, will enable greater transparency when it comes to participation in tenders.

  Salvatore Iacolino (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, there is no question that this text on the modernisation of public procurement is an important element in order to strengthen the efficiency and sustainability of the economic system. Indeed, the existence of streamlined, flexible and simplified procedures undoubtedly offers an objective yardstick for gauging the efficiency and practicality of public procurement.

The passage on the economically most advantageous tender being used to select the contractor is important and recourse to online procedures and to electronic procurement is appropriate, while simplified access for small and medium-sized enterprises will undoubtedly provide an opportunity to make the most of such an important sector.

Within the Committee on International Trade, we envisaged and specified that businesses and firms convicted of mafia association by a final court judgment should be excluded, whichever Member State they were convicted in. We hope that this measure will be included in the revision of the resulting directive.

  Marek Józef Gróbarczyk (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, the European Union’s policy in the field of public procurement must be something which stimulates economic growth, especially in the case of small businesses. However, no growth will occur unless the principle of competitiveness, which forms the basis for economic development, is observed. In a time of crisis and mass bankruptcy, only a public procurement policy that is simple, clear and unambiguous can bring about the intended effect. Any other action will increase bureaucracy which will, in turn, stifle business activity. The only way to maintain this process is to provide the general public with full access to the relevant information. Therefore, reform of the system must come from within the Council and the Commission themselves, as they are blocking access to information and are even contravening the Treaty of Lisbon.

  Mario Pirillo (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, with today’s vote, we have laid the foundations for the future revision of the Procurement Directive. Simpler bureaucratic procedures and principles for participation in public tenders are a fundamental means of speeding up implementation processes and ensuring the full realisation of contracts between public authorities and the private sector. The increased use of information and communication technologies would allow businesses and public authorities to save money and time, and would provide greater transparency and accessibility.

I would like to stress that the criterion of the lowest price should no longer be the determining factor when awarding contracts: it should really be replaced by the criterion of the most economically advantageous tender, in order to draw economic, social and environmental benefits.

  Peter Jahr (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, I wanted to speak yesterday during the catch-the-eye procedure, but unfortunately, there was no opportunity to do so. The debate yesterday and the resolution today on the report have strongly encouraged me to believe that we are on the right track. A huge amount of trouble is being caused in two respects. Firstly, we are increasingly hearing complaints from medium-sized companies that the amount of red tape involved in public procurement is so great that they are no longer taking part in the process for that very reason. This is why it is very important to reduce the levels of bureaucracy.

Secondly, it is essential that the organisations which issue the calls for tenders are not obliged to choose the cheapest quotation. Instead, they should be allowed to select the most cost-effective quotation. I would like to suggest that there should be a precise definition of what the most cost-effective quotation is, because it is important to remember that the other party, which fails to win the contract, can submit a complaint. For this reason, we need clear guidelines and clear definitions.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE). – (LT) Mr President, the modernisation and harmonisation of the current public procurement system throughout the European Union is an integral part of the future of a proper European Union. The modernisation challenges put forward by the Commission include increasing transparency and administrative clarity, thereby opening up opportunities for small business and increasing the efficiency of procurement and saving time and money. Then there is also the environment and the more widespread use of energy-efficient measures. I welcome this complex approach and call on the Member States to prepare to implement the amendments proposed by the Commission now, without waiting for the completion of the reform, and to begin to apply the principles of modern public procurement.

  Adam Bielan (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, the simplification of European law on public procurement is undoubtedly in the interests of all Member States. It will be conducive to the sustained growth of employment, to innovation and to the development of research projects. The economic crisis has, to a large extent, resulted in the prioritisation of financial criteria over quality criteria during the process of selecting offers.

An interesting solution, therefore, could be the proposal to introduce an obligation to award contracts to the most economically advantageous offers, thus ensuring the optimum use of funds. The guarantee of transparency, non-discrimination and competitiveness is a core principle underlying public procurement regulations. The Commission’s support for the process of awarding public contracts by way of promoting tried and tested procedures and methods and organising the exchange of experience and training programmes could also contribute to increasing the quality of public contracts. Worthy of note are the proposals to simplify the procedures in the case of small and medium-sized enterprises, such as the rule which will require original documents from successful tenderers only. Assuming that online public procurement will also increase, I have voted to adopt the report.

  Glenis Willmott (S&D). – Mr President, I am happy to have voted for this report, as it gives us the opportunity to make sure that greater emphasis is put on social and environmental standards when Member States award contracts under public procurement rules. In my constituency of the East Midlands, the UK Government has recently chosen to award a major train-building contract to the lowest cost supplier, using the procurement rules to justify this.

The decision means that 1 400 people at the Bombardier site in my constituency will become redundant. Indirectly, many thousands more will lose their jobs. This is a clear illustration of why the directive needs reform. We want all procurement rules to drive up standards and encourage sustainable, inclusive growth. To achieve that, the lowest-cost-only option needs to be the exception to the rule and social, economic and environmental criteria must become the norm. New legislation alone is not enough.

The Commission is failing to make sure that public authorities make full use of this legislation. I have asked the Commission to confirm that EU rules did not oblige the UK Government to make the choice that it did and they have failed to reply to me, although the deadline for response was over two weeks ago. The Commission must do more to make public authorities aware of the full extent of what they can do under EU legislation.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – (GA) Mr President, we had a very good debate on this subject last night and again this morning, it came up in the questions to the Commissioners. And it is a good thing that we adopted the report in the voting this morning.

There are just two points I want to emphasise. Firstly, I think the emphasis on SMEs is absolutely vital. They are the future of Europe to a large degree and, particularly in relation to public procurement, we can do a great deal to make matters easier for them. I look forward in particular to my proposal regarding the procurement passport for SMEs becoming a reality as soon as possible.

Secondly, as has been mentioned by the previous speaker and others, it is absolutely vital that we get away from the lowest cost tender. This has come up in many discussions I have had in this regard – only this morning with some American business people – because we have to put the 2020 strategy first. Particular issues, like energy conservation and also the overall aspect of employment, etc. have to be taken into consideration when we are looking into these matters.

Report: Traian Ungureanu (A7-0258/2011)

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, I wholeheartedly supported Mr Ungureanu’s report and voted for it because, as I also stated during the hearing which we organised last week on this subject, the free movement of workers from the Member States which joined in 2004 and 2007 has not caused imbalances on the labour market at the end of the first stage of the transition, according to the European Commission communication in 2008. This is why there are no economic grounds for some Member States to maintain the restrictions; this is based purely on political reasons.

There is a variety of obstacles currently preventing mobility, ranging from psychological and cultural barriers, sometimes caused by stereotypes, to red tape. While the former are more difficult to deal with, the latter group can be re-examined and resolved.

Another barrier preventing mobility is recognition of professional qualifications.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE). – (ES) Mr President, I have once again voted in favour, but we are confronted with constant infringement of the directive by certain Member States, and this affects workers’ ability to move freely.

The Commission must enforce compliance with this legislation, but it needs to back this up with a long-term and comprehensive strategy, and also with coherent and effective policies, in order to be able to eliminate all the legal and practical obstacles. It also needs coordination at European, state, regional and local levels.

I believe that these measures would enable us to see the positive effects of free movement, to eliminate continuing discrimination and the stereotypes that still exist, and thereby integrate these people into their host countries.

This is the challenge that confronts us, and I hope we are ready to face up to it.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE). – (LT) Mr President, recently, the proper functioning of the free movement of workers as one of the fundamental principles of the European Union has unfortunately been having a negative impact on the demographic situation in certain economically weaker Member States such as Lithuania. While respecting this principle and our citizens who have decided to exploit its benefits, we must ensure that in the European Union, there is no discrimination against workers from any of the Member States. Workers arriving in some Member States still face disproportionate and often discriminatory interference, both when accessing the labour market and when it comes to them or their family members taking advantage of social guarantees. I am convinced that if they have chosen to work somewhere other than in their native Member State, European Union citizens must be treated equally in all EU Member States. Both the Commission and the Member States therefore still have a lot to do to truly guarantee such equality.

Report: Małgorzata Handzlik (A7-0324/2011)

  Adam Bielan (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, the Services Directive plays a leading role in the formation and operation of the single market in services in the European Union. The freedom to provide services remains one of its chief principles. As practice shows, the provision of cross-border services continues to be an enormous problem. It is therefore important to intensify cooperation between the Commission and individual Member States in order to establish an efficient operating mechanism for this aspect of the Services Directive.

The European Parliament must also be informed in full about the progress of this work. The mutual evaluation process itself seems to be playing a positive role. I agree, however, with the need to make the provisions more precise, and with the call for the mutual evaluation to take place following full implementation of the directive. I also regard as beneficial the proposal to extend the use of the mutual evaluation method to other framework directives. It could prove to be an important tool for monitoring the implementation of provisions in individual Member States. I therefore support the report.

Report: Gunnar Hökmark (A7-0323/2011)

  Paolo Bartolozzi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, in recent years, the current global economic crisis, which is even worse than the Great Depression, has caused unsustainable imbalances in international economies. The commercial disparities between countries, financial markets lacking common rules, and the instability of the banking system all constitute a potential threat to financial and economic stability.

This resolution, which I support, stresses the urgent need for total reform, with new rules and global economic coordination. The economy needs a system of global governance, open markets, high economic and social standards, a more responsible monetary policy and more stringent supervisory policies; decision-making bodies and international economic bodies must be the main stakeholders driving this new approach.

In particular, Europe needs a clear and transparent framework to reduce the instability that has been aggravated by, among other things, globalisation, and to guarantee wide-ranging reforms aimed at fostering growth and reducing the debt of individual Member States. This is the demand that the current resolution highlights to all the countries.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – Mr President, many of our problems today in the world are global, not local, and the solutions therefore need to be global as well. There is not much point in Europe introducing measures which may be right in themselves but which are actually going to disadvantage the eurozone area or the European Union. They have to be global solutions, particularly in relation to things like transaction tax. I think, too, that we, as the European Union, need to demand a seat on the World Bank and International Monetary Fund governing bodies.

The IMF needs to be far more democratic than it is currently. Its managing director needs to be elected on a merit-based system, and transitional developing countries also need greater voting rights. These measures are worth aiming for, and if we can get them, we will have a better system for dealing with the problems we face at the moment and ensuring those problems do not occur again in the future.

Report: Barbara Matera (A7-0317/2011)

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, five per cent of women are single mothers, and they make up 85% of single-parent families: this is truly alarming data, not least because it is a trend that is, worryingly, on the increase, and because it concerns a social group at high risk of poverty.

The situation of single mothers with dependent children often forces these women to make choices in which they have no say, to work part-time, interrupt their studies, be underpaid, live in poverty and suffer unacceptable discrimination. Furthermore, let us not forget that there are also many women, single mothers, with disabled, dependent children. For this reason, we need to adopt concrete and effective measures in support of these single mothers, and thus I thank the rapporteur for her insight and for the excellent work she has done.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE). – (ES) Mr President, nowadays, the idea of the family has changed. More and more women are deciding to be single mothers, but this group is broader because it includes widows and very young women. Therefore, some of them are more vulnerable and at risk of poverty and social exclusion. This requires improved conditions to encourage them all into the labour market and into training, as well setting up good-quality services to help them find a balance between work and family life.

I regret that the report does not include the amendments which referred to the situation of men who may find themselves in similar positions, particularly in view of the fact that the law in many Member States allows people of the same sex to marry and adopt children; this would be a response to the existence of such groups and to equality of treatment within Europe.

  Dimitar Stoyanov (NI). – (BG) Mr President, I voted for Ms Matera’s report on the situation of single mothers, but I want to make a few very significant points which I believe are important to consider for the future.

First of all, a common definition must be found for the concept of a single mother because, at the moment, I think that there are many cases where women who are not married live with the fathers of their children. However, as the definition of a single mother is based on marriage, these women acquire this status and obtain social rights.

This is why I very much agree with the idea suggested in Ms Matera’s report, which was aimed rather at acquiring more social rights, providing greater protection in labour legislation and getting rid of discrimination. I am going to state my position clearly: I am firmly against granting direct financial or material assistance as an incentive to commit fraud and describe women as single mothers who essentially are not.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, with the adoption of this report, the European Parliament is once again demonstrating its support for women who find themselves alone in the delicate task of raising a child. All too often, in fact, these mothers are forgotten by institutions and hastily labelled as a minority of irresponsible young people, forced to pay a high price for their mistakes.

However, the reality is much different and, as my colleague, Ms Angelilli, has also just underlined, single mothers today make up five per cent of Europe’s entire female population. It is therefore essential to explode the myth about their average age once and for all: 85% are, in fact, between the ages of 25 and 64. Continuing to ignore this fact only worsens their situation.

I am particularly in favour of the adoption of paragraph 29, which seeks to promote a better work-life balance, encouraging flexible working hours and creating workplace child care facilities. I do hope, however, that all of these are not just empty promises but concrete undertakings that will soon be put into practice.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, I voted in favour of Ms Matera’s report reviewing the situation of single mothers, who today make up more than five per cent of the EU population, as others have said. Thus, the EU has a moral obligation to protect them, and the text approved today advocates policies that can provide genuine support to these women in the shape of, for example, health-care benefits, flexible working arrangements that allow for a better work-life balance, priority access to affordable housing, and special unemployment benefits.

Only by adopting these measures can we respond to the needs of a group which is continuing to grow across all developed and industrialised countries.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD). – (IT) Mr President, the report, which is based on a principle with which I fully agree, namely, that single mothers are at a disadvantage compared with mothers in a normal family situation, does not anticipate how to prevent fraudulent behaviour.

Allow me to explain: if a woman in a cohabitating couple declares herself to be a single mother, she gains de facto advantages compared with other women who are legally married or who declare that they are cohabiting. In Italy, and I think it is also the case in other Member States, there is no legal requirement to register cohabitation, even if the set-up is the same as that of a normal family. Thus, it is clear that laws favourable to women who declare themselves single mothers could encourage a couple to choose not to register their cohabitation, going against the creation of stable families.

For these reasons, we abstained from the vote on this report.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – (GA) Mr President, last night, when this debate was taking place, I was there and it was said that it was a pity that no man spoke. Since the title applies to women or mothers, and not to fathers, I suppose that was the reason. But now, three men have spoken – I and two others – to support this report.

So in relation to this topic, obviously where there are genuine situations of single mothers, or indeed single fathers, they have to be treated with respect and given every opportunity to further both themselves and their child. Especially we have to ensure that they do not fall into the poverty trap or suffer from social exclusion. They are measures that I think we would certainly support. I think it should also be established whether they are genuine cases and that they are supported when they are genuine. When they are not, obviously this causes a dilemma.

  Christa Klaß (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, I have voted in favour of the report and also of recital M, because I believe it is right that young women should be informed about the law and about how to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Families in which every member takes responsibility for the others represent the ideal framework for all generations.

However, we are not here today to discuss the pros and cons of single parenthood. It is a fact that single-parent households in Europe are at risk of falling into poverty and that 85% of single parents are women. Ms Matera’s report lists the positive measures: the introduction of flexitime or working from home, the provision of child care centres and nurseries, and the necessary financial support.

Alongside all the measures, campaigns and financial support, we must continue to promote social acceptance and recognise and respect single parents. Children are precious both in themselves and to society. They must not put the people who bring them up at risk of poverty.

Report: Sonia Alfano (A7-0333/2011)

  Mario Pirillo (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, today, Europe has taken an important step in recognising the fact that organised crime is a European problem that has been underestimated for too long and traced back to local situations or individual Member States.

I fully support the content of the report and hope that a legislative proposal will soon be presented, one which leads to the creation of a European anti-mafia committee able to expertly review and fight the phenomenon of organised crime through the institutions. Culture, education, development and work in Europe are defences capable of preventing criminal organisations from recruiting young people.

I would like to thank Mr Crocetta, shadow rapporteur of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, who has always been at the forefront of the fight against the Mafia and who made a significant contribution to the improvement of the text.

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, it is important for Europe to spearhead the fight against all forms of organised crime and against all mafias. I would really like to thank the rapporteur for the excellent work she has done. I wish to mention some of the key points in this report: more stringent rules to impede access to public funds and to criminal organisations or mafia-style groups; new laws to prevent companies linked to organised crime from taking part in public tenders; seizure and confiscation of goods; and the adoption of new rules to ensure persons convicted of offences relating to organised crime are unable to stand for election to the European Parliament.

We must continue our work to ensure that a European area of freedom and justice is finally established. We owe it to our citizens and also to the many victims of organised crime and their families.

Report: Cristian Dan Preda (A7-0313/2011)

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, Europe is one of the main providers of development funds and we must maintain this characteristic despite the crisis, because no country in difficulty would be able to recover were it not for the help of the international community.

However, this assistance must follow a strategic development plan, especially in view of the 2015 deadline for achieving the Millennium Development Goals, promoting the democratic ownership of development aid policies and policies to assist with development projects and measures through constant engagement with, and also accountability to, all development stakeholders. It is important to reiterate that this assistance is only a temporary measure, a source of inclusive and sustainable growth, albeit achieved through clear and measurable objectives aimed at fostering a sense of responsibility amongst recipient countries.

Written explanations of vote

Report: Helga Trüpel (A7-0346/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report because an institution can seek the approval of an amending budget during the financial year every time there is a new high-level post created or appointment made. I agree that some changes should be requested through this amending budget, so as to facilitate recruitment by the Member States and to achieve the goal set out in the Council decision that personnel from the Member States should represent at least one third of the total at grade AD in the European External Action Service (EEAS), and that temporary posts should be converted into permanent ones. In fact, the European Parliament has consistently supported the adequate financing of the EEAS. Its personnel policy, however, raises a series of questions, especially concerning the significant number of high-ranking posts created: it should show a level of restraint in this area.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Its importance means that the European External Action Service (EEAS) deserves to be allocated an adequate budget that enables it to carry out its activities satisfactorily. Unless that is properly secured, the smooth working of European foreign policy and the Union’s actual ability to have a presence in various parts of the world will come under threat. However, doubts persist as to the suitability of its organisational structure to the challenges that it faces. I hope that this situation can be changed in the future, and that the EEAS will be able to become an effective service that is increasingly suited to doing what is required of it.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report, drafted by Ms Trüpel, concerns Draft amending budget No 5/2011 of the European Union (EU) for the financial year 2011, Section IX – European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) and Section X – European External Action Service (EEAS). Given that what is at stake is the mobility of an EU official, whose appointment represents ‘an exceptional circumstance for the EDPS’, I am voting for this draft amending budget, since I agree with the rapporteur’s recommendation that the Council’s position should be amended by restoring the 2011 establishment plan of the EDPS. The purpose of this would be to make it possible to appoint an official to the level immediately above, so complying with the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) We know that creating the European External Action Service (EEAS) was a key element of deepening the capitalist, federalist and militarist integration of the European Union. The EEAS includes embassies in more than 120 countries and almost 6 000 officials. However, despite our opposition to the existence of this institution, the labour rights of its officials should be protected. This report raises the issue of correcting the EEAS budget with the purpose of facilitating recruitment, professional reclassification and the conversion of temporary jobs into permanent ones.

We cannot oppose the allocation of different categories and posts to jobs currently being carried out if all the legal requirements are met. In this case, the majority of jobs are being reclassified into a higher category. We welcome the conversion of 40 temporary posts into permanent ones. The EU should set an example by promoting job stability and should avoid taking on officials on temporary contracts.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) Draft amending budget No 5/2011 to the general budget for 2011 covers the modification of the establishment plans of two institutions – the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) and the European External Action Service (EEAS). The establishment of the EEAS in 2010 was guided by the principles of budget neutrality and sound and efficient management, while fully taking into account the impact of the economic crisis on public finances and the need for budgetary stringency. It has been clear from the start that a gradual build-up of the service will be called for, and that resources should be made available according to the progress of the institution’s set-up and current absorption capacity. According to the Commission’s proposal, the EDPS Budget shall be amended by deleting an AD 14 post and creating an AD 15 post in the establishment plan of Section IX.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – Parliament has consistently supported adequate financing of the European External Action Service (EEAS). The personnel policy of the EEAS, however, raises a series of questions, notably that of the significant creation of high-ranking posts. The main concern – that this approach was a result of Member States’ pressure on the EEAS to create sufficiently high-ranking posts for national civil servants within it – proved, following reception of detailed information from the EEAS on its personnel policy, to be unfounded. I therefore followed the rapporteur’s recommendation of approving the Council’s position with regard to the EEAS establishment plan but calling, at the same time, on the EEAS to show restraint in relation to possible future plans for creating additional high-ranking posts.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I wholeheartedly agree with the reasons set out by the rapporteur regarding the amendments to the Council’s position, both with reference to the European Data Protection Supervisor and with reference to the European External Action Service.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. – I welcome the recommendations for improving the Council’s position with regard to the European External Action Service (EEAS) establishment plan, and the calls on the EEAS to show restraint in relation to possible future plans for the creation of additional high-ranking posts. I supported this report.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) This report already states that it is in favour of providing the sum of EUR 1.4 million in 2012 to the imperialist service headed by Baroness Ashton, but is against the appointment of an official at a higher grade during the year in the service responsible for protecting personal data within the Union. I do not share this sense of priority. I voted against.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – It is known that Draft amending budget (DAB) 5/2011 covers the modifications to the establishment plans of the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) and the European External Action Service (EEAS), both without any additional budgetary requests. The Council adopted its position on DAB 5/2011on 12 September 2011. The purpose of the change to the EEAS establishment plan is to allow the EEAS to comply in 2011 with the statutory promotion rates set out in the Staff Regulations and to permit further progress towards the objective that staff from national diplomatic services should represent at least one third of the Service’s staff at AD level. The purpose of the change to the EDPS establishment plan is to delete an AD 14 post and to create an AD 15 post (upgrading) to fulfil obligations under the Staff Regulations in relation to the promotion of a newly appointed director. I support the rapporteur on both issues and I voted in favour.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour. The European External Action Service (EEAS) has been operational for less than a year, and it is understandable that there may be unforeseen cases that require an amending budget. Although we hear criticisms in the press about difficult working conditions in the EEAS, I believe that the European Parliament, having actively supported the idea and setting-up of the EEAS, should support it through this period, particularly because the proposed modifications to the establishment plan will not require additional spending, but will facilitate the implementation of the obligation of at least one third of the staff at Administrator (AD) level coming from the Member States at any given time. As for the amending budget requested by the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS), it is rather odd that the European Parliament had to decide to establish a higher category of post in order to promote a specific person. I believe that the solution proposed by the rapporteur is appropriate at this stage. I trust that the Commission and the relevant institutions will answer all the questions raised by this case.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The report, adopted by an overwhelming majority in the Committee on Budgets, concludes that the personnel policy of the European External Action Service (EEAS) as regards nominating a large number of high-level posts was not determined by pressure from the Member States to create excessive numbers of high-level posts simply so as to promote officials from national governments. That issue was the main concern associated with this report and, as it has been resolved, I voted in favour. I agree with the rapporteur’s call to the EEAS to seek restraint in creating new high-level posts.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The amendment to the establishment plans for the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) and the European External Action Service (EEAS) is a significant staff adjustment and an admirable response to the improved financial management of these bodies. It is in this regard that I confidently voted in favour of this proposal.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The purpose of Draft amending budget No 5 is firstly to modify the establishment plan of the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) and secondly of the European External Action Service (EEAS). The intention as far as the first point is concerned is to appoint a new member of the EDPS. As far as this is concerned, we should follow the rapporteur’s position that to consider the appointment of a new member under the definition of an exceptional circumstance, which justifies the request for an amending budget, is excessive. As regards the EEAS, a reformulation of its establishment plan has also been requested. Following the European Parliament’s consultations, the information collected has not confirmed the suspicion that high-level posts were being created for members from national administrations. I therefore voted in favour.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. This Draft amending budget (DAB) No 5 for the year 2011 covers the following: a modification to the establishment plan of the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS); a modification to the establishment plan of the European External Action Service (EEAS). Concerning the two points of Draft amending budget No 5/2010 and the Council’s position on it, Parliament considers that, if the appointment represented ‘an exceptional circumstance for the EDPS’, then an institution could seek the adoption of an amending budget during the course of the budget year every time that a new post is being created or an appointment has been made in a higher grade. Therefore, your rapporteur recommends to amend the Council’s position by restoring the 2011 establishment plan of the EDPS.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Commission’s draft amending budgets for the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) and the European External Action Service (EEAS) have been adopted by the Council, which thought changes necessary with regard to recruitment, to jobs and to promotions in the EEAS. This will have an annual cost implication of EUR 1.4 million. However, given that this will only be in force during part of 2011, there will be no need for additional appropriations for the purpose, since the draft budget will already take this situation into account from 2012. These proposals have been accepted by the European Parliament committee, which recommends a level of restraint when creating new posts in future. The required changes for the EDPS proposed by the Council in order to promote a post for a higher level on the basis of ‘an exceptional circumstance’ have been rejected by the European Parliament, with the intention of preventing such changes being possible every year purely and simply on the basis of this reason. I voted for the European Parliament proposal for the reasons that I have given.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) I have voted in favour of the two proposals made by Ms Trüpel in the cases of the modification of the establishment plans of the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) and of the European External Action Service (EEAS). According to the Commission proposal, the EDPS budget should be amended by deleting an AD 14 post and, at the same time, creating an AD 15 post in the establishment plan of Section IX. At a time when the EU budget is overstretched and far-reaching austerity measures have been introduced in the Member States, it was important for us to oppose this proposal. In the case of the EEAS, there has been a request to turn 40 temporary posts into permanent posts over time.

This is the implementation of a Council Decision which requires staff from Member States to represent at least one third of all EEAS staff and temporary posts to be gradually transformed into permanent posts. The Committee on Budgets monitors increases in the staffing levels of the EEAS very closely and always takes a highly critical approach. However, it is worth noting that the creation of a completely new organisation of this size within the EU will result in changes to the establishment plan which need to be taken into consideration. Therefore, I have also voted in favour of this proposal.

Report: Georgios Stravrakakis (A7-0330/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this draft report as I support the discharge procedures.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report, in which the European Parliament approved granting discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Police College for the financial year 2009 and the closure of the accounts of the College for the financial year 2009. According to information provided to the European Parliament, since Parliament decided on 10 May 2011 to postpone its decision on granting the College discharge in respect of the implementation of its 2009 budget, one positive point is that the new administration and management of the College have taken measures to eliminate its deficiencies in response to Parliament’s request for action over the serious irregularities in the implementation of the 2009 budget. Since 2010, the College has increased its financial discipline and internal control. The College has developed and implemented its procurement manual for internal use as requested by Parliament in previous discharges in respect of the implementation of the budget. The College has also established an organisational risk register as part of its ongoing budget management to mitigate its risk of under-spending. In its report on the College’s Multiannual Action Plan (MAP) for 2010-2014, the Court of Auditors stated that the College is progressing according to the milestones established in its MAP.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report granting discharge to the European Police College (CEPOL). The appointment of the new director and the recent measures taken at the request of the European Parliament have highlighted the efforts made by the new CEPOL administration to get its situation sorted out.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Following the delay in discharge of the accounts of the European Police College in April, Parliament is now discharging them, in recognition of the measures taken to correct the deficiencies and severe irregularities found in the implementation of the 2009 budget.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report, drafted by Mr Stavrakakis, concerns discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Police College (CEPOL) for the financial year 2009. This process was submitted to the European Parliament in April 2010, but its discharge was postponed because serious deficiencies and irregularities were detected. Since the doubts raised have been satisfactorily cleared up by CEPOL’s new management and governance, I am voting for closure of CEPOL’s annual accounts for the financial year 2009. I also welcome the revision of the Financial Regulation of the College and the efforts to reduce CEPOL’s financial costs.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The College was set up in 2001 and, with effect from 1 January 2006, was transformed into a Community body within the meaning of Article 185 of the Financial Regulation, thus coming under the provisions of the framework Financial Regulation for agencies. The Court of Auditors, in its report on the annual accounts of the College for the financial year 2009, qualified its opinion on the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions, and the European Parliament subsequently decided to postpone its decision on granting the Director of the College discharge in respect of the implementation of its budget for 2009. However, the new report submitted now proposes granting the discharge, and there are no motions for amendment preventing this. Despite the fact that the description in the progress report on the implementation of the College’s Multiannual Action Plan remains fairly general, it gives a clear overview of the status of the different milestones and should thereby serve as a satisfactory basis for informing different stakeholders. The enhanced transparency provided by the current Director and his management team has led to an improved understanding of the challenges the College is facing and has fostered the necessary changes.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) In its Decision of 10 May 2011, Parliament decided to postpone its decision on granting the Director of the European Police College discharge in respect of the implementation of its budget for 2009. The new administration and management of the College have taken measures to tackle its deficiencies in response to Parliament’s request for action, following the serious irregularities in the implementation of the budget for 2009. Action was taken in time to respond to Parliament’s requests. I therefore approved the closure of the accounts of the European Police College for the financial year 2009.

  Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE), in writing. – (DE) Since the refusal to grant discharge for the 2008 financial year, several restructuring measures have been implemented within the European Police College. The regular debates in the Committee on Budgetary Control, to which the new Director and representatives of the College have been invited, and the reports on the progress of the measures taken, leave me optimistic. However, it is essential that further developments are followed very closely. I therefore voted in favour of the discharge.

  Jan Kozłowski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) I would like to explain why I voted in favour of granting discharge to the European Police College (CEPOL). As a Member of the Committee on Budgets and a shadow rapporteur with responsibility for agencies, I welcome the solutions proposed by CEPOL’s new management, which contribute to the effective implementation of the Multiannual Action Plan, increasing transparency and lowering the cost of managing the College. In my opinion, the correct approach has been taken with the introduction of procedural changes, such as the exclusion for tender with regard to the selection of educational experts, as they contribute to the improved execution of the agency’s tasks as well as the rationalisation of expenditure. I hope that the evaluation of the Court of Auditors regarding the application of the Procurement Manual will be positive, and that the management of CEPOL will do their utmost to respond positively to the expectations of the European Parliament.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Following the assessment of the measures adopted by the new management and governance of the European Police College, Parliament decided today to grant discharge in respect of the 2009 financial year, a matter on which, in May, it had postponed its decision following the qualified opinion expressed by the Court of Auditors. I believe that we can indeed be satisfied by the timely provisions taken by the College to meet Parliament’s demands in May upon the first application for discharge, which was refused.

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE), in writing. – There were serious irregularities in the implementation of the European Police College budget for the financial year 2009. However, I voted in favour of granting it discharge, primarily due to the new management and governance of the College, which displayed a commitment to tackle its deficiencies and to implement measures required by the European Parliament, in particular, the revision of the Financial Regulation of the College, the application of the procurement manual and the decision of its governing board to grant voting rights to the Commission. The fulfilment of these commitments will be closely monitored during the 2010 discharge procedure. I call for CEPOL to be merged into Europol in order to reduce expenditure and increase efficiency.

This is why I called on the Court of Auditors to prepare a special report, during 2012, setting out the costs and benefits in financial and operational terms of merging the College’s responsibilities with those of Europol. As rapporteur for the 2010 discharge of the EU agencies, I strongly believe that the rationalisation of EU agencies is both necessary and relevant.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report on the European Police College, which acknowledges the measures taken by the new management and governance of the College to tackle its deficiencies.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the proposal to grant budgetary discharge to the European Police College (CEPOL) for I believe the information received and the actions undertaken are enough to grant discharge to its Executive Director and approve the closing of the accounts for the 2009 financial year. In October 2010, I proposed that Parliament refuse to grant CEPOL discharge for the 2008 financial year because of significant and repeated failings on the part of the College. At the same time that Parliament was working on the 2008 and 2009 discharges, Mr Banfi was appointed as College director in February 2010. He has actively sought to correct the shortcomings and irregularities in the finances and the budget and to refocus the College’s management so that it is more effective. His work seems to be bearing fruit and I welcome, in particular, the structural efforts adopted by the College, such as the decision to abolish all the committees of the Governing Board by 2012 and to analyse in a critical way all the working groups of the Board.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the report for discharge in respect of the implementation of the European Police College’s general budget for the 2009 financial year. My colleague, Mr Stavrakakis, has carefully and thoroughly analysed the measures taken by the new management and governance of the College in order to tackle its deficiencies.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. – I welcome the measures taken by the new management and governance of the College, in response to Parliament’s previous requests for action, to tackle its deficiencies. In the light of the improvements made, I support Parliament’s decision to grant discharge to the College in respect of the agency’s budget for the 2009 financial year.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – After postponement earlier this year of the 2009 budget discharge for the European Police College, the new draft report proposes to grant discharge, and there are no amendments tabled to refuse it. The draft report generally recognises the big improvements made in the college’s management over the past two years. Two amendments were passed, asking for the College’s relocation and for its merger with Europol in The Hague for efficiency reasons – going beyond the remit of the Committee on Budgetary Control, as decisions on the location of agencies and other bodies are made by the Member States. I agree with the rapporteur and I voted in favour.

  Katarína Neveďalová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The modernisation and, in particular, the improved efficiency of public procurement is a key issue at present, especially as we are in a period of crisis. It is clear that price should not be the only determining factor – social aspects and the issue of sustainable job creation are now extremely important. In the Slovak Republic, for example, unemployment is now at a six year high. The unemployment rate in Slovakia has risen to 13.73%, and the situation will probably not improve next year, due to the expected slowdown in economic growth. One of the problems of public procurement is the large number of subcontractors, which ultimately causes confusion and a lack of transparency. It is therefore necessary for procurement bodies to be notified in advance of all details relating to the use of subcontractors. We must therefore approach this modernisation in a systematic way, putting the emphasis on sustainable development.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report is based on another by the Committee on Budgetary Control, a majority of which has adopted the closure of the accounts of the European Police College for the financial year 2009, despite having a number of observations regarding expenditure. The aforementioned committee concludes that there are serious signs of a spending restraint. In fact, efforts to cut spending were demonstrated by CEPOL at its 25th governing board meeting in June 2011, during which it was decided to abolish all its committees by 2012 and to critically analyse all its working groups. I voted for this report for these reasons.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I am satisfied with the work that has been carried out and with the results obtained; I therefore voted in favour of granting the Director of the European Police College discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget for the 2009 financial year and approval of the European Police College end-of-year accounts for the 2009 financial year.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) After certain reservations were expressed about the accounts of the European Police College in previous financial years, its efforts to strengthen mechanisms guaranteeing the transparency of its activities should be stressed. This is a point that the European Parliament has always considered crucial when exercising the budgetary oversight activities assigned to it under the Treaties. In this light, given the efforts made recently, I voted to grant discharge to the implementation of the 2009 budget.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – Abstention. The report now states that the College has improved its accounting system and that the new rules on procurement and the procurement manual are now finalised. There is a better internal control system compared to 2009. In short, progress has been made, illegal contracts have been terminated, and recovery of unduly paid private expenditure has been finalised. But we are still very critical of the way in which the Police College handles its finances and would prefer to attach the whole agency, which is providing police training on a European level, to a larger and better run entity, namely Europol.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Police College (CEPOL) was set up in 2001 and, with effect from 1 January 2006, was transformed into a Community body within the meaning of Article 185 of the Financial Regulation, thus coming under the provisions of the Framework Financial Regulation for Agencies. In the report on CEPOL’s accounts for the period 2008-2009, the Court of Auditors expressed reservations about the legality and regularity of transactions, leading the European Parliament to postpone the decision to discharge the implementation of the budget for the financial year 2009. In response to the request drafted by Parliament, CEPOL’s management adopted new measures with a view to correcting its budgetary deficiencies, thereby bringing it into line with this decision to grant the Director of CEPOL discharge for its budget for the financial year 2009. I should also like to take this opportunity to stress that the new procurement procedures, the rules governing expenditure on courses, and the analysis of appropriations used to finance private expenditure, will make the management of the CEPOL budget more rigorous.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) On 10 May 2011, the European Parliament decided to postpone the discharge decision for the financial year 2009 and called for further investigations and answers on the budget management of the European Police College. Comprehensive investigations have since been carried out, with some external help. The European Police College has now largely fulfilled Parliament’s specific requirements and its ongoing compliance will be constantly monitored. The previous management team of the College has also been replaced.

For these reasons, Mr Stavrakakis is now proposing to grant the new Director of the European Police College discharge in respect of the implementation of the college’s budget for the financial year 2009. The future development of the college will be subject to strict requirements. It will be constantly monitored and Parliament will be kept permanently informed of the situation. I have voted in favour of this.

  Janusz Władysław Zemke (S&D), in writing. – (PL) I would like to comment on budget implementation by the European Police College. The College was set up in 2001 and, with effect from 1 January 2006, was transformed into a Community body. This gave Parliament and the Court of Auditors additional powers to assess the College’s budget. In their analyses, the Court of Auditors and Parliament qualify their opinion with regard to implementation of the budget by the Police College, the College tries to take account of this, and the same happens every year. I think the key lies in another solution. The Police College should be amalgamated with Europol. Only this solution would give tangible operational effects, reduce costs and bring financial benefits.

Report: Georgios Stravrakakis (A7-0329/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this draft report as I support the discharge procedures.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report, in which the European Parliament granted discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Medicines Agency for the financial year 2009 and approved the closure of the agency’s accounts for the financial year 2009. On the basis of information provided to the European Parliament, one positive point is that the agency has taken actions to address its serious weaknesses disclosed by the reports for 2009 from both the Court of Auditors and the Internal Audit Service, as a result of which, on 10 May 2011, Parliament decided to postpone its decision on granting discharge in respect of the implementation of the agency’s budget for the financial year 2009. In the second half of 2011, the agency submitted a report to Parliament on the level of implementation of the IAS recommendations, stating that, a significant proportion of the ‘very important’ recommendations on human resources management, administrative procedures relating to selection and internal control standards had already been implemented or were being implemented. Moreover, the agency has begun to develop an action plan on improving procurement procedures. It has also rectified the deficiencies identified by the IAS concerning contract agent selection. I agree with the rapporteur that Parliament must continue to carefully monitor the level of implementation of the measures undertaken to address the agency’s serious weaknesses.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report, which recommends granting discharge to the Executive Director of the European Medicines Agency in respect of the 2009 financial year. I support the rapporteur’s approach, which entails introducing the need to inform the discharge authority every three months of the measures taken to remedy the shortcomings previously identified.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Following the delay in discharge of the accounts of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in April, Parliament is now discharging them, in recognition of the measures taken to correct the deficiencies of 2009, and in accordance with the letter from the Chair of the EMA’s Management Board of 17 June 2011. I re-emphasise, in any case, that persistent breaches of the Financial Regulation should and shall not be tolerated. Previous resolutions that accompanied other postponement decisions and the resulting adoption of discharges urgently need to be respected.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Medicines Agency (EMA) was established by Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 31 March 2004, and is covered by the Framework Financial Regulation created by Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002 of the Commission, of 19 November 2002. This report, by Mr Stavrakakis, concerns discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the EMA for the financial year 2009. On 10 May 2011, Parliament agreed to postpone the decision to grant the Executive Director of the EMA discharge for the financial year 2009, since the report by the Court of Auditors expressed reservations about the legality and regularity of compliance with the Financial Regulation as regards underlying transactions. Given that the Management Board of the EMA sent a letter to the European Parliament on 17 June 2011 on the measures taken to correct the irregularities, and in view of the 10 August 2011 letter from the Executive Director, following the questions raised during the debate on discharge to the EMA for 2009 at the 13 July 2011 meeting of Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control, I am voting for the report.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) Since the Court of Auditors, in its report on the annual accounts of the European Medicines Agency for the financial year 2009, qualified its opinion on the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions, Parliament decided, in its decision of 10 May 2011, to postpone its decision on granting the Executive Director of the agency discharge in respect of the implementation of the agency’s budget for the financial year 2009. The discharge authority subsequently received replies from the agency following Parliament’s resolution of 10 May 2011, and in its replies, the agency provided updated information on the implementation of recommendations. In light of the second report of the Committee on Budgetary Control, the Executive Director of the European Medicines Agency was granted discharge in respect of the implementation of the agency’s budget for the financial year 2009

The discharge authority shall continue to carefully monitor, during the upcoming discharge procedures, the level of implementation of the measures undertaken to address the agency’s serious weaknesses disclosed by the reports from both the Court of Auditors and the Internal Audit Service. It is therefore desirable for the agency to continue informing the discharge authority of the measures implemented and their results, and always to submit the requested documents on time.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) In its decision of 10 May 2011, Parliament decided to postpone its decision on granting discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Medicines Agency for the financial year 2009. The European Parliament received replies from the agency following the abovementioned decision and the agency provided updated information on the level of implementation of the IAS recommendations, which, according to the information given, is improving. I believe that the agency should continue to inform the discharge authority on the results of the actions requested by the discharge authority. I welcomed the European Parliament’s position to grant the Executive Director of the European Medicines Agency discharge in respect of the implementation of the agency’s budget for the financial year 2009.

  Jan Kozłowski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) In my statement, I would like to refer to one aspect of the document drafted by Mr Stavrakakis, namely, the building of a positive image for this agency, as well as for other agencies. The problems experienced by CEPOL and the European Medicines Agency in obtaining discharge have had a decidedly negative impact on the way that these agencies are perceived by us, the Members of the European Parliament, and also by European citizens. In my opinion, in order to regain public confidence, the European Medicines Agency should comply with all of the recommendations of the Court of Auditors.

At the same time, I would like to congratulate the agency on the efforts that it has made to improve its operations, namely, the implementation of the three recommendations resulting from the 2009 audit by the Internal Audit Service on Human Resources Management. These examples of the agency’s actions convinced me to vote in favour of the adoption of the report, and thus to grant discharge to the European Medicines Agency.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) With today’s vote, Parliament has granted the European Medicines Agency discharge in respect of the financial year 2009. The decision follows on from the first postponement, which was essentially due to concerns expressed by the Court of Auditors mainly relating to the management of procurement processes and the criteria applied when hiring staff. Today, following the letter from the Chair of the agency’s Management Board of 17 June 2011, in which it is stated that the agency has taken actions to address the 2009 shortcomings, and other documents received by the agency in response to questions raised by the resolution voted on in May, we grant discharge, despite the fact that not all the information requested has yet been submitted.

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE), in writing. – The discharge for 2009 was granted today to the European Medicines Agency. However, I would like to point out that the agency failed to provide Parliament with the action plan on public procurement, its timetable for implementation and the updated documents on the management and prevention of conflicts of interests, as requested in May 2011 when the discharge was postponed. These areas will be closely monitored. These were part of the amendments which I tabled and were adopted during the vote in the Committee on Budgetary Control and integrated in the final report voted on today by the Plenary. As Parliament’s rapporteur for the 2010 discharge of the EU Agencies’ budgets, I will closely monitor the European Medicines Agency and look, in particular, at conflicts of interests and cost-efficiency criteria in each and every EU agency. These issues will bear considerable weight in the decision on discharge.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report which insists, but also warns the European Medicines Agency, that all the actions mentioned in the respective audit reports, including the one for the year 2010, should be fully implemented before the start of the next discharge procedure.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of granting discharge to the European Medicines Agency (EMEA), although I regret that some of the requested information was not provided. As a result, we are expecting the agency to inform the discharge authority of the actions implemented and their results, in particular, with a view to overcoming deficiencies in public procurement and managing conflicts of interest which its personnel and experts are exposed to. On this last point, the agency undertook to adopt an approach based on risk and to concentrate verifications on staff members who declare interest. Furthermore, we are asking the agency to be willing to act with regard to carryovers, and we expect to receive confirmation on this from the Court of Auditors. With regard to revenue from fees, the report notes that the agency has invested in software in order to clear the backlog with the recovery orders. Finally, we acknowledge the fact that the agency has revised its cash-flow policy so as to limit risks resulting from fluctuating exchange rates.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I also voted for Mr Stavrakakis’s second report. I agree with the observations contained in the resolutions concerning the granting of discharge to the European Medicines Agency in respect of the financial year 2009. It is very important that the agency should continue to inform the discharge authority every three months on the results of the actions requested by the latter.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. – I support this report and welcome the measures taken by the European Medicines Agency to address its shortcomings in 2009. I support calls for the agency to continue to inform the discharge authority, on a three-monthly basis, about the results of actions requested. The agency is also called upon to proceed promptly with the adoption of an action plan to remedy the shortcomings in procurement procedures.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) The European Medicines Agency bears a heavy responsibility in the Mediator tragedy. A few electronic forms are not going to assure us that this agency will no longer endanger the health of our fellow citizens through negligence or conflicts of interest. It needs a complete overhaul and to be open to public debate. I refuse to vote for a report which endorses unfocused and dangerous management by an agency that is still not meeting all the demands of this Parliament.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – Budget discharge for the European Medicines Agency for 2009 had been postponed because considerable concern had been expressed about weaknesses in the agency’s procurement systems and also in relation to the prevention of conflicts of interest. The committee voted to grant discharge and close the accounts, approving our rapporteur’s amendments (members of the ENVI Committee from all groups had been active in securing support for this position). A number of quite critical amendments were passed, including some calling for very detailed reporting to Parliament in future, so these issues are likely to be discussed again in the discharge procedures for future years. I voted in favour.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report in which the European Parliament grants discharge in respect of the implementation of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) budget for the financial year 2009. I agree with the rapporteur’s warning to the EMA that all points mentioned in the auditor’s report should be entirely corrected prior to the start of the next discharge procedure, including that relating to 2010.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I am satisfied with the work carried out and the result achieved, and I voted in favour of discharge being granted to the director of the European Medicines Agency in respect of the implementation of the budget for the financial year 2009 and of closure of the accounts of the European Medicines Agency for the financial year 2009.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted to grant the Executive Director of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) discharge in respect of the implementation of its budget for the financial year 2009 because I believe the various prerequisites have been met. I am, however, bound to stress the need for all the EMA’s activities to be guided by the principle of transparency, particularly public procurement processes. Indeed, the observation of the Court of Auditors that the EMA did not undertake the necessary checks to reduce the risk of error relating to calls for proposals under a given range of circumstances elicits a degree of suspicion. As such, I hope that, from now on, the necessary efforts will be made to reduce conflict of interest situations so that, at the very least, guarantees of consumer protection will not be threatened.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – Against. An important issue which caused the postponement of the 2009 discharge was the fact that experts and staff were not checked on their independence or on possible conflicts of interest, which led to a lack of impartiality. They have improved on paper (for the time being) the procedures on compliance with the respective codes of conduct. A large majority on the Committee on Budgetary Control is in favour of granting discharge. But we have tabled in committee a number of amendments (which were adopted) to ensure that, if they receive discharge for 2009, the Committee on Budgetary Control will keep a close eye on developments, and also to take full account of the lack of progress made in the decision on next year’s discharge. We should not grant discharge to this agency, and we should make it clear that a lot still has to be done to tackle problems which might also harm the health of European citizens.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Founded in 1995, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) is a decentralised European body whose purpose is to protect and promote human and animal health, by evaluating and supervising medicines for human and veterinary use. The EMA is the agency responsible for the scientific analysis of requests to authorise the bringing onto the market of medicines introduced at EU level. In 2009, the EMA budget was EUR 194 million, with 18.52% financed by the European Union and the remainder obtained through fees paid by pharmaceutical companies for services provided. In the report on the EMA’s accounts for the 2009 period, the Court of Auditors expressed reservations about the legality and regularity of transactions, leading the European Parliament to postpone the decision to discharge the implementation of the budget for the financial year 2009. I agree with the decision to grant the Director of the EMA discharge on the implementation of its budget for the financial year 2009, and I support the closure of the accounts for the financial year 2009, given that the EMA has provided the discharge authority with up-to-date information on the level of application of the Internal Audit Service’s recommendations.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) The discharge decision for the European Medicines Agency for the financial year 2009 was also postponed in May. The agency is partially financed from the Union’s annual budget, but the contribution decreased by 9.2% between 2008 and 2009. On 17 May, the agency informed Parliament about the actions it had taken to address the problems identified in 2009 and the Court of Auditors qualified its opinion. I have voted in favour.

  Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR), in writing. – The European Medicines Agency, which is based in my home constituency of London, does valuable work in helping to protect public health across the European Union. However, there are concerns about a lack of transparency in the agency, which sometimes keeps doctors and patients in the dark.

On the issue of the budget, regretfully, I had to vote against the discharge today. My constituents are feeling the pinch of the economic crisis and I therefore cannot countenance suspect procurement procedures which may have cost the taxpayer EUR 30 million. Conflicts of interest also need to be eliminated. It is wholly unacceptable that the agency’s former director took up well-paid consultancy jobs advising pharmaceutical companies within weeks of leaving his post.

Report: Antonio López-Istúriz White (A7-0349/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report. Taking into account the interinstitutional agreement of 20 December 1994 on an accelerated working method for the official codification of legislative texts and, in particular, point 4 thereof, the Consultative Working Party, consisting of the respective legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, has stated without dissent that this proposal is limited to the straightforward codification of the texts in question without any change in their substance, and I agree.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the López-Istúriz White report on the draft directive relating to tyres for motor vehicles and their trailers and to the fitting thereof. Tyres are subject to European rules that are part of a process to harmonise national approval procedures.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because, in the current directives of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to tyres for motor vehicles and their trailers and to their fitting, a few minor errors were made in the text. The main errors are to be found in Annex II and Annex V. In Annex II in the English language version, the figure ‘330’ should have been used instead of the figure ‘305’ and some acronyms should also be added. In Annex V, there were several errors as regards the marking of expressions – they should have been identified with markers. The Consultative Working Party of the Legal Services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission has agreed that these proposed corrections do not in any way change the substance of the existing text, but only make it more accurate and precise. I believe that it is important to take such errors into account, because even a single word or figure can change an awful lot and give those to whom legislation is addressed a lot of additional concerns.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The acquis communautaire is often complex, is hard to interpret, and is not always easy to fully grasp. The intelligibility of legislation is a constant concern of the various European institutions, which I, as a lawyer, am bound to share. This resolution concerns the codification of pieces of legislation without amending any of them, so there are no reservations or controversy about it. I therefore voted in favour.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The interinstitutional agreement concluded on 20 December 1994 recommended the use of an accelerated method of working for the official codification of the legislative texts of the European Community. This report, drafted by Mr López-Istúriz White, concerns a proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to tyres for motor vehicles and their trailers, and to their fitting. Given that this proposal exclusively concerns the straightforward codification of the texts in question, without any change in their substance – which is of legal value and has been adopted by various European institutions – in line with the recommendations of the Consultative Working Party of the Legal Services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, I fully support this report.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The submitted proposal follows the codification of Council Directive 92/23/EEC of 31 March 1992 relating to tyres for motor vehicles and their trailers and to their fitting. The new directive replaces a number of legal acts comprising the subject of the codification; the proposal retains the full content of the codified legal acts and focuses exclusively on simplifying them into one legal act, with the formal amendments not going beyond the essential purpose of codification. The directive in question has repeatedly been amended in a fundamental way. I firmly believe that this directive should be codified, in the interests of clarity and transparency. It is one of the independent directives of the EC type approval system established by Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles and laying down the technical regulations which motor vehicles and their trailers must fulfil, and also applying, among other things, to tyres.

These technical requirements relate to the approximation of Member State legislation in order to allow the application of the EC type approval process laid down by the directive in question for every type of motor vehicle and trailer. The directive should not, however, affect the obligations of Member States regarding the deadline for transposition into national law.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed this document because, 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.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this resolution codifying the legislation on tyres for motor vehicles and their trailers.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. – I voted in favour of this report, which calls on Parliament and the Council to issue a directive relating to tyres for motor vehicles and their trailers, and to the fitting thereof.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The purpose of this proposal is to undertake a codification of Council Directive 92/23/EEC of 31 March 1992 relating to tyres for motor vehicles and their trailers and to their fitting. The new directive will supersede the various acts now incorporated into it. This proposal fully preserves the content of the acts being codified and hence does no more than bring them together, with only such formal amendments as are required by the codification exercise itself. Therefore, I voted in favour.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of the proposal presented because it contains a straightforward codification of the existing texts without any change in their substance. The provisions of the directive will thus be clear and transparent, as well as more accessible to citizens.

It should be noted that the common requirements laid down in the rules applying to tyres should concern not only their characteristics but also the fitting of tyres and should be adapted to the development of scientific and technical knowledge.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) According to the opinion of 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.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Since the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council codifying Council Directive 92/23/EEC of 31 March 1992 relating to tyres for motor vehicles and their trailers and to their fitting contains some inaccuracies, such as the absence of appropriate adaptation markers for acronyms, expressions and introductory wording, I voted in favour of a re-codification of existing texts.

  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 in favour.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. The European Parliament, 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.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report relating to tyres for motor vehicles and their trailers, and to their fitting, is in line with the goal of codifying European Union legislative texts in order to simplify EU law, and to ensure it is clear and transparent. This report brings together the various texts on this issue in their entirety, fully preserving the content of the codified acts. As such, the purpose of the techniques imposed on the tyres of motor vehicles and their trailers is to bring the laws of the Member States relating to approval processes closer together. This makes Union law more accessible and comprehensible to the European public, enabling them to make full use of their rights.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) The proposal is simply a codification of the existing acts, without any changes to their content. For this reason, I have voted in favour.

Report: Diana Wallis (A7-0343/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report because an area of freedom, security and justice, as laid down in the Treaties, must meet the needs of citizens and businesses, for example, by creating clearer and simpler procedures, whilst enhancing access to justice. This will suitably safeguard individuals’ substantive rights and settle disputes between parties. I would stress that any approach to alternative dispute resolution should go beyond consumer disputes so as to include business-to-business civil and commercial transactions, irrespective of whether they are carried out between private or public undertakings, family disputes, defamation cases and other general interest disputes or ones involving parties with different legal statuses.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. – I voted in favour of the resolution on alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in civil, commercial and family matters.

I welcome the recent Commission consultation on ADR. Compared to courts, ADR schemes are cheaper, quicker and less formal, offering practical solutions. As ADR forms part of a general ‘justice-for-growth’ agenda across sectors, we, Members of the European Parliament, believe that any approach to ADR should go beyond consumer disputes so as to include disputes about business-to-business, civil and commercial transactions, irrespective of whether they are carried out between private or public undertakings, as well as family disputes and cases of defamation or cases involving parties whose legal status differs.

Moreover, on-line shopping is increasing and ADR could play a more relevant role here because the scope for judicial action is sometimes limited when dealing with new technologies. Parliament stresses the need to ensure that European consumers can access ADR systems for transnational as well as national disputes, especially in the on-line market, which is growing rapidly in the EU. I support the rapporteur’s position that the use of ADR systems affords a higher level of protection of consumer rights, while also promoting cross-border trade and increased prosperity for all operators in the EU market.

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is a mechanism for reaching out-of-court settlements by helping consumers and traders to settle their disputes through the intervention of a mediator or arbitrator.

I welcome the Commission’s intention to encourage the use of alternative means of dispute resolution that are accessible, swift and effective, do not incur high costs, and offer the possibility of establishing and maintaining high-quality commercial, economic, social and neighbourly relations on the basis of mutual trust. The aim is to help raise the level of consumer protection in a ‘win-win’ situation, offering more benefits to both sides than current judicial practice.

I think that existing shortcomings with regard to the geographical coverage of ADR methods in Europe must be urgently rectified. I encourage the introduction of an effective out-of-court dispute settlement system for consumer contracts to operate across the European Union.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Sensitive to the issue of the protection of consumers and their rights, I voted in favour of the Wallis report. This report advocates establishing alternative methods of dispute settlement outside the traditional judicial system. For the consumer, these alternative methods have the advantage of being less costly and faster, whilst respecting the principles of impartiality, transparency and effectiveness.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Alternative dispute resolution methods avoid recourse to the courts, so helping consumers and traders to resolve conflicts through the intervention of a third party, mediator or arbitrator, and constituting a quick and economically advantageous alternative to legal action. This report calls on the Commission to run, in cooperation with the Member States, information campaigns intended to raise awareness of the benefits of using alternative dispute resolution methods amongst consumers and businesses. It also suggests that the Commission create a multilingual European portal for alternative dispute resolution methods on the Internet, in which consumers can find out about how it works, their rights, and their responsibilities. Finally, it stresses the crucial role that they play in family disputes, since they can help the parties to resume dialogue by reducing psychological damage, thereby helping to ensure the protection of children. I voted for this report for the above reasons.

  Cristian Silviu Buşoi (ALDE), in writing. – (RO) Having alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms available is one of the key factors for increasing the confidence not only of consumers but also of European companies in the single market. At present, a huge number of consumers and companies are hesitating about carrying out cross-border transactions due to being afraid that they will not be able to resolve adequately any disputes they have. However, this reluctance to carry out cross-border transactions is depriving consumers and companies of the benefits of a competitive internal market. We need dispute resolution mechanisms to be quick, efficient, independent and, most of all, as cost-effective as possible. This would give them a real advantage over judicial proceedings, which are long and costly. Furthermore, promoting ADR will also help streamline the operation of the judicial system as some cases will be resolved through mediation or arbitration. The prerequisite for achieving this is obviously that these alternative mechanisms are promoted in the appropriate manner by informing consumers and companies about them, so that they are used more widely. Therefore, I think that it would be desirable for us to have a legislative proposal from the Commission as soon as possible which complies with the guidelines in this report, so that all EU citizens can have access to ADR mechanisms.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) There can only be a genuine area of freedom, security and justice if the fundamental right of access to justice is properly safeguarded, specifically through clear and simple procedures that are accessible to all. It seems to me that alternative dispute resolution methods could constitute a rapid and economically advantageous alternative to current legal practice. It is important to reinforce public confidence in the internal market, and in the application of laws in case of international dispute, by adopting the necessary legislative measures for ensuring the uniform development of these systems throughout the EU. An approach that balances the use and flexibility of alternative dispute resolution systems must be ensured, on the one hand, and the guarantee of protection of consumer rights and their access to fair, confidential, impartial, transparent, quick and effective procedures, on the other: this will undoubtedly bring benefits to the EU economy. It is also important to ensure periodic monitoring and assessment of alternative dispute resolution bodies by independent evaluators. At the same time, public information campaigns and pilot projects must also be undertaken, ensuring that businesses and consumers in general are provided with adequate information.

  Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) At a time when, in some Member States such as Romania, the courts are overwhelmed by the volume of cases pending, I support the European Commission’s intention to encourage the use of alternative dispute resolution methods.

There are more than 138 500 cases pending in the Romanian courts dating back more than a year, according to the monitoring report from the Judicial Inspection attached to the Superior Council of Magistracy. Of these, 4 001 cases are 5-10 years old and 586 are more than 10 years old.

Therefore, I believe that a set of rules is required to regulate dispute resolution by a mediator or arbitrator. However, when these people are being appointed, the possibility of conflicts of interest arising must be avoided, and the experts in this area must have the necessary professional expertise and impartiality. The general public also needs to be given more information about how the mechanism works and about the advantages of resorting to alternative dispute resolution.

Last but not least, this mechanism for achieving an amicable, out-of-court settlement must remain optional so as not to prejudice access to justice.

  Marielle De Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The European Parliament supported the European Commission in its desire to ensure European consumers have access to justice by developing and promoting alternative methods of settling disputes for national cases, but also cross-border ones. With these new alternative methods of dispute settlement, the enforcement of rights in civil, commercial and family matters will be swifter, cheaper and more conciliatory, since the independence and impartiality of the mediators obviously need to be ensured. For this new right to mediation to become effective, all consumers will need to know who to contact in practice. It will therefore be the responsibility of the Member States to organise information campaigns.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported the adoption of this own-initiative report for, at a time when we are using a wider range of purchasing methods within the single market, it is essential to strengthen consumer protection in the event of litigation. The use of new methods for settling disputes should make it possible to avoid placing an additional burden on the judicial authorities as a result of the increasing number of disputes, and should prove to be simpler, faster and cheaper for consumers.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Anyone who knows the courts in the Member States knows about the increasing difficulties they have been having in ensuring the timely resolution of disputes that come before them. The complexity of procedural law and the number of cases being heard has been overloading judges, magistrates, lawyers and legal officials who, despite their skill and dedication, are finding it impossible to deal with all the disputes within the proper timeframe. Many of these issues presently inundating the courts are of no particular legal complexity or financial significance, and could be settled using alternative dispute resolution methods that are more effective and less complex. There are various examples of these types of methods in operation throughout the Union. I believe we should not seek to impose models on the Member States as regards these mechanisms, but instead provide them with information about each country’s practices and experiences, so that they might improve their own mechanisms.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Sustainable economic growth that brings an end to the economic and financial crisis with which the European Union is struggling has been one of the Commission’s main goals. In response to Parliament’s request that it table a legislative proposal on the use of alternative dispute resolution in the European Union by the end of 2011, the Commission has included it in its Work Programme 2011 and in the 13 April 2011 communication as ‘one of the twelve levers to boost growth and strengthen confidence, with the aim of consumer empowerment’. This report on alternative dispute resolution in civil, commercial and family matters includes a series of proposals whose purpose is for European citizens to be able to access a faster, more accessible and cheaper form of justice by means of a conciliation process. In addition to their cross-border nature, alternative methods of dispute resolution should be undertaken on-line, since Internet purchases are increasing exponentially. I am pleased to note the prospect of extending alternative methods of dispute resolution to small and medium-sized enterprises. I welcome the adoption of this report, and hope that all the Member States will very soon be able to transpose the framework directives on alternative dispute resolution into national law.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The report voted on today on alternative dispute resolution in civil, commercial and family matters includes an analysis of alternative dispute resolution methods, especially at cross-border level, which we welcome, given the scarce information on types of legal intervention in this area. These alternative methods could enable the parties to avoid drawn-out and generally costly recourse to the courts. They are means of mediation and arbitration that, in many cases, are related to commercial, consumer and environmental matters, or family disputes.

As such, they can include processes and methods involving another party – a mediator or arbitrator – that are quick and beneficial alternatives to legal action for conflict resolution. Given that in many countries, the public authorities, including ombudsmen and regulatory authorities, play an important role in encouraging the resolution of disputes without recourse to legal means, this seems like a positive way forward to us.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) Access to justice is a fundamental right. The concepts of freedom, security and justice also need to meet the requirements of citizens and businesses through a simpler and more comprehensible form of application, thereby also improving access to justice. The aim of alternative means of dispute resolution is to strive for the restoration of legal peace or the resolution of disputes between parties. Alternative dispute resolution helps consumers and businesses to resolve conflicts through a third party by an out-of-court route, and thus becomes an effective alternative to the judicial process, particularly in terms of cost. It is a sad fact, however, that Member State citizens are relatively unaware of the existence of alternative systems for dispute resolution. Moreover, only a small percentage of citizens know how to submit an actual complaint to an alternative dispute resolution body.

In my opinion, we must try to educate and inform the public about the possibility of resolving disputes through alternative mechanisms to judicial proceedings. These also offer the possibility of avoiding a directly confrontational approach and, at the same time, provide a possibility for dispute resolution that is advantageous to both parties. However, we absolutely must strive for an approach which takes account of the scope of alternative dispute resolution system powers, on the one hand, and of fair procedures and proceedings in relation to the parties involved, on the other.

  Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (S&D), in writing. – (PL) I am pleased that the European Parliament has adopted yet another initiative regarding alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in civil, commercial and family matters. During the September part-session, I emphasised the benefits arising from the directive on mediation, and today, I would once again like to stress the importance of these undervalued, but very effective, tools in the out-of-court settlement of disputes. Citizens should have guaranteed access to justice, but, at the same time, they have to be properly informed and encouraged to use alternative solutions, which are not only much cheaper, but also significantly faster.

Great Britain is currently the European leader in the use of ADR methods. Since March 2001, all government agencies have been required to use ADR in all relevant matters, if the other party agrees to take part. In its published report for 2002-2003, the Department for Constitutional Affairs states that the use of ADR by government agencies rose by over 1 200%.

Therefore, I encourage the Member States to follow the example of Great Britain. At the same time, I appeal for clear steps to be taken in order to evaluate ADR bodies, to improve information programmes, and to conduct campaigns promoting this method of dispute settlement to consumers. I agree with the rapporteur’s position regarding the minimum standards of ADR and the use of best practice models, as well as greater transparency of proceedings and their promotion by European Union information bodies.

  Louis Grech (S&D), in writing. – I agree with the Wallis report because the creation of a more streamlined system of ADR across the board has never been more important in order to ensure that citizens are provided with affordable, expedient and accessible out-of-court mechanisms through which they can seek redress and safeguard their rights. It is a fact that ADR systems like the SOLVIT network have proven successful in solving problems affecting citizens. Nevertheless, the ADR landscape of Europe remains largely fragmented. I am convinced that any future Commission action plan in this respect should secure a new citizen-based ADR structure built on the principles of transparency and proportionality. It is also possible for us to work with the existing structures we currently have at our disposal, such as the ECC-Network and FIN-Network centres. Additionally, the usage of small claims tribunals in various Member States remains significantly low and therefore, this aspect must be taken into account by the Commission when formulating its proposal on ADR. It is vital to note that for any final EU-wide ADR package to be endorsed by the European citizen, this must factor in the existence of an EU-wide collective redress system, and therefore I urge the Commission to firmly put in place this mechanism by 2012.

  Filiz Hakaeva Hyusmenovа (ALDE), in writing. – (BG) I supported this resolution because, in recent decades, a trend has been identified globally, which is how difficult it is to have access to justice, caused by the steady rise in the number of court cases and their exorbitant cost, by serious regulatory shortcomings and the limitations of legal proceedings, as well as by the difficulty in implementing constantly changing legislation.

In view of this, there has been renewed interest in alternative dispute resolution (ADR) triggered, on the one hand, by the crisis and, on the other, by the benefits of these methods for resolving conflicts on an out-of-court basis and, above, all, for their consensual nature. I share the view that the use of ADR mechanisms needs to extend beyond consumer disputes to include civil and commercial agreements between companies, as well as family disputes and defamation cases. I support the need for legislative measures with this objective.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed this document because judicial procedures for resolving such disputes are more complex, expensive and lengthy. I believe that legislative measures adopted at EU level will facilitate the implementation of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and encourage natural and legal persons to use it more often, especially in relation to cross-border disputes. The Commission is therefore urged to submit a legislative proposal on the use of ADR in the EU by the end of 2011 and it is emphasised that it is important to adopt this proposal swiftly. I am convinced that it is necessary to encourage the use of alternative means of dispute resolution which are accessible, easy to use, effective and cheap, and which make it possible to establish and maintain quality and trust-based commercial, economic, social and neighbourly relations and to contribute to a high level of consumer protection in a win-win situation, with benefits for both sides as compared to current judicial practice. On the basis of the data collected and a solid impact assessment in compliance with the improved regulation rules, the Commission must explore laying down minimum standards of ADR across sectors, while developing existing schemes and encouraging Member States to also increase funding in sectors covered by schemes, bearing in mind that, although it provides parties with a low cost alternative, ADR must not be ‘justice on the cheap’.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I welcome the recent Commission consultation on ADR which, despite its wide-ranging title, is exclusively targeted at consumer transactions. However, I believe that ADR forms part of a general ‘justice-for-growth’ agenda across sectors and take the view that any approach to ADR should go beyond consumer disputes so as to include business-to-business civil and commercial transactions, irrespective of whether they are carried out between private or public undertakings, family disputes, defamation cases and other general interest disputes or ones involving parties with different legal statuses.

  Clemente Mastella (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Access to justice is a fundamental right: our task must be to create simpler and clearer procedures to meet the needs of European citizens and businesses. The judicial process and alternative means of dispute settlement seek to restore legal peace between parties in dispute, to suitably safeguard individuals’ substantive rights, and to settle disputes between parties.

Alternative dispute resolution, which helps parties avoid traditional adjudicative procedures, is certainly capable of constituting a quick and cost-effective alternative, a mechanism for reaching out-of-court settlements by helping consumers and traders to resolve conflicts through the intervention of a third party (mediator or arbitrator). We have seen that in many countries, public authorities (ombudsmen and regulatory authorities) play an important role in encouraging the resolution of disputes, thus helping to strengthen citizens’ confidence and trust in the enforcement of law.

Therefore, we think it appropriate to take legislative measures aimed at raising awareness and encouraging the use of alternative dispute resolution systems in civil, commercial and family matters, especially in relation to cross-border disputes, bearing in mind that judicial procedures for resolving such disputes are more complex, expensive and lengthy.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The lack of even development of alternative means of dispute resolution throughout the EU is a major obstacle to their use. I therefore agree fully with the rapporteur on the fact that there is the need for a system which is operational across the EU.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. – Consumer protection and confidence have become increasingly important for the effective functioning of the single market, which can be strengthened through adequate law enforcement and by paving the way for more effective alternative dispute resolution (ADR). ADR schemes are quicker and more informal and offer practical solutions. It is vital that these schemes go beyond consumer disputes, that they are completely transparent, and that they are independently monitored. I support this report.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – This report, prepared in enhanced cooperation with the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, examines options for alternative dispute resolution (i.e. resolving disputes out of court) in advance of the Commission’s proposal on the subject, which is expected in the next month. Whilst people’s access to justice must continue to be guaranteed, there are many types of dispute that can be resolved easily and relatively cheaply out of court – for example, customer complaints, divorce proceedings, etc. – and this report looks at ways to encourage that. I voted in favour.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of the proposal presented because it is essential to develop the scope of alternative dispute resolution (ADR). Above all, this method must be used to resolve civil, commercial and family matters. Consequently, I welcome the proposal calling on the Commission to submit a legislative proposal on the use of ADR in the EU by the end of 2011 and to also set out minimum standards of ADR across sectors.

It should be noted that ADR must be used as a flexible, effective and, at the same time, relatively fair means of settling disputes, and sufficient funding should therefore be allocated to the implementation of this method across sectors, so that such dispute resolution does not become ‘justice on the cheap’.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) Having practised as a lawyer and having faced encumbrances and delays in the dispensation of justice in almost all civil and commercial cases brought before the Greek courts, I cannot but vote in favour of the present report. Civil and commercial law are governed by the principle of private initiative, by the initiative of the litigants, meaning that these sectors are ideal for alternative dispute resolution, given that parties want a fast resolution to their dispute for the sake of security of law, planning and competitiveness. Alternative dispute resolution, in the way in which and for the disputes for which it is proposed, aims to optimise the efficient dispensation of justice, harmonise the rules of alternative dispute resolution in the common market, for the benefit of parties at European level, and speed up proceedings. Of course, as the proposed changes are implemented and national rules converge, the specificities of each Member State’s legal system will need to be taken into account and particular attention will need to be paid to technical details during their application and to ensuring that the results are transparent. However, the report is a step in the right direction.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I believe that alternative dispute resolution methods enabling the parties to avoid traditional means of arbitration could constitute a rapid and economically advantageous alternative to legal action, so I voted in favour. I support the Commission’s intention of encouraging the use of alternative means of dispute resolution that are accessible, swift, effective and cheap, with benefits for both sides as compared to current judicial practice.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I agree with the principle that access to justice is a fundamental right, and I therefore consider that the promotion and knowledge by EU citizens of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) schemes is an essential priority in order to guarantee adequate protection in disputes between interested parties, and to ensure that citizens have faith in the internal market, thus boosting its economy. I voted in favour of the motion tabled in committee with the aim of facilitating the application of ADR and encouraging natural and legal persons to use it more often.

  Phil Prendergast (S&D), in writing. – I welcome this report on alternative dispute resolution in civil, commercial and family matters. Out-of-court dispute settlement is an effective, accessible and simple means of restoring legal peace between parties, and it can be more widely used if we promote better awareness and understanding of the relevant mechanisms.

Justice is a fundamental right, and expedient access to it across the EU Member States’ borders is essential in order to consolidate undertakings’ and consumers’ trust in the internal market as a safe environment in which to do business and to shop. However, in contrast to the approach taken in the Commission’s consultation, our contention is that the scope of alternative dispute resolution should not be confined to commercial matters. Our constituents are citizens, not merely consumers. Other civil matters, including family disputes, increasingly extend beyond the borders of individual Member States, as our citizens enjoy the dividends of European integration. Common standards for alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, especially as regards impartiality, transparency, fairness and confidentiality, are key to establishing easy and trusted access to justice across the EU, and they need to be underpinned by cross-border enforceability.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) From the EU’s point of view, it is indispensable that the institutions of justice work properly if the public is to have confidence in the single market. As such, the EU has been seeking for a long time to prevent the emergence of cases of accountability vacuum resulting from the existence of legal systems that are very different from each other: such vacuums contribute, in the end, to exacerbating the lack of trust between the citizens of the various Member States. These problems have also been exacerbated by the volume of cases passing through the courts in all the Member States. Put simply, in addition to our being confronted with very different legal systems, on the one hand, the legal systems themselves have been functioning increasingly less efficiently, on the other. Alternative means of dispute resolution could therefore play an important role: at a time when court involvement is resulting from such diverse demands, it is right that the public justice system should offer means that manage to ensure the stability and security of the various relationships and legal peace between stakeholders on a case-by-case basis. I believe these dispute resolution methods contribute to public confidence in the justice system, so I voted in favour.

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Today in the House, we voted on Ms Wallis’s report on alternative dispute resolution in civil, commercial and family matters. The report is a response to the consultation process carried out by the European Commission into the possibility of introducing a common legislative measure on alternative dispute resolution (ADR), a mechanism for reaching out-of-court settlements by helping consumers and traders to resolve conflicts through the intervention of a third party (mediator or arbitrator).

More specifically, the text adopted highlights some basic prerequisites for ADR procedures, such as the impartiality of third parties and the need to safeguard the diverse nature of procedures. Finally, it emphasises the importance of ADR as a preventive tool for resolving multiple disputes, and a useful tool for avoiding collective redress action before the courts.

  Robert Rochefort (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) By adopting this report, the European Parliament is sending a strong message to the European Commission in favour of supporting improvement to cross-border access to justice for European citizens and companies, by developing and promoting alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods in the EU. Two elements of this report seem essential to me. Firstly, the text issues guiding principles to be respected in the area of the ADR systems introduced in Europe. Among them, the independence and impartiality of the mediators, their competence, as well as the guarantee of a very reasonable cost – or even no cost at all – for the consumer who uses this system, are fundamental points in my view. Furthermore, the development of these systems only has meaning if, at the same time, citizens are more aware of their existence. The report also stresses the need to devise communication campaigns around ADR. To my mind, this is vital. Finally, the text points out that ADR and collective redress, far from being mutually exclusive, complement each other. Given how committed I am to the implementation of collective redress at European level, I am glad that this idea is mentioned in the report.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. Non-controversial issue. It is simply a call for improving information about rights and their enforcement and information on alternative dispute resolution schemes targeted, in particular, at citizens and SMEs.

  Olga Sehnalová (S&D), in writing. – (CS) I voted for the adoption of the report. The advantages of alternative dispute resolution are clear, consisting mainly of simplicity, low cost and shorter time compared to court proceedings. For the entire system to be fit for purpose, however, we must not only guarantee European citizens access to this option, but above all – and this is absolutely vital, in my view – inform them sufficiently about the actual essence and possibilities of out-of-court dispute resolution. Lack of awareness among citizens, consumers and businesses is one of the main reasons behind the frequent shortfalls in the use and efficiency of this instrument in various EU Member States.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Parliament has voted today on the report on alternative dispute resolution in civil, commercial and family matters, in response to the consultation launched by the European Commission on this issue to analyse the possibility of developing a harmonised legal framework for these areas, whilst retaining the currently existing structures. I believe that alternative models for dispute resolution are an option to be considered and that their potential has still not been fully explored. In addition, on-line transactions demand effective and adequate dispute resolution, so they deserve particular attention in the implementation of alternative methods. Such dispute resolution alternatives are less costly, are quicker, and offer practical solutions with fewer formalities, making them more attractive to the public. Such measures are of enormous importance to the smooth operation of the European internal market, specifically as regards consumer protection, since they enable rules to be properly implemented, so earning the confidence of consumers and businesses.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) The aim of creating simple, clear procedures is to meet the needs of citizens and businesses. Since the citizens of the EU are not fully aware of the alternative dispute resolution procedures, they are, unfortunately, not being used to their full extent, despite the fact that this is often the most cost-effective option. Therefore, it is essential to publicise these procedures more widely. Some measures also need to be taken with regard to the legislation. The main obstacle to the use of the procedures is that the existing mechanisms have become distorted because of a lack of even development. These loopholes must be closed as quickly as possible. I have voted in favour of this report.

  Tadeusz Zwiefka (PPE), in writing. – (PL) The report on alternative dispute resolution is another document on alternative dispute resolution methods, following the document on the implementation of the directive on mediation that we voted on during the last part-session. It is a step in the direction of suggesting non-judicial alternatives for claiming rights and resolving conflicts. Notwithstanding the existence of various instruments in the legal systems of the Members States, which often enable a dispute to be resolved in a less costly, more timely and less stressful manner for both parties, European citizens and businesses have no confidence in these mechanisms. Arbitration, mediation and all types of out-of-court negotiation are still not very well known, and therefore do not enjoy the confidence of the public. The opinion that a settlement reached in this way will not be legally binding is widespread, which also mitigates against more extensive use of these instruments. Consensual dispute resolution is, in my opinion, an appropriate alternative for a whole variety of conflicts, including the very sensitive area of family law.

I agree with the proposal included in the report regarding the setting out of minimum standards which would provide the framework for alternative dispute resolution in the Member States. These proposals, however, cannot undermine the diversity of the system and the need to safeguard the principle of flexibility in responding to citizens’ problems. This flexibility is the greatest benefit of all methods of consensual dispute resolution.

Report: Crescenzio Rivellini (A7-0328/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this draft report as I support the discharge procedures.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The EU is an institutional triangle. Each of the institutions has its own interest. The Council must learn to respect Parliament, the only institution elected by universal suffrage and which has the responsibility of representing the European people. Consequently, it is up to Parliament to grant budgetary discharge to the Council. The latter should therefore play along and provide the necessary information for this procedure to run smoothly. Today, we are rejecting the Council’s discharge, for we believe that the ground rules are not being abided by. Indeed, the Council is refusing to respond to questions and therefore to provide the information that the budgetary authority is asking for.

  Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of the European Parliament report refusing discharge to the Council in respect of the implementation of the 2009 budget. As the only elected institution of the European Union, the European Parliament has the powers to verify and, if it deems appropriate, to grant discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union and, hence, of all its individual bodies, with the aim of providing comprehensive and fully transparent information to European citizens and of guaranteeing democratic scrutiny and political appraisal of its fiscal management. The important documents submitted by the Council are a constructive step towards ensuring the democratic accountability of the Council’s administrative budget.

However, Parliament feels that it has not received satisfactory replies to outstanding questions and the administration of the Council has refused to meet with the competent parliamentary committee. The report therefore rightly refuses discharge in respect of the implementation of the Council budget until such time as Parliament has been provided with all the necessary documents and has performed the corresponding checks.

  Marielle De Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The Council was refused the vote of its discharge for implementing its 2009 budget. According to the Treaty, the European Parliament is the budgetary control authority and has sole authority to grant discharge. Thus, the Council must provide Parliament with any information it deems necessary. By refusing to answer our questions, the Council is, in fact, refusing to inform the European citizens on the way it manages the money that European taxpayers have entrusted to it. To grant discharge, we must have access to the accounts. As long as the Council refuses to comply, the European Parliament will not be able to grant discharge. This is the very principle of democratic control that our Parliament must exercise.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported Ms Rivellini’s position, which is to refuse the 2009 discharge, for it is up to the European Parliament to control the European budget in complete transparency. As the rapporteur points out, discharge to the Council cannot be granted unless there is transparency over how the allotted budget is used. What is at stake is our citizens’ confidence in the European institutions and ensuring that public funds are being well spent.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the proposal on discharge in respect of the implementation of the European Union general budget for the financial year 2009, Section II – Council. I regret the fact that Parliament, as the institution responsible for deciding on the discharge of the implementation of the European Union general budget, has not received all the necessary information, and I think there is a need to step up interinstitutional cooperation in this area if we are to have greater transparency of the public accounts.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Once again, Parliament is forced to refuse the Secretary-General of the Council discharge of the implementation of the Council budget for the 2009 financial year. The decision that has just been adopted once again reflects the Council’s persistent failure to cooperate as regards the implementation and transparency of its budget. In the name of transparency and rigour, which the public needs, I do not consider the Council exonerated from its responsibility to publicly account for the funds made available to it.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) According to the European Transparency Initiative, European citizens have the right to know how taxpayers’ money is being spent and how the power entrusted to political authorities is exercised. Under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Parliament exercises political oversight on the institutions of the European Union, by granting discharge according to reports drafted by the Court of Auditors. This report, drafted by Mr Rivellini, concerns discharge in respect of the implementation of the European Union general budget for the financial year 2009, Section II – Council, and its tabling has already been postponed once because Parliament had not received a series of answers to previously asked questions. As the requested issues have been clarified and the Council’s spending examined in the same way as that of the other European institutions, I am voting for this motion for a resolution of the European Parliament, which includes observations forming an integral part of its decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the EU general budget for the financial year 2009, Section II – Council.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) For the second time, Parliament is refusing to grant the Secretary-General of the Council discharge in respect of the implementation of the Council budget for the financial year 2009. The basis for this refusal is a dispute between the Council and Parliament, in which Parliament has repeatedly blamed the Council for not receiving the information necessary for fully exercising its power of overseeing budgetary implementation. Parliament believes the Council’s spending should be examined in the same way as that of the other institutions, but the Council has not provided the elements necessary for a rigorous examination, so the necessary transparency of budgetary implementation is at risk.

At the time of the first debate in plenary, the Council submitted the additional documents requested by Parliament, and the Presidency of the Council participated in the debate on discharge in respect of implementation for the financial year 2009. However, the decision on discharge was postponed because Parliament had not received answers to certain unresolved issues. Following this formal refusal, it is to be hoped that the Council will now agree to provide all the information and supply all the requested documents.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The Council administration should bow to democratic accountability and the EU’s citizens as far as use of the EU’s financial resources is concerned. Parliament is the only directly elected institution of the EU, and it grants discharge for fulfilment of the EU’s general budget. It is pleasing that the Council submitted the requested documents to Parliament, and that the Presidency of the Council then took part in the discussion in the plenary on granting discharge for 2009. Parliament postponed the discharge, however, as it had not received any responses to a number of pending issues concerning the 2009 Council discharge.

In my opinion, a distinction must be maintained in respect of the different roles of Parliament and the Council in the discharge procedure and the Council administration (its General Secretariat), as with the other administrations of Union institutions, including the Parliament administration itself, should be subject to the control of the Court of Auditors and, via the discharge procedure set out in the TFEU, should be fully accountable to Union citizens for the implementation of their respective budgets. In light of the other two reports, among other things, the Committee on Budgetary Control refuses to grant the Secretary-General of the Council discharge in respect of the implementation of the Council budget for the financial year 2009.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed the position of the European Parliament not to grant the Secretary-General of the Council discharge in respect of the implementation of the Council budget for the financial year 2009 because there are a number of outstanding questions. The discharge was postponed as Parliament had not received any responses to a number of these. The Council administration has not accepted any invitation to meet the Parliament Committee responsible for the discharge procedure in order to discuss matters concerning execution of the Council budget for 2009. Parliament has not received from the Council administration the information and documents requested, the main elements of the Council’s discharge. I am convinced and agree that the expenditure of the Council must be scrutinised in the same way as that of the other institutions, and the fundamental elements of such scrutiny should include a formal meeting to be held between representatives of the Council and the Parliament Committee responsible for the discharge procedure, possibly ‘in camera’, in order to answer committee members’ questions. In addition, as indicated in its resolution of 16 June 2010 concerning the 2008 Council discharge procedure, the discharge should be based on the following written documents submitted by all institutions: accounts of the preceding financial year relating to the implementation of their budgets, a financial statement of their assets and liabilities, the Annual Activity Report on their budget and financial management, and the annual report of their internal auditor.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Today, we are refusing to grant the Secretary-General of the Council discharge in respect of the implementation of the Council budget for the financial year 2009. The decision has been made necessary in view of the difficulties encountered in the discharge procedures for the financial years 2007-2009. The purpose of Parliament having the right to grant discharge is to submit the entire budget of the European Union to Parliamentary control, without exception. This Parliament has expressed its concerns about the behaviour of the Council in several resolutions. Despite some progress towards democratic accountability having been made, in particular, through the receipt of a letter from the Secretary-General of the Council containing a series of documents relating to the discharge procedure for the financial year 2009, we cannot yet grant discharge while information required to make the decision has still not been received.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report, which reminds the Court of Auditors of Parliament’s suggestion to perform an in-depth assessment of supervisory and control systems in the Council, similar to the assessments it performed on the Court of Justice, the European Ombudsman and the European Data Protection Supervisor, in the course of preparing the Court of Auditors’ annual report concerning the financial year 2010.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the European Parliament’s second report, which refuses to grant budgetary discharge to the Council for implementing the 2009 budget. Indeed, Parliament is the only institution authorised to grant budgetary discharge and has not received from the Council all the documents and information it requested. Neither did Council representatives accept the invitation from members of the Committee on Budgetary Control to the Committee meeting of 22 September 2011. Since they have the discharge authority, it is incumbent on MEPs to be accountable to citizens for the way in which taxpayers’ money is spent. If we do not have sufficient information from the Council to ensure that its budget is properly managed, then we should not grant discharge to that institution.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the report on discharge in respect of the implementation of the European Union general budget for the financial year 2009, Section II – Council. I agree, in particular, with the clarifications regarding Parliament’s right to grant discharge.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The Council asserts that it received budget discharge when the Commission budget discharge was granted in May 2011: it bases this on the Treaty specification that only the Commission has to be granted budget discharge. The Council considers that ‘separate negotiations on the Council discharge 2009 after closure of the accounts had no legal basis’. On the other hand, Parliament’s legal view is that ‘closure of accounts does not mean that discharge is granted’. Parliament, in its role as budget discharge authority, has to be satisfied that EU funds have been correctly used by all institutions, including the Council. I voted in favour.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) The right to parliamentary control and scrutiny of the sections of the EU budget is enshrined in the EU Treaties. We need to put a stop to the practice of transferring individual discharge decisions to all institutions. The responsibility for implementing the budget rests with the institution concerned and should not be shifted onto the Commission. In particular, outstanding questions that are raised by the European Parliament during the discharge procedure – as was the case in the procedure for 2009 – should actually be answered by the Council. Moreover, the refusal of the Council to answer these questions contravenes the agreed reciprocity with regard to the transmission of documents and the answering of questions.

Control by the Court of Auditors is also separated from those institutions by the Commission, and discharge can only be granted by the European Parliament. It is precisely this democratic accountability that must be retained in the interests of the citizens, all the more so since there has, for many years, been a trend to outsource responsibilities to EU agencies. I voted against the report on account of this outsourcing trend.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report, in which Parliament refuses to grant the Secretary-General of the Council discharge in respect of the implementation of the Council budget for the financial year 2009, since there are still documents that need to be submitted. I agree with the need to improve transparency in the implementation of Union legislation, and with the right of European citizens to be better informed. I agree with the desire expressed by the European Parliament to reach an agreement with the Council as quickly as possible on the frameworks for correspondence when discharging implementation of the European Union general budget. Scrutiny of the accounts of all the European institutions is crucial to the credibility of all of its bodies.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The implementation of the EU budget is, as it should be, subject to the oversight of the European Parliament, as the assembly of the representatives of the European public. This requires more than merely a passive posture from the European institutions; quite the contrary. It presupposes a climate of cooperation, in which the European Parliament assumes a leading role because of its direct democratic legitimacy. Failure to grant discharge is therefore justified until a series of questions judged essential to the granting of discharge have been answered. I therefore voted in favour.

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Today in the House, we voted on the refusal to grant discharge to the Council of the European Union. The impossibility of obtaining the necessary documentation, the lack of cooperation shown by the Council to Parliament, and the decision not to acknowledge the latter’s legitimacy as discharge authority, are the main reasons justifying the extremely negative opinion of the expenditure of the institution that brings together the Heads of State or Government of the 27 Member States.

According to the Treaties, Parliament has the right and duty to check the expenditure of the European Union institutions, in order to guarantee its legitimacy and control on behalf of citizens. In recent months, there has been all kinds of pressure claiming lese-majestie to a gentlemen’s agreement whereby Parliament was reduced to being a ‘spare wheel’ for the other institutions. Parliament is a representative institution, not a self-referential one. It is the expression of the will of European citizens, and has the right to check the accounts of the other institutions.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. In fact, it has almost the same content as the first report, but with some stronger formulations because the Council did not move at all in providing the requested information and refused to show up at meetings of the Committee on Budgetary Control. Furthermore, it is updated, taking account of the opinions of the Parliament and Council Legal Services. A large majority of the Committee on Budgetary Control are in favour of not granting discharge. The non-cooperative attitude of the Council leaves us and all other groups no other choice than to refuse discharge.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Transparency Initiative stresses that ‘citizens have the right to know how their taxes are being spent and how the power entrusted to political bodies is handled’, so it is clear that the European institutions should improve transparency in the implementation of Union legislation. Pursuant to Articles 316, 317 and 319 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Parliament has granted discharge in respect of all the Union accounts for the financial year 2009, including those of the Council. I agree with the proposal to refuse to grant the Secretary-General of the Council discharge in respect of the implementation of the Council budget for the financial year 2009, since a formal meeting needs to be held between the representatives of the Council and the parliamentary committee responsible for the discharge process. The Council must also send all the documentation required by the European Parliament, since that is the only way it will be possible to undertake a rigorous and transparent analysis of the aforementioned accounts. I also believe the European Parliament should carry out a political assessment of the institution’s financial management during the year under examination, thereby guaranteeing the public that public money is properly managed and spent.

  Thomas Ulmer (PPE), in writing. – (DE) I was pleased to vote in favour of this proposal for a decision. As the Council has constantly refused to disclose its budget for 2009, Parliament has rightly refused to grant discharge in respect of the budget. As the body responsible for monitoring budgets, Parliament must be able to investigate whether the Council’s spending is legitimate, in the interests of the citizens of Europe. In its role of budget authority, Parliament is also responsible for the Council budget. The ongoing refusal of the Council to disclose details of its budget is damaging the reputation of the whole of Europe. It gives rise to the suspicion that the Council has something to hide.

  Geoffrey Van Orden (ECR), in writing. – By voting in favour of the Rivellini report, I voted against granting discharge to the Council’s 2009 budget. I felt this should not be signed off until Parliament received all the budgetary information it had requested. Only in this way can MEPs properly scrutinise the expenditure. I believe that the overall EU budget should be reduced and therefore the budgets of all the EU institutions need to be cut. Our think-tank, New Direction, has, for example, just published a report on cutting the costs of Parliament. Similar strictures need to be imposed on the Council secretariat.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) The European Parliament has refused to grant discharge in respect of the Council budget for 2009, as too many of Parliament’s questions have still not been answered by the Council. It must be possible to inform citizens about the use to which their taxes are being put and the Council is obliged to follow the same rules as other EU bodies. I have voted in favour of this report.

Report: Salvatore Tatarella (A7-0282/2011)

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Mr Tatarella’s report relates to the reduction in emissions of gaseous and particulate pollutants by narrow-track tractors. These reductions are governed by a system of stages. At each stage, there is a maximum emission level that must not be exceeded and the installation of more efficient technological systems. Although the reduction in emissions of gaseous and particulate pollutants is vital, I agree with Mr Tatarella, who highlights the difficulties manufacturers will have in complying with the technological requirements, despite the introduction date of the various stages being postponed. Sometimes, it is better to let well alone.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) This proposal is aimed at amending Directive 2000/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2000 on action to be taken against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants by engines intended to power agricultural or forestry tractors. The objective of this directive is to guarantee the free movement of agricultural and forestry tractors whilst reducing permissible exhaust emission levels of engines in order to protect the health and wellbeing of citizens and the environment. The directive sets emission limit values which are gradually reduced. Independent experts and stakeholders concur that the limits for the agricultural tractor types covered by the proposed amendment are not technically feasible. Severe disruption to the internal market and to the agricultural sectors using those tractors would thus result if entry into force were not delayed. I welcome the Commission’s proposal to postpone by three years the date of the introduction of the requirements for tractors in the relevant categories.

  Sergio Berlato (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Directive 2000/25/EC lays down the conditions for the commissioning of tractors with regard to harmful exhaust emissions and sets increasingly ambitious objectives via progressive stages which limit exhaust emissions. The report in question looks at the application of specific emission stages for narrow-track tractors, that is to say, those used in orchards and vineyards. Given that the size and manoeuvrability of these tractors are determined by the layout of the crops, an increase in their size or reduction in their manoeuvrability would, in my view, risk depriving the most advanced and productive area of European farming of its main mechanisation tool.

I therefore agree with this report when it recognises the technical impossibility of installing compliant engines in narrow-track tractors, especially in stages IIIB and IV of Directive 2000/25/EC, because this would alter their operational functionality. I furthermore welcome the rapporteur’s request that the industry should be given more time to bring itself into line with the new engine standards. Finally, I hope the directive being debated will be swiftly adopted in order to clarify the mandatory machinery requirements for the industry in question.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because transport and emissions from transport are some of the main sources of air pollution. There are limits on emissions of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons and particulates and, in future, this will be regulated by several directives which will enter into force on 1 January 2012 and on 1 January 2014. The directives on emissions limitations apply to agricultural tractor engines as regards limiting the amount of emissions they produce. Currently, one of the biggest problems is the fact that if tractor manufacturers installed after-treatment systems in engines, then they would not be able to ensure that the vehicles would meet the operational requirements in terms of size and manoeuvrability. This document therefore requests that narrow-track tractors be either completely exempted from the scope of the requirements of the new directives or that their entry into force be postponed for at least five years. The consolidation of an exemption would be a better solution because the directive on limitations on transport emissions that will come into force would thus help to reduce atmospheric and noise pollution.

  Andrea Cozzolino (S&D), in writing. – (IT) The exhaust emission limits for agricultural and forestry tractors were changed in 2005. When that change was introduced, the requirements were also applied in full to agricultural tractor engines without any specific impact assessment concerning the technical feasibility of doing so. However, there have clearly been difficulties in applying the measure to tractors – generically called ‘narrow-track tractors’ – used for automated cultivation procedures on terrain which presents certain distinctive features, such as orchards and vineyards.

The technical impossibility of installing compliant engines, whilst maintaining the tractors’ operational functionality and manoeuvrability, if not corrected, would cause serious difficulties to some of the most advanced and productive agricultural sectors, further exacerbating the effects of the ongoing economic crisis. In complete compliance with the European policy to fight for emission reduction, which needs to be developed, the current unusual situation in the economy in general, and the sector in particular, fully justifies the decision to postpone the application of the standards for three years. This will allow the parallel development of the essential design and technology necessary for the application, also to narrow-track tractors, of after-treatment systems able to guarantee compliance with emission restrictions, without compromising operational requirements.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report on the application of emission stages for narrow-track tractors, since independent studies and Commission statistics show that more time is needed to enable manufacturers to develop systems that meet the requirements of Directive 2000/25/EC. I welcome the introduction of a requirement that the Commission must submit annual progress reports to the European Parliament and the Council regarding the development of technical solutions, with a view to compliance with the EU’s policy of reducing emissions.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Everyone is responsible for protecting the environment, and any political agenda wishing to be responsible has to prioritise it. I support reducing emissions of toxic gases into the atmosphere wherever possible, and I want us to be able to move towards industrial production, and the use of vehicles, technologies and machines that pollute ever less. However, changes that are too rapid and requirements that are too stringent in relation to how machines and vehicles are operated could threaten jobs and the viability of numerous companies and farms. We therefore need to seek a fair balance between conflicting interests, bearing in mind that people and the continuation of their activities cannot be taken in isolation from their surroundings. In this case, this balance has been sought by granting manufacturers more time to develop systems that are more environmentally adequate.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report concerns a Commission proposal to postpone deadlines included in Directive 2000/52/EC on compression ignition engines with a power range between 18 kW and 560 kW intended for installation on agricultural or forestry tractors. This directive sets the limits for emissions of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons and particulates. The directive lays down progressively lower limit values for the successive stages corresponding to the various dates set for the adaptation of maximum emission levels for exhaust gases and particulates. The next stages laid down are Stage IIIB, which begins on 1 January 2011, and Stage IV, which begins on 1 January 2014. In light of independent studies and statistics compiled by the Commission showing that more time is needed to enable manufacturers to develop systems that comply with Stage IV, I understand the need to postpone by three years the date for the entry into force of Stages IIIB and IV for tractors in categories T2, C2 and T4.1. I am also bound to express my support for the EU’s policy of reducing emissions and for Directive 2000/25/EC.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This directive concerns compression ignition engines with a power range between 18 kW and 560 kW intended for installation on agricultural or forestry tractors. Its purpose is to set limits for emissions of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons and particulates, which were changed in 2005 without any specific impact assessment concerning the technical feasibility of doing so. In order to comply with these limits, after-treatment systems need to be installed in the engine compartment, which occupy a large amount of space in comparison to the size of the engine itself, meaning that they cause technical problems and that there is no guarantee of the tractor working properly. The Commission believes more time is needed to enable manufacturers to develop systems that comply, so it is proposing to postpone for three years the obligation to comply with Stage IIIB and Stage IV requirements for tractors in categories T2, C2 and T4.1. The proposal is reasonable. There is no doubt that reducing air emission levels so as to improve air quality is an important ambition, and one for which we have fought. Measures for achieving this involve technological research and development, but also incentives for the agricultural sector to change to and acquire up-to-date technologies as regards lower emissions, in particular, small and medium-sized farmers.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The directive that is the subject of this report concerns compression ignition engines with a power range between 18 kW and 560 kW intended for installation on agricultural or forestry tractors. Its purpose is to set limits for emissions of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons and particulates, which were changed in 2005 without any specific impact assessment concerning the technical feasibility of doing so. In order to comply with these limits, after-treatment systems need to be installed in the engine compartment, which occupy a large amount of space in comparison to the size of the engine itself, meaning that they pose technical problems and that there is no guarantee of the tractor working properly. As such, the Commission believes more time is needed to enable manufacturers to develop systems that comply, so it is suggesting the postponement by three years of the obligation to comply with the proposed requirements.

The proposal is reasonable. There is no doubt that reducing air emission levels into the atmosphere so as to improve air quality is an important ambition, and one for which we have fought. Measures for achieving this involve technological research and development, but also incentives for the agricultural sector to change to and acquire up-to-date technologies relating to lower emissions, in particular, small and medium-sized farmers.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The proposal includes an amendment to the directive on action to be taken against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants by engines intended to power agricultural or forestry tractors. Its aim is to ensure the free movement of this farm machinery, while, at the same time, reducing the permitted level of engine exhaust gas emissions in order to protect the health and quality of life of people and the environment. The directive lays down progressively lower limit values for the successive stages corresponding to the various dates set for adaptation to maximum emission levels for exhaust gases and particulates. Technical studies carried out in 2007, 2009 and 2010, and confirmed by an impact assessment carried out by the Commission, showed that it was not technically feasible for tractors in categories T2, C2 and T4.1 to meet the requirements of stages IIIB and IV within the set deadlines.

In order to prevent the establishment, through Union legislation, of technical requirements that cannot be met, and to prevent a situation where tractors in the previously mentioned category could not be type approved and placed on the market or put into service, it is necessary to establish a transitional period of three years, within which these tractors can still be type approved and placed on the market or put into service. In my opinion, Directive 2000/25/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.

  Françoise Grossetête (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this proposal for a directive, which was approved at first reading. The action taken against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants by engines intended to power agricultural or forestry tractors has been very satisfactory.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed this document because this proposal to amend Directive 2000/25/EC would postpone for three years the obligation to comply with Stage IIIB and Stage IV requirements for tractors in categories T2, C2 and T4.1. This directive concerns compression ignition engines intended for agricultural or forestry tractors. The directive sets limits for emissions of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons and particulates. The directive lays down progressively lower limit values for the successive stages corresponding to the various dates set for the adaptation of maximum emission levels for exhaust gases and particulates. The stringent requirements laid down for Stages IIIB and IV include the installation in the engine compartment of after-treatment systems which occupy a large amount of space in comparison to the size of the engine itself. Furthermore, the possibility of installing such systems is seriously restricted by the engine’s operational requirements. While the same kind of engines are used for narrow-track tractors as for other tractors, there is one major difference: the small size of the engine compartment, and the restricted space around it. Tractor manufacturers cannot install engines equipped with after-treatment systems while, at the same time, ensuring the vehicles meet the operational requirements, in terms of size and manoeuvrability, which are the essential elements of such vehicles’ design. It should be noted that such were also the conclusions reached in various studies commissioned by the Commission, which recommended either that narrow-track tractors should be completely exempted from the obligation to comply with Stage IIIB and Stage IV requirements, or that the obligation to comply be postponed for at least five years.

  Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) As a farmer, I fully appreciate how important – and indeed essential – a tractor is as a tool in the day-to-day work of a farm. In recent decades, development of the motor industry has allowed the production of increasingly advanced models of these vehicles, as well as the manufacture of special-purpose tractors intended for work with specific crops on specific terrain, such as vineyards, for example. Tractors in these categories – T2, C2 and T4.1 – are called narrow-track tractors. In view of their construction, the installation of after-treatment systems in the engine compartment is made particularly difficult. Manufacturers need more time to develop new technological solutions which will allow the use of exhaust-reduction systems without affecting the safety and efficiency of these tractors. In relation to this, I fully endorse the proposal of the European Commission to postpone the date of the introduction of Stage IIIB and Stage IV of Directive 2000/25/EC for narrow-track tractors.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I fully endorse the EU’s policy of reducing emissions and support Directive 2000/25/EC. However, independent studies and the data compiled by the Commission show that more time is required to enable manufacturers to develop Stage IIIB-compliant systems. I therefore support the Commission’s proposal to postpone by three years the date of the introduction of Stage IIIB and Stage IV for tractors in categories T2, T4.1, C2.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) In 2005, emission limits were applied to agricultural tractor engines without any specific impact assessment concerning the technical feasibility of doing so. Therefore, it is right that the Commission has granted a three-year delay. I voted in favour of Mr Tatarella’s report.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted against this resolution because I believe that it is appropriate to apply stringent requirements to the installation of after-treatment systems in the engine compartment of narrow-track tractors.

Above all, we must set out requirements that would promote the reduction of emissions from engines intended for agricultural and forestry tractors in order to guarantee a high level of environmental protection and wellbeing for European citizens.

It should be noted that narrow-track tractors currently used cause heavy pollution and pose a risk to the safety of workers. Consequently, the industrial sector should endeavour to replace old polluting tractors with modern technology as soon as possible, as this would guarantee lower emissions.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the application of emission stages for narrow-track tractors. I support the EU’s policy of reducing emissions. However, in light of independent studies and statistics compiled by the Commission showing that more time is needed to enable manufacturers to develop new systems, I agree with the Commission proposal of postponing by three years the date for the entry into force of the new obligations regarding emissions of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons and particulates.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The proposal for a directive amending Directive 2000/25/EC concerning the emissions of agricultural tractors with compression ignition engines with a power range between 18 kW and 560 kW provides for the gradual, phased reduction of emissions, laying down progressively lower limit values for the various stages. The next stages, already laid down, are for 1 January 2011 (Stage IIIB) and 1 January 2014 (Stage IV) and will involve the installation in the engine compartment of after-treatment systems which occupy a large amount of space in comparison to the size of the engine itself. This will make it impossible to ensure that the tractors classified as category T2, C2 and T4.1 (under the generic name of ‘narrow-track tractors’) meet the operational requirements, in terms of size and manoeuvrability. The restricted possibility of installing such systems does not guarantee the engine’s operational requirements as proven by various studies carried out or commissioned by the Commission, and, as a result, narrow-track tractors should be exempted from the obligation to comply with Stage IIIB and Stage IV requirements, or the obligation to comply should be postponed for at least five years.

  Rovana Plumb (S&D), in writing. – Directive 2000/25/EC reduces the permissible levels of exhaust (gaseous and particle) emissions from engines in agricultural and forestry tractors. An amendment in 2005 introducing ambitious reduction targets in PM and NOx values provided for a possibility for the Commission to conduct a technical review in order to examine the available technology, with a view to confirming Stage IIIB and IV limit values, and evaluate the possible need for additional flexibilities, exemptions or later introduction dates for certain types of equipment or engines. The Commission conducted this review and came to the conclusion that for engine categories T2, C2, and T4.1, it was appropriate to postpone for 3 years the introduction of Category IIIB and IV for narrow-track tractors with a maximum width of 1.15 m, as relevant data confirmed that more time is required to enable manufacturers to develop Stage IIIB-compliant systems. I strongly support the proposal, which asks the Commission to present the EP, on a yearly basis, with a progress report on the development of technical solutions for Stage IV.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Directive 2000/52/EC sets the limits for emissions of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons and particulates from compression ignition engines with a power range between 18 kW and 560 kW intended for installation on agricultural or forestry tractors. However, following the process of implementing the directive itself, it has emerged that the tractor manufacturers are still not able to meet all the requirements for Stages IIIB and IV. The extension of the deadline for adaptation by three years is therefore justified. I therefore voted in favour.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. The Commission proposal amends existing legislation on limits to pollutant emissions from engines intended to power agricultural and forestry tractors. The existing legislation provides for current Stage III A limits to be replaced by more stringent Stage IIIB limits, entering into force progressively from 1 January 2011 with regard to placing on the market, and from 1 January 2010 as regards the type approval for those engines. Directive 2000/25/EC provides for a review clause in order to take into account the specificities of tractors of categories T2, T4.1 and C.2 called narrow-track tractors (maximum width less than 1.15 m). As a result of technical studies carried out in 2007, 2009 and 2010, the Commission has established that it is not technically feasible for tractors classified within the categories T2, C2 and T4.1 to meet the requirements of stages IIIB and IV by the dates set out in the directive. A delay of 3 years for Stage IIIB and Stage IV requirements is proposed by the Commission.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted for this text because it sets new limits for emissions of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons and particulates for agricultural and forestry ‘narrow-track’ tractors. This is a natural choice, which aims to step up the reduction in pollutant emissions for this particular category of vehicle as well. Furthermore, in order to accommodate the needs of the main manufacturers, who are requesting more time to be able to develop systems able to meet these objectives, I consider the Commission’s proposal to postpone the date for introducing the last two most restrictive maximum emission levels to be a balanced one.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. – (IT) The Commission has proposed to exempt 50% of the tractors manufactured in the EU in the last five years because of the technological development time lag, which makes it impossible – unless an enormous amount of money is spent – to carry out the mechanical modifications necessary to move on the next stage, and hence because of the economic crisis affecting the tractor market, which has seen a 20% annual fall in its turnover since 2008. We expressed our support for the exemption and the rapporteur was also in favour, since the impact on emissions is truly negligible.

Unfortunately, the European left wing took the opposite view due purely to matters of principle, completely ignoring the risk that would be run if this exemption was rejected: our factories would close down and jobs would be lost as a result.

Following the trialogues, the first reading agreement is for a 40% exemption for the tractors. It should be borne in mind that the new common agricultural policy (CAP) includes funding for farmers who reduce emissions on their farms. I hope that many farmers will use this opportunity to buy new, low emission, agricultural machinery.

While we may not be satisfied, we will vote in favour of the directive on account of the extremely tight deadlines: exceeding them would render the directives meaningless.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Directive 2000/52/EC sets, by stages, the limits for emissions of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons and particulates for agricultural and/or forestry tractors. However, this imposition should take into account the specific nature of each model of tractor. The requirements laid down for Stages IIB and IV call into question the size of the vehicle and, consequently, its ability to be operational. This report, therefore, meets the need to postpone the implementation of these two stages over three years, so as to give time for a more in-depth evaluation of this directive’s impact, as well as of technological development in this area. Clarity and adjustment in European Union law will mean that there is better quality legislation when it is transposed by the Member States, that it will be better implemented, and also that the European public will understand it better.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) While I support the ambitious objectives on exhaust emissions set out in Directive 2000/25/EC on the commissioning of tractors with regard to harmful exhaust emissions, it is important not to underestimate the incredible economic crisis afflicting the European Union.

At this particular moment in time, an increase in the size or reduction in the manoeuvrability of tractors through implementation of the aforementioned directive would deprive European farming of its main mechanisation tool. I therefore voted in favour of the text by Mr Tatarella, which not only postpones application by three years, but also expresses hope for another technical review on the possibility of installing stage III-compliant engines to narrow-track tractors.

Report: Sirpa Pietikäinen (A7-0080/2011)

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) In the context of the European policy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the Union saw fit to set emission limits for engines of non-road mobile machinery (locomotives, boats, heavy vehicles, etc.) along with implementation stages, and to introduce a ‘flexibility scheme’. This scheme allows for the temporary marketing of non-road mobile machinery that does not comply with these limits in order to ensure greater flexibility in the implementation, particularly in the current context of the crisis. I voted in favour of Sirpa Pietikäinen’s report, which recommends increasing the flexibility scheme percentage from 20% to nearly 40% of annual sales in order to ease the burden on businesses.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because I agree that emissions of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons and particulates must be limited in vehicles. The directive on emissions currently in force and the procedures it sets out will be tightened from 2012 (with a transition period until 2013). These limitations will apply to around 1 500 companies in the European Union, and the machinery covered by them includes various kinds of land-based machinery intended for construction, forestry and agriculture, for example. The purpose of this directive is to reduce emissions in vehicles whose benchmarks are very high. This directive would also enable us to combat unfair competition with manufacturers in third countries whose manufacturing processes are not yet subject to such strict limitations.

  Lara Comi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I fully support the objectives laid down by the directive. Talking about flexibility for engines placed on the market means introducing a necessary, though not entirely sufficient, condition for improving our collective wellbeing. This is an issue on which we cannot improvise. The reference regarding emission limits for atmospheric pollutants, for example, shows the importance of organising ourselves and following the approach that we adopted when we defined our policies in relation to human health and the environment. At the same time, we need alignment of Member State legislation to harmonise emission limits and type approval procedures as far as possible.

That is why I also welcomed approval of the priorities identified by the amendment on Original Equipment Manufacturers, especially the reference to the economic estimates, because I believe they are crucial to optimising market flexibility. Given the long-term strategic importance of this matter, the decision not to burden small and medium-sized enterprises excessively, thus giving major manufacturers too much of an advantage, and hence to pursue our general interests, is crucial.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report on engines placed on the market under the flexibility scheme, which provides for a temporary increase in this scheme, because I believe environmental legislation should be consistent with the EU’s medium- and long-term environmental goals, but that the activities of small and medium-sized enterprises and recovery from the economic crisis should also be supported in the short term.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The use of non-road mobile machinery with engines involves the emission of gaseous pollutants that should be reduced, so as to protect the environment and ensure better living conditions for the citizens of the Member States. Despite this objective, we must take into account the needs of their manufacturers, particularly those of these machines’ engines. We must also seek to increase the flexibility of transition schemes that threaten the survival of businesses and jobs by being too demanding. This flexibility must keep in mind the specific situation of the sector.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report concerns a Commission proposal to increase the flexibility of Directive 97/68/EC, setting the maximum exhaust emissions of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides and particulates from diesel engines of non-road mobile machinery. This report contests the Commission’s idea that manufacturers lose their competitiveness should they need to comply with stricter environmental legislation. Green innovations and low emission technologies can only spring up with the help of a supportive legislative framework. That is the only way to hit the Europe 2020 strategy’s targets and enable the move towards a low-carbon society. Steps must be taken forwards, not backwards. As such, I agree that ‘A global financial and economic crisis cannot serve as a reason to water down environmental standards. Investments in environmentally friendly technologies are important for the promotion of future growth, jobs and health security’. I therefore think that this report takes account of the protection of the environment, and of the safeguarding, the development and the competitiveness of industry, and that it constitutes a balanced proposal intended to alleviate, as far as is possible, the impact of the current economic crisis on manufacturers of engines and machinery.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The directive in question (97/68/EC) sets the maximum exhaust emissions of carbon monoxide (CO), hydrocarbons (HC), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulates (PM) from diesel engines of non-road mobile machinery. Machinery covered by the directive includes various kinds of land-based machinery intended, inter alia, for construction, for forestry and agriculture, for rail transport, including locomotives and railcars, and for inland waterway vessels. It should be recalled that PM and NOx emissions from this type of machine represent 7% and 16% of the total, respectively. With a view to compliance in stages with the limits laid down in this directive, a flexibility scheme has been created enabling manufacturers to replace engines gradually. As the rapporteur says, the engines in question are only produced by a small number of large companies.

The European Commission is now proposing to extend the flexibility scheme, giving these companies more time to make the necessary replacements. The rapporteur completely opposes this, citing environmental and public health reasons, and has proposed a much stricter scheme. It has been possible to reach a consensus in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety which, while more flexible than the rapporteur’s initial position, is close to it, restricting the room for manoeuvre created by the European Commission. We think this is a fair solution, so we voted for it.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This directive sets the maximum exhaust emissions of carbon monoxide (CO), hydrocarbons (HC), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulates (PM) from diesel engines of non-road mobile machinery. Machinery covered by the directive includes various kinds of land-based machinery intended, inter alia, for construction, for forestry and agriculture, for rail transport, including locomotives and railcars, and for inland waterway vessels. It should be recalled that PM and NOx emissions from this type of machine represent 7% and 16% of the total, respectively. In order to enable compliance in stages with the limits laid down in this directive, a flexibility scheme has been created enabling manufacturers to replace engines gradually. As the rapporteur says, the engines in question are only produced by a small number of large companies. The European Commission is now proposing to extend the flexibility scheme, giving these companies more time to make the necessary replacements. The rapporteur completely opposes this, citing environmental and public health reasons, and has proposed a much stricter scheme. The consensus reached in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety is more flexible than the rapporteur’s initial position, restricting the room for manoeuvre created by the European Commission. We therefore voted in favour.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The maximum exhaust emissions of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides and particulates from non-road mobile machinery diesel engines are set out in Directive 97/68/EC. A revision of the directive in 2004 (2004/26/EC) introduced the current limits for exhaust emissions for the current stage, and set deadlines and limit values for the next stage. Application of these stricter limits began in January 2011. The machinery to which the directive applies includes various types of machinery used, for example, in construction, forestry and agriculture. It also applies, however, to locomotives, railway vehicles and inland waterway transport vessels. The 2004 directive also introduced a flexible system allowing producers to place on the market, between two consecutive stages of exhaust gas emission limit values, a limited number of machines fitted with engines which still conform to the exhaust gas emission limits of the previous stage.

The limit is established either as 20% of the machines from the total annual sales of a producer, calculated on the basis of a five-year average of the producer’s total sales, or as a fixed set number of machines. The option of a fixed set number is intended for smaller producers. The directive is an important component of the EU’s current environmental legislation, is of major benefit in terms of emission reduction, and in revising the directive, we should try, in my opinion, to achieve a balance between the relevant requirements and the legislation.

  Elisabetta Gardini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Thanks to today’s vote, it will be possible to reduce the costs to Europe’s industries of adapting engines to the new exhaust emission limits imposed by the entry into force of Stage IIIB of Directive 97/68/EC.

At a particularly critical time for the industry, the legislation on emissions – and Stage IIIB in particular – makes it mandatory for non-road mobile machinery manufacturers to partly or completely redesign their products in order to accommodate the new engines.

We have had to deal with an emergency situation in order to give planning guarantees to around 1 500 manufacturers of these machines, which vary considerably, and which have to meet specific technical requirements in order to comply with European legislation on the subject.

Therefore, greater flexibility will not only allow manufacturers a gentler transition towards the stringent Stage IIIB limits, avoiding excessive costs, but also allow them to spread the necessary investments in research and development over a longer period of time, without compromising any of the environmental objectives of the basic directive.

  Françoise Grossetête (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this proposal for a directive, which was approved at first reading. It sets the maximum exhaust emissions of carbon monoxide (CO), hydrocarbons (HC), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulates (PM) from diesel engines installed in construction, agricultural and forestry machinery, railcars and locomotives, inland waterway vessels, constant-speed engines and small petrol engines used in different types of machinery. The agreement reached is fair.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) The maximum exhaust emissions of carbon monoxide (CO), hydrocarbons (HC), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulates (PM) from diesel engines of non-road mobile machinery are regulated in Directive 97/68/EC. The 2004 revision of Directive 2004/26/EC introduced the current emission limits of stage IIIA, and set the deadlines and limit values for the subsequent stage IIIB. The application of these more stringent limits will start progressively from January 2011 onwards, depending on the power category. Machinery covered by the directive includes various kinds of land-based machinery intended for construction, forestry and agriculture, for example. The directive also applies to locomotives, railcars and inland waterway vessels. It covers a great variety of machinery manufacturers (an estimated 1 500 companies), many of which do not produce the engines used in these machines. The engines are only produced by a few large companies. I believe that, as a result of the crisis, companies will be unable to implement the requirements, hence the proposal to permit the manufacture of engines until 2014 by increasing the percentage under the flexibility scheme, i.e. the Commission proposes increasing the percentage from the current 20% to 50%. I welcomed these proposed flexibility measures, which would remain in force until 13 December 2013.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The increase in flexibility from 20% to 37.5% in the non-road mobile machinery sector is certainly an initial, mandatory step in providing a prompt response to manufacturers. I think that at the time of a global crisis such as the one we are currently experiencing, which has also affected the non-road mobile machinery sector in particular, it was important to have a rapid response to the extension of flexibility from Stage IIIA to Stage IIIB. A complex issue such as reconciling the need for a lower environmental impact and lower carbon dioxide emissions with a real understanding of manufacturers’ needs has to be managed with efforts at concrete cooperation, including in legislation, between Member States. I voted for the report because, despite the difficulties ensuing from the requests for a more flexible system and the duty to provide an answer that would not invalidate efforts in this direction, I believe that, on the whole, it is a good compromise.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – The justification given by the Commission for the proposal is largely based on the economic crisis. From autumn 2008 onwards, most of the EU-based industry producing non-road mobile machinery has been affected by the crisis, and especially the construction and agricultural sectors have suffered from steep decreases in sales. The Commission argues that the compliance costs required to reach the new stage IIIB are too high to bear for an industry severely hit by the crisis. The economic crisis is a reality, but there are already signs of recovery. As the sales are picking up, the rationale for the Commission proposal is diminishing. As for some of the bigger producers, for whom the data is more readily available, the sales seem to be smaller when compared to the years which could be called a sort of a boom for the industry – the current sales numbers are, however, not much smaller when compared to years preceding the boom. All in all, as the legislation and the limit values for new stage IIIB has been in place since 2004, followed by some considerably strong years for the industry, the claim of lacking resources for development loses ground.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) With her report, Ms Pietikäinen has quite rightly reined in the Commission’s proposal to overly enlarge the flexibility regime. Thanks also to the excellent work of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, today, Parliament voted on a more balanced and far-sighted text that takes into account the current economic situation without losing sight of the EU objectives regarding the emission of pollutants. I voted in favour.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – It is known that the Non-Road Mobile Machinery (NRMM) Directive (97/68/EC) aims to control emissions of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons and particulates (CO2 emissions are not covered by this legislation) from a variety of engines in, for example, excavators, bulldozers, front loaders, back loaders and compressors. The directive was amended in 2004 to introduce new emissions limits and, in addition, the flexibility scheme allowing manufacturers to place on the market a limited number of engines belonging to the older category (with higher maximum permitted exhaust emissions). The proposed amendment provides for the possibility of enlarging the flexibility scheme, from 20% to 50% of annual sales of equipment, and extending it to include engines for railcars and locomotives, with a flexibility rate of 20% of annual sales of machinery fitted with engines in the specified category.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcome this resolution because it is appropriate to extend the scope of the flexibility scheme. Most companies in the industrial sector have, above all, been badly hit by the global economic and financial crisis. Consequently, it will be particularly difficult for companies to implement the requirements provided for in the directive and which are currently being applied.

To ensure that industry continues to develop and remains competitive, and in order to protect the environment, it is appropriate to apply flexibility measures until 2014 and facilitate market access for a set number of engines under the flexibility scheme. The implementation of these measures will mitigate the consequences of the current economic crisis as far as possible for engine and vehicle manufacturers and will maintain competitiveness and employment in this sector.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 97/68/EC concerns the provisions for engines placed on the market under the flexible scheme. Directive 97/68/EC constitutes an important part of the Union’s environmental legislation, and its contribution is considerable, especially to meeting emission reduction targets. Emissions of particulates and nitrogen oxides represent the main sources of air pollution caused by the sector. As such, and because I share the rapporteur’s concerns regarding the Commission proposal to extend the flexibility scheme and postpone emission reductions, I voted for this report, which waters down these intentions.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) With regard to Directive 2004/26/EC and the Commission’s proposal concerning expansion of the flexibility scheme for transition between the different stages of the emission reduction programme, I consider a gradual transition necessary in order to ensure manufacturers can adapt more easily and to a greater extent, taking into account the sharp drop in sales that has affected construction machinery with the economic crisis. However, I believe that the Commission’s proposal risks slowing down environmental legislation as well as not rewarding those who have made efforts to comply. Considering the above to be the correct response in environmental terms, I voted in favour of Ms Pietikäinen’s report.

  Rovana Plumb (S&D), in writing. – The Non-Road Mobile Machinery (NRMM) Directive (97/68/EC) aims to control carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons and particulates emissions (CO2 emissions are not covered by this legislation) from a variety of engines such as excavators, bulldozers, front loaders, back loaders and compressors. The directive was amended in 2004 to introduce new emission limits and, with that, the flexibility scheme. The flexibility scheme allows manufacturers to place on the market a limited number of engines belonging to the older category (with higher maximum permitted exhaust emissions).

I support the following compromises: the flexibility scheme to be increased to 37.5% of the annual quantity of equipment placed on the market for the duration of the stage IIIB or up to three years when no subsequent stage exists; 16 engines for locomotives to be compliant with the previous stage standards and additionally 10 engines for locomotives that can be used in the UK due to specific rail conditions. Environmental legislation should always be consistent with our medium-term and long-term environmental goals, but, in the short run, we are making efforts to support the recovery of SMEs from the economic crisis.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Directive 97/68/EC set out the maximum exhaust emissions of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides and particulates from diesel engines of non-road mobile machinery, which has resulted in a series of measures in Union law intended to protect the environment and increase sustainability in the European Union. Taking account of the technical adaptation efforts involved in a regulation of this kind, a flexibility scheme was introduced, seeking to reconcile the goal of meeting the proposed targets with the need to offer companies a period in which to reshape their production processes. Meanwhile, the European Commission has proposed an expansion of the flexibility scheme, alluding, in particular, to the problems being experienced by the industry as a result of the economic crisis. In accordance with the rapporteur’s explanatory statement, I believe that we should not abandon the envisaged model, notwithstanding the possibility of expanding the scope of the flexibility scheme in some special cases. The model should broadly continue along the same lines, following the trend towards reduced carbon emissions. Moreover, this means that companies that have invested in technological adaptation are quite rightly rewarded. I voted in favour for these reasons.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – Against. The Commission proposal weakens existing legislation on limits to pollutant emissions from diesel engines installed in construction, agricultural and forestry machinery, railcars and locomotives, inland waterway vessels, constant speed engines and small petrol engines used in different types of machinery. The existing directive provides for emission limit stages of increasing stringency with corresponding compliance dates. The current applicable stage of emission limits for the majority of diesel engines referred to as Stage IIIA will be replaced by the more stringent Stage IIIB limits progressively as of 1 January 2011, and the type approval period for these engines started on 1 January 2010. The Commission proposes increasing the already permitted flexibility for manufacturers to place on the market 20% of engines that do not comply with the emission limit values to 50% in order to mitigate further the economic costs on the grounds of the economic recession. In addition, the flexibility is extended to railcars and locomotives. Expiry of the measure is proposed for 31 December 2013.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I believe that reducing the emissions of non-road mobile machinery can improve the already effective EU environmental legislation. The legislation on the provisions for engines placed on the market under the flexibility scheme should provide certainty for the industry of a level playing field and of all the actors abiding by the rules. The legislative framework should also improve the interplay between health, environment and the economic conditions of businesses. Finally, in view of the fact that the Commission is preparing a review of Directive 97/68/EC on the subject, I believe it is best to wait for it to complete this, in order to avoid fragmentary, damaging regulations.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. – (IT) The Commission has proposed to exempt 50% of the tractors manufactured in the EU in the last five years because of the technological development time lag, which makes it impossible – unless an enormous amount of money is spent – to carry out the mechanical modifications necessary to move on the next stage, and because of the economic crisis affecting the tractor market.

Our position was to support the proposal to the Commission, since the impact on emissions is truly negligible. It is regrettable that the ‘no’ stance of the left-wing groups and Ms Pietikäinen is due purely to matters of principle and completely ignores the risk that would be run if these exemptions were rejected: our factories would close down and jobs would be lost as a result.

The final compromise reached following the trialogues has resulted in a first-reading agreement of 37.5% for non-road mobile machinery. While we may not be satisfied, we will vote in favour of the directive on account of the extremely tight deadlines: exceeding them would render the directive meaningless.

  Olga Sehnalová (S&D), in writing. – (CS) The legislation with which we are responding to the situation arising from the economic crisis of 2008 and 2009 in the off-road vehicle manufacturing sector has now been submitted for approval in the autumn of 2011. For almost one year, representatives of the affected firms have been asking me when they would finally know about the changes to which they would have to adapt their manufacturing processes. In my opinion, legislation must be timely if it is to provide effective assistance. Otherwise, it brings uncertainty and chaos rather than assistance. I also supported the report as the rapporteur of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, although I regret the fact it has taken so long for it to be approved in the plenary of the European Parliament.

  Claudiu Ciprian Tănăsescu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I supported this report because it forms an important part of EU legislation governing the environment and public health. The report envisages protection for human health, especially for workers and people who are often exposed to emissions from engines installed in non-road mobile machinery.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Directive 97/68/EC is an important element in the field of the environment, since it sets out the maximum exhaust emissions of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulates (PM) from diesel engines of non-road mobile machinery. As NOx and PM emissions are the main sources of air pollution, it is important to take action in this sector. This directive was amended in 2004 to allow engine manufacturers a flexibility scheme in stages. This means manufacturers have the option of bringing onto the market a limited number of engines complying with the limits set at the previous stage: 20% of the manufacturer’s annual sales or a fixed number of machines, with this last being for small producers.

As a result, the purpose of this report is to approve the expansion of flexibility approved by the Commission. Therefore, the 20% limit will change to 50% by December 2013, and the fixed number will also be increased. I am voting for this report, since I believe we should support small and medium-sized producers at this time of crisis, which is affecting the non-road mobile machinery industry, particularly the construction and agriculture sectors. On the other hand, technological development has not accompanied this directive, so we should provide for the necessary increases in flexibility.

Report: Ádám Kósa (A7-0263/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report, since I agree with the rapporteur’s position supporting measures intended to achieve a sustainable society founded on an approach that respects human rights. First and foremost, the Member States should not just sign and ratify the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and related additional protocols, but should also develop national policies and strategies in line with the European Disability Strategy, which has been adopted by the European Commission and is provided for in the Europe 2020 strategy. The Commission’s action plan up to 2015, linked to the European Disability Strategy, constitutes a step in the right direction.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. – I am strongly in favour of increased long-term investment and support for people with disabilities, as it is imperative that they are provided with the necessary means to enjoy equal rights, equal treatment and full participation in education, employment, social life and public life, in particular, in relation to the right to vote.

Parliament has adopted significant decisions for the recognition and protection of the rights of people with disabilities, calling for legal standards and legislation at EU level. However, it is important that the new generation of human rights of people with disabilities be upheld through active and targeted policies ensuring the practical application of all human rights and guaranteeing equal opportunities and full access to services and products.

One of the most important objectives is to improve the level of employment among the almost 80 million people with disabilities who live in the EU. An increased rate of poverty results in limited access to employment, training, health care and appropriate treatment, so disability benefits must therefore be guaranteed to those in need. States must develop national policies and strategies on disability, in harmony with the European Disability Strategy (EDS), while, at the same time, introducing detailed deadlines and mechanisms for the implementation of the EDS, particularly with regard to strengthening the role of Parliament.

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) People with disabilities must have the right to community-based services conducive to independent living, to personal assistance, to economic and social independence, and to full participation in society and the labour market. As fully-fledged citizens, people with disabilities have equal rights and are entitled to absolute dignity, equal treatment, an independent life and full participation in society.

I would like to highlight the fact that many people with disabilities continue to suffer discrimination in terms of equal recognition before the law and justice. I call on Member States to remedy these shortcomings with measures including the provision of effective access to justice for people with disabilities and appropriate training for those involved in the administration of justice. I should also stress the importance of guaranteeing and ensuring equal terms for participating in political and public life.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The European Parliament voted this week in favour of a wider inclusion of people with disabilities in the labour market and for further provisions in fighting against discrimination. People with disabilities are often victims of social exclusion and need our support and our action. Let us not forget that 16% of the total EU population live with a disability. The fact is, over 60% of people with disabilities are jobless and a quarter of them live in poverty. Thankfully, progress is being made. I voted in favour of the report by Ádám Kósa, who is the first and only Member of the European Parliament to be hard of hearing.

  Liam Aylward and Pat the Cope Gallagher (ALDE), in writing. – (GA) We recently met Irish members of the Centre for Independent Living who were in Strasbourg for the annual ‘Freedom Drive’. That same group directed the Members’ attention to the difficulties experienced by people with disabilities in the EU. One of the most significant difficulties mentioned was the obstacles to free movement, and this in a Union in which free movement is supposed to be a basic right for everyone.

We voted in favour of this important report but more attention needs to be paid to the basic importance of mobile personal aid services to improve the free movement of people with disabilities.

At present, personal aid services are not mobile and when someone with a disability moves to another Member State – for personal or professional reasons – this essential service is often not available to him or her immediately, and he or she must submit a new application to the new Member State without any certainty that the new service will be provided to him or her in the new country.

It would be to the advantage of all the people of Europe and to the advantage of the principle of free movement if the Commission and the Member States together ensured that this service would be mobile.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report. Over 80 million people, or around 16% of the European Union’s total population, are living with disabilities, and their rate of unemployment is twice as high as that of people without disabilities. People with disabilities constitute a vulnerable group, among whom the rate of poverty is more than 70% higher than average. In some Member States, funding for measures and benefits for the disabled has been reduced as a result of the economic crisis, which has exacerbated the exclusion of this group of people in society even more. I believe that the problems of the recession cannot be held up as an excuse for public austerity measures which include unjustified cuts to services for persons with disabilities or to projects for their social inclusion. I agree that better use needs to be made of the European Structural Funds, particularly the European Regional Development Fund, to improve accessibility to goods and services for disabled people, to reduce the discrimination and exclusion they face and guarantee the right to a dignified and full life.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this report because I think that the obstacles hampering people with disabilities from exercising their fundamental rights must be removed. Europe needs to provide people with disabilities with the wherewithal to enjoy their full rights and participate in Europe’s social and economic life. In light of this, the EU should encourage Member States towards harmonising their policies and strategies for people with disabilities. I must mention that these people are one of the groups hit hardest by the financial crisis in Europe. In my country, creating an effective model for integrating people with disabilities is the main goal of the National Organisation of the Disabled. At the moment, three projects financed by European funds are basically aimed at integrating people with disabilities into the labour market in Romania.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) More exposed to social exclusion and discrimination, people with disabilities are a vulnerable group in our societies. The differences in terms of employment and poverty between people with a disability and those without are very marked and remain unacceptable: only 30% to 40% of them are in employment, and 70% live in poverty. The own-initiative report by Ádám Kósa has the merit of focusing on the situation of these people in the EU. Much remains to be done. Although 2010 was the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion, poverty was clearly on the rise, and social exclusion potentially affects a larger section of the population than before in the EU. We must therefore remain alert: progress, in terms of social inclusion of people with disabilities, will first require the adoption of the ‘horizontal’ directive on combating discrimination. This is what we are asking for in this report: the Commission must continue to work towards the swift adoption of this directive, which is currently being held up by the Council.

  Sergio Berlato (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Parliament has, on various occasions, turned its attention to the situation of people with disabilities, recognising and safeguarding their rights. In line with the recent EU 2020 strategy, one of the most important objectives is increasing the employment level for the nearly 80 million people with disabilities living in the EU. Currently, their employment level is low throughout the EU, at 30-40%, compared with an ambitious target of 75%. According to Eurostat figures, the number of dependent people will double by 2050. From 2010 to 2050, the working-age population will decrease by some 50 million, whilst the proportion of people over 65 with disabilities will increase by 77%. Therefore, in the future, employment protection and safety at work will play an increasing role in the definition of national policies and strategies for people with disabilities in Member States.

The principle of freedom of movement is a fundamental citizens’ right. I agree with the rapporteur that the introduction of a unified European mobility card for reciprocal recognition of care for people with disabilities could make an important contribution in terms of protecting their rights.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report on the mobility and inclusion of people with disabilities because it covers many challenges for disabled people, such as education, employment, integration, proper adaptation of surroundings and assistance for family members. In my opinion, the report aptly identifies the importance of increasing the mobility of people with disabilities by eliminating physical and social obstacles which prevent disabled people from using public buildings and public services, such as public transport, information technology and other measures and services. I also agree with the idea raised by the report that we should collect specific data on disability issues and disability-related services in the Member States, including data on residential institutions and the quality of the services they provide. I would like to draw attention to the fact that the high level of unemployment is the greatest obstacle to the inclusion of disabled people in society, and that unemployment among disabled people arises because of insufficient preparation for the labour market. In every Member State, it is also necessary to evaluate the situation faced by people with disabilities in the labour market (explaining the reasons why they lose incentives to take up employment), to help them to integrate into the labour market by using the European Social Fund (ESF), and to enable employers to create jobs for people with disabilities. This report stresses that the Member States should provide general information for families raising children with disabilities, guarantee financial assistance, social and health care services, psychological support and more flexible working conditions for parents (or one of them) with children with disabilities.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) One of the main objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy is to increase the number of jobs intended for the nearly 80 million people with disabilities living in the EU. The employment level among people with disabilities and those whose fitness for work is impaired is generally low throughout the EU, with only 30-40% of them in work. The situation is starker in the Member States which recently joined. For example, according to the latest statistics, only four per cent of the 631 000 people with disabilities in Romania are in employment. A job obviously means a chance for these people to lead a normal life.

New labour legislation in Romania makes it compulsory for large companies with more than 50 employees to have people with disabilities make up four per cent of their staff. More precisely, out of 50 employees, two must be people with various disabilities, while out of 100 employees, four must be people with disabilities, and so on. There is currently a government scheme operating in Romania whereby any company employing people with disabilities for at least two years receives RON 500 (approximately EUR 120) per person per month.

  Jan Březina (PPE), in writing. – (CS) The principle of free movement is a fundamental right in the EU. We must make public and private transport sufficiently accessible, which includes the harmonisation of parking permits in Member States and the drafting of a unified catalogue of passenger rights, so that suitable transport by various means is accessible to all. We must also set up websites which can be used by visually impaired people, and electronically accessible online services in sign language. Small and medium-sized enterprises play a particularly important role in improving social inclusion, both through the provision of information on employing people with disabilities, and through participating in public procurement, manufacturing products and providing services with the help of disabled people. There is also considerable unused potential in the general and specialist education systems, which are not sufficiently well prepared for devoting attention to the needs of disabled people, and the number of disabled students terminating courses prematurely still remains high. For example, in Denmark, which is one of the most progressive Member States, 44% of disabled young people commenced secondary school studies in 2007, while in the case of people without disabilities, the proportion was 75%. About five per cent of disabled people have a university education, which is a tiny fraction of the total number.

  Antonio Cancian (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted for the report by Mr Kósa as it deals with various aspects to which I have also decided to give my personal commitment in order to help safeguard the rights of people with disabilities, even more so now that I have seen and witnessed their needs at first hand.

Generally speaking, I agree with the rapporteur’s approach, which is to propose the adoption of various concrete measures with the aim of achieving a sustainable society based on an approach rooted in the defence of human rights. However, at the same time, I believe that we need precise dates and deadlines in order to allow national implementation of the conventions adopted by the United Nations (Convention on the Rights of the Disabled and its additional protocols) and the European Union (European Disability Strategy and the EU 2020 strategy).

More specifically, among the key issues tackled in the report, I would like to underline the results achieved in the following areas: the production of vehicles compatible with the needs of people of reduced mobility; the production of electronic interfaces allowing better communication for disabled people; and help for families with a view to enabling the inclusion of children and young people with disabilities in the education system.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The inclusion of the European Union’s 80 million disabled people is of the greatest importance in creating a society that is more active and sustainable in relation to the ageing phenomenon in Europe. Inclusion, in both society and the labour market, offers new opportunities for the future of employability in Europe. Disabled people and older people could be the real answer to the future of employability in Europe. The difficulty of movement and communication solutions mean that disabled people are often unable to find opportunities for training, education or work. I voted for this report because I believe disability should be approached differently. I also believe there is a need to remove barriers to accessibility, to promote special communication techniques for deaf people and those with impaired hearing, and to create new, inclusive education systems.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) One in six EU citizens has a disability, that ranges from mild to severe. There is an urgent need to implement active and specific policies to combat the serious risks of unemployment, poverty and social exclusion to which these people are subjected: the rate of poverty amongst disabled people is 70% higher than average.

It is important to continue with the targets of the Europe 2020 strategy, so as to ensure smart, sustainable and inclusive growth in Europe. This will necessarily include structural improvements as regards the mobility and inclusion of disabled people. In the majority of cases, social policies relating to disabled people fall under the competences of the Member States, so it is crucial that they support the adoption of measures and instruments suited to the needs of the disabled in order to ensure that these people enjoy a greater level of autonomy, equality of opportunity and an active life.

I believe it is important to set out a new, effective approach to disability and to the promotion of initiatives geared towards accessibility, equality, employment, education and training, social protection, and health needs in relation to these people. I also support the creation of a more effective mechanism ...

(Declaration abbreviated in accordance with Rule 170 of the Rules of Procedure)

  Lara Comi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of this report because I believe in the joint effort of European Union Member States to ensure the inclusion of people with physical and communication disabilities in society. The social exclusion of the disabled, together with the associated lower rates of employment, to my mind cause serious prejudices to the civil and human rights that should be guaranteed to all citizens without distinction. In this regard, it is necessary, on the one hand, to remove the barriers that cause the exclusion of people with disabilities, and, on the other, to adopt measures that will help them enter the job market. The protection of their rights is an important step towards a better implementation of the European Disability Strategy, and towards the employment objective laid down by the EU 2020 strategy.

Encouraging the mobility and inclusion of people with disabilities is an important weapon in the battle against the poverty many of them experience due to the lack of employment. I trust in the sensitivity of all the Member States to be able to put an end to discrimination against people with disabilities, supporting their full inclusion in the community.

  Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) One person in four with disabilities in Europe is facing the risk of poverty at a time when many European Union governments have resorted to making outrageous cuts to social benefits. People with disabilities are also facing serious discrimination, from the fall in the number of those attending secondary school or university to the problems they have getting a job and gaining access to medical care.

One of the foreseeable consequences of the failure to integrate the working population with disabilities will be to miss the Europe 2020 strategy objective of achieving an employment rate of 75% of the total working population aged between 20 and 64.

Last but not least, I would like to stress that more than one third of Europeans over the age of 75 have a disability, and the proportion of elderly people is on the rise. Investing in adapting education systems and in preventing disabilities and their resulting consequences may provide some relief for social budgets and would improve the prospects of integrating our fellow citizens with disabilities. These are the reasons why I support the resolution.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I think that all Member States must review and improve their social policies specifically aimed at people with disabilities, so as to provide them with normal social and economic circumstances.

I believe that the European Commission must take action in cooperation with Member States and develop strategies for removing the various obstacles and problems encountered by men, women and children with disabilities, so as to ensure that they can participate effectively in society with the same dignity.

  Proinsias De Rossa (S&D), in writing. – I support this Report on the Mobility and Inclusion of People with Disabilities, which aims to empower persons with disabilities so that they can enjoy their full rights and fully participate in society and in the European economy, and identifies eight main areas for action: accessibility, participation, equality, employment, education and training, social protection, health, and external action. Anti-discrimination policy is key to promoting social inclusion and employment for people with disabilities. The Member States should not only sign and ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of the Disabled and its additional protocols; they should also develop national policies and strategies on disabilities in harmony with the European Commission’s European Disability Strategy (EDS) and the EU 2020 strategy. They should also review the existing national-level documents on this matter. The Commission’s action plan for the period until 2015, linked to the EDS, is a step in the right direction, but support should also be given to measures with specific deadlines and programme elements which would improve implementation.

  Marielle De Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Over 80 million people, or roughly 16% of the total population of the EU, live with a disability. The employment rate of disabled people in the EU is only 45%, and they are one of the groups most affected by the financial crisis. The austerity measures should not be used as a pretext for an unjustified cut to services offered to disabled people or projects aimed at enhancing their social inclusion. Thus, we must quickly reach an agreement on the proposal for a Council directive implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of religion, belief, disability, age or sexual orientation. The Commission must reinforce the provisions taken with regard to combating discrimination and with regard to accessibility within the framework of the 2014-2020 cohesion policy. It should also put on the table a proposal for a European legislative act on accessibility, with firm and binding measures at European Union level to improve access to goods and services for disabled people.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for this report, which puts forward practical measures in order to tackle the exclusion of people with disabilities in our societies. With this report, we should be able to put an end to all the barriers that contribute to discrimination as regards recruitment by promoting access to education and training and by raising awareness among employers about disabled people.

  Karima Delli (Verts/ALE), in writing. – (FR) There are currently 80 million people living with a disability in Europe. Almost 70% of them are unemployed and 25% live in poverty. The European Union has a few aces up its sleeve to help these people and ensure greater equality of rights: raising more European funding, conducting widespread awareness campaigns, and compiling pan-European statistics in order to make public policies more effective. Above all, however, it is time to release the draft anti-discrimination directive, which has been blocked for over 10 years by Europe’s Heads of State or Government.

I am pleased that my fellow MEPs have rallied behind us to ensure that the following message is heard loud and clear: the next stage in the fight for equal rights is an agreement between the EU Member States on this directive. Backed into a corner, the governments can no longer evade their responsibilities. We also call on the Commission to propose a major EU directive on accessibility for people with disabilities.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this report because I think that it is the European Parliament’s duty to focus attention on the situation of people with disabilities. In fact, they must be included as part of any strategies devised relating to the EU’s future, in order to comply with both the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and equal opportunities for all citizens.

I support a long-term approach being adopted to deal with the situation of people with disabilities in terms of social investments. I think that their active involvement in public life must be increased.

As a member of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, I believe that it is important to support research and development in technologies for people with disabilities, with the aim of bridging social disparities. Greater importance must also be attached to creating accessible websites and effective communication channels for all European citizens disadvantaged in this way.

Last but not least, I support the rapporteur’s position that education and training systems are not adequately prepared for taking into account the needs of young people with disabilities. I think that the Europe 2020 strategy must consider these aspects and address them accordingly.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report because it argues that financial investment in people with disabilities is a medium- and long-term return investment that is absolutely necessary for the wellbeing of all in a sustainable society where people can work more efficiently under better conditions. It is unacceptable that, in the context of public austerity measures, unjustified cuts should be made to services for people with disabilities, or to projects whose purpose is their social inclusion.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) According to data from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 80 million disabled people are potentially in poverty, and one in four disabled people already live in poverty: these figures are set to increase over the next few years, as a result of the economic and financial crisis. Disabled people also end up being excluded from education systems: in Denmark, which is one of the most advanced Member States in this area, only 44% of young disabled people have entered the secondary education system. This weak investment in their education and training ends up being responsible for their poor level of inclusion in the world of work. There is an urgent need to remove barriers and for the Member States to pursue inclusive and non-discriminatory policies in relation to disabled people, providing them with the necessary framework for their full participation in professional, working and family life.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report, drafted by Mr Kósa, concerns the mobility and inclusion of people with disabilities and the European Disability Strategy 2010-2020. The problems experienced by disabled people, as well as the defence of the rights of children and all vulnerable people, have merited particular attention from the European institutions, in general, and particularly the European Parliament. What is really at stake here is improving their quality of life. Many are victims of social exclusion and employment rates amongst disabled people are very low. Some countries have been implementing a range of best practices which urgently need to be disseminated to and reproduced in other Member States. Fundamentally, we need to improve their access to the labour market and their mobility conditions. There is a need to invest in their education and professional training, making use of the structural funds available. I would congratulate my colleague, Mr Kósa, on his excellent report, for which I voted, and on the concrete measures proposed. I am sure that, in the very near future, disabled people will participate in society more actively and with full rights. That is the only way we will fully meet the Europe 2020 strategy targets.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report indisputably includes fairly positive proposals: firstly, in the area of including disabled people in active, civic and social life, and secondly, in the area of including a gender perspective in the new European Disability Strategy, which I support. Nevertheless, there is a need to avoid the usual declarations of good intentions without practical consequences, and action plans and strategies without the means for implementing them. There is a need for set timetables, adequate financial resources, and practical measures to promote the social inclusion of disabled people. In addition to a general framework of policies that makes all this possible, there is also a need to support organisations representing disabled people and the important social role that many play. In other words, we need a framework very different from current so-called austerity policies, and from the neoliberal measures violating the most basic rights of disabled people, thereby threatening access to key public services such as, inter alia, health care, education, transportation and energy. Regrettably, all this is ignored by the report.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) We believe this report, which attempts to set goals for inclusion in the new European Disability Strategy, contains some fairly positive proposals, both in terms of the proposals to include disabled people in active, civic and social life, and of the idea to include a gender perspective in the new European Disability Strategy. However, there is also a need to develop EU and national policies and strategies in the area of disability. These must not just stop at a vague European Commission action plan without fixed timetables, without adequate financial support, without practical measures, and without coherent policies that facilitate the social inclusion of disabled people, that properly support their organisations, and that take account of the enormous difficulties faced by many of the families of disabled people.

The report does not, therefore, go into depth about the real consequences that austerity programmes and neoliberal policies have for the most basic rights of disabled people, which threatens access to key public services like health care, education, transportation and energy. We also welcome the rejection of the draft amendment tabled by the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), which distorted the positive elements of the report.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) European institutions and the European Parliament itself have focused a number of times in the past on the issue of people with disability, and have always tried to promote laws ensuring protection of the rights of disabled people. I firmly believe that preference should currently be given to long-term investments benefiting the disabled, rather than short-term, one-off expenditure. I personally believe it is essential to provide the disabled (regardless of their degree of disability) with help according to their individual needs. At the same time, it is essential to try and create the conditions for there to be as little need as possible for individually-tailored assistance in a truly barrier-free environment. Even though we talk about integration in the sense of integration into society, these people are already fully-fledged members of society. We must strive, however, for their integration through acceptance.

Opportunities are equal if the same efforts lead to similar results given appropriate, specified conditions and means. It may not be entirely possible to apply some kind of unified model for all Member States as far as the possibilities for study, employment, freedom of movement or various activities are concerned, as the barriers facing disabled people vary in individual cases. One aspect, however, should be common: the provision of adequate arrangements and guarantees relating to disability, helping towards a full role within society.

  Louis Grech (S&D), in writing. – I fully support the approach of the Kósa report on mobility and inclusion of people with disabilities. People living with disabilities represent more than 16% of the European Union’s total population and are one of the most excluded and vulnerable groups in society, with a poverty rate higher than 70%. The new European Disability Strategy advocates that people with disabilities should be active participants in European society and should fully enjoy their rights.

It is regrettable that, despite all the Commission’s and the Member States’ efforts, people with disabilities continue to face barriers and have limited access to goods and services in everyday life. With this in mind, the EU and its Member States should not underestimate the magnitude of the problem – especially in the current economic situation, which compounds the negative impact on people’s lives, in particular, among marginalised groups. The EU and the Member States, taking into account the needs of people with disabilities, should purposefully promote anti-discrimination policies and active social inclusion, in order to guarantee that people with disabilities enjoy universal, effective, equal and non-discriminatory access to high-quality public services by facilitating their mobility and their access to employment, health care, education, training and other tools for independent living.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) In the European Union, there are 80 million people who suffer from a disability, which is 16% of the total population. Unfortunately, their employment rate is currently only 45%. In addition, their poverty rate is 70% above the average. I therefore voted in favour of this own-initiative report, which forms part of the 2010-2020 European strategy, one of the objectives of which is to reach an employment rate of 75% of the working population, because it calls on the Member States and the Commission to promote the inclusion of disabled people, in particular, by facilitating access to the job market. This report also highlights the need to ensure in a universal, effective and non-discriminatory way that disabled people have access to social protection, social benefits, health care and education, since being part of the working population and having financial autonomy are important factors for social integration. Finally, other measures are also put forward: the creation of a ‘European Disability Board’ in order to assess progress of the European strategy, the adoption by the Member States of sign language as an official language, the adoption of a European mobility card so as to reduce the obstacles to freedom of movement (to study, work, travel, etc.).

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. – This report contains a great number of important points. With the Europe 2020 strategy targeting a 75% employment rate amongst Europe’s citizens aged 20-64, it is clear that increased employment amongst those with disabilities is essential. Increasing mobility and inclusion of people with disabilities involves fundamental human rights issues – and is a requirement for invigorating Europe’s economic wellbeing.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed this document because over 80 million people, or around 16% of the European Union’s total population, are living with disabilities – including people with mental health problems, above all, those suffering from autism – and their rate of unemployment is twice as high as that of people without disabilities. People with disabilities constitute a vulnerable group, among whom the rate of poverty is 70% higher than average. The rate of employment for people with disabilities is only around 45%, and we know very well that high-quality jobs ensure economic independence and foster personal achievement. As is known, unemployment increases the risk of poverty and social exclusion because at least a quarter of the population suffers from mental health problems at least once during their lifetime, and for 10%, these can turn into chronic mental health problems. We should underline the need for active and targeted policies to combat this persistent situation. The higher risk of poverty experienced is often the result of limited access not only to employment and training but also to health care and appropriate treatment. The Europe 2020 strategy target of achieving a 75% rate of employment among people of working age between 20 and 64 cannot possibly be achieved unless this includes people with disabilities.

  Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) In accordance with the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy, we are making efforts to increase employment among people with disabilities and people with partial work capacity. In order to achieve this, it is essential to adopt specific measures and make long-term investments. We must increase the share of disabled people in public life, guaranteeing them not just the right to vote, but also the right to stand in elections and to hold office. We must guarantee them mobility and thus freedom and ease of movement within the EU, and we must facilitate access to services adapted to the degree of their disability, such as web pages for the blind, as well as guarantee appropriate access to education and eliminate the increased risk of living in poverty. To achieve these objectives, it is also essential to improve the system of communication and exchange of data between Member States, because according to consultations carried out by the European Commission, we still have too little information about the disabled people who live in the European Union.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Around 80 million people are living with disabilities in the European Union, about 16% of the total population. These figures must therefore make us consider the importance of a policy to benefit them, concerning the work-related and, hence, the social aspects which affect all areas of their lives. The report by Mr Kósa, which I supported, commendably focuses on the problem of the need for disabled people to find work, with particular reference to the EU 2020 strategy.

Considering that the employment rate of disabled people is only 45% and that, at a time of crisis like the one we are currently experiencing, unemployment among people with disabilities is around twice that of people without disabilities, it seems clear that work policy processes to increase employment among disabled people need to be put in place. Employment is, in fact, the starting point for investing in people with disabilities in order to improve the road to social cohesion and personal relationships. As Mr Kósa observed in his text, it is not a matter of equal opportunities, but of specific measures to encourage the integration of people with disabilities, first and foremost in employment.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) People with disabilities are a vulnerable group whose poverty rate is 70% above the average. This increased exposure to the risk of poverty is very often the result of limited access to employment, vocational training and health care. This is precisely why it is important that more people with disabilities and workers suffering from disabling diseases have a job.

In light of this, Member States should be encouraged to introduce specific employment quotas or measures to adapt jobs to the needs of people with disabilities.

The European Parliament and European Commission could start to employ people with disabilities, thereby setting an example to Member States as well.

  Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE), in writing. – (PL) I am in favour of the new efficient approach to the issue of people with disabilities as proposed by the Member States. In my opinion, we should counter all forms of discrimination against people with disabilities and we should aim to improve not only their day-to-day life situation, but also their work circumstances. We should aim to introduce a uniform law concerning people with disabilities across the entire European Union. I would like to express my support for the idea of creating a European Disability Board, which was one of the reasons why I voted in favour of Mr Kósa’s report on mobility and inclusion of people with disabilities.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this resolution, which points out that ‘the 80 million people with disabilities have a greater chance of falling into poverty (according to the OECD, roughly every fourth person with disabilities lives in poverty)’, and adds that: ‘The threat of poverty is, at the same time, a stigma, and disability benefits and entitlements must be guaranteed to those in need’.

  Clemente Mastella (PPE), in writing. – (IT) With this report we want to encourage the adoption of a series of specific measures with the aim of achieving a sustainable society, based on an approach founded on fundamental human rights. Therefore, we invite all the Member States not only to sign and ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of the Disabled and its additional protocols, but also to develop national policies and strategies on disabilities in harmony with the European Commission’s European Disability Strategy (EDS) and the EU 2020 strategy.

We agree with the rapporteur when he considers it important to show that the mobility of people with disabilities – including access to communications as a means of mobilising ideas and self-expression – and social inclusion are not two separate things, nor two mutually-reinforcing factors, but two fully-fledged foundations of a human rights-based approach in the field of improving equal opportunities for people with disabilities in all the European Union Member States.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for the report on the mobility and integration of people with disabilities, which addresses a problem that is often overlooked. While 80 million Europeans suffer from a disability, few measures succeed in making them participate fully in our societies. This is about improving disabled people’s access to goods and services so that they are not faced with additional barriers. Access to new technology, for instance, could be enhanced, so that people affected by a disability find it easier to use. The report calls on the Member States to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. It advocates establishing a European Disability Board. It calls for improved design of urban space and of transport, greater consideration in education, and generally in the policies relating to the specific needs of those with disabilities. It emphasises how important it is for disabled people to access employment as well as the importance of the fight against poverty, which hits this section of the population particularly hard. This text was much needed and reminds us that equal treatment must apply to all, and that disabled people must not be left out.

  Iosif Matula (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The provision of access to jobs, the attitude of employers and the specific or related legislation in some EU countries discourage employing people with disabilities, while little attention is paid to programmes for preventing the occurrence of disability in newborn babies or preventing people from becoming disabled during their life by identifying the causes and eliminating them or reducing their impact. Given these facts, I think that it is vital to transfer good practices between EU Member States and to step up cooperation at EU level through working groups. I should mention how important it is to carry out a relevant assessment of the situation of people with disabilities and to set national priorities for avoiding transferring people with disabilities from their family environment to residential centres due to poverty.

I should stress the importance of providing access in all Member States to the 112 emergency service or to other services intended to rescue people with disabilities or members of their families, including people who are deaf/deaf mute.

I must point out the importance of correlating labour market demand with the development of new schools focused on acquiring trades and establishing the period between the ages of 16 and 18 as a time of training and preparation for accessing the labour market and increasing the chance of success in holding down a job and of sustainability.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) In Europe, there is clearly still a need to put in place measures tailored to people with disabilities, also in terms of the various degrees and types of disability. I fully agree with the rapporteur’s approach to such an important topic, and therefore I voted in favour of the report. I would like to emphasise once more that joining the world of work and finding financial independence are extremely important factors for the social integration of people with disabilities.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. – The mobility and inclusion of people with disabilities, in terms of both employment and social inclusion, are still not as good as they ought to be. I voted in favour of this report, which is specifically about people with disabilities; however, I voted against the original paragraph 53 because it seeks to broaden the scope of the report.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) Any one of us could find ourselves with a disability at some point in our lives. Infrastructure of all kinds, transport, local health care, education, media, culture – it all has to be well thought out so that it is accessible to all citizens. The notions of Design for All and Universal Design must prevail in all areas.

The austerity measures currently being imposed on the European people by the European Union do not allow for the implementation of ambitious polices that the public interest, and therefore that of people with disabilities, needs. What is worse, the vulnerability felt by all as a result of these austerity measures exacerbates the situation of disabled people. This text proposes ambitious objectives, but does not offer the means to deliver them. I have abstained, as I have no wish to endorse this hypocritical text.

  Louis Michel (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Currently, people with disabilities make up roughly 15% of the European population, or between 80 and 120 million people. This just shows the huge potential of a workforce that wants to be considered part of the country’s lifeblood. This number is not likely to drop any time soon, with rising life expectancy and medical progress.

One of the five principal targets of the Europe 2020 strategy is to make the employment rate for 20 to 64 year-olds rise from 69% to over 75% by 2020. To reach this target, the integration of disabled people in the world of work is necessary. The adoption of a first European directive requiring employers to undertake ‘reasonable adjustments’ is proof that European involvement can achieve something, especially in countries where disability is not yet properly taken into account. The inclusion of people suffering from a disability also requires the recognition of sign language as an official language.

Europe must lead by example in the area of employing people with disabilities. It must help fight against the prejudices that deter business owners and it must encourage head-hunters to ‘dare’ to hire disabled people. This is a sign of openness and respect for universal values.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE), in writing. – (SK) At present, over 80 million people in the European Union, or around 16% of the EU’s total population, suffer from physical or mental disabilities. People with any kind of disability are full citizens, and therefore have the right to equal treatment and full participation in society, which has a duty to create appropriate conditions for the systematic and consistent integration of the more vulnerable citizens into social activities. The priority of EU policies must be to integrate these marginalised citizens into working and social life by creating high-quality jobs.

Financial independence not only helps to increase a sense of satisfaction and self-reliance, but also greatly reduces the risk of poverty and social exclusion that disabled people are exposed to. For the reasons mentioned, I support the use of resources from the European Structural Funds for creating a barrier-free environment, and I will be voting for the adoption of the report on mobility and inclusion of people with disabilities.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The Council has adopted conclusions on the new European Disability Strategy 2010-2020. The strategy aims to empower persons with disabilities so that they can enjoy their full rights and participate fully in society and in the European economy. It identifies eight main areas for action: accessibility, participation, equality, employment, education and training, social protection, health, and external action.

I particularly welcome the call to the Council to adopt the proposed directive on implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation. I also support the emphasis on the need to guarantee universal, effective, non-discriminatory access for persons with disabilities to social protection, social advantages, health care and education, and on the fact that integration into working life and economic independence are extremely important factors for the social integration of people with disabilities. I voted in favour.

  Claudio Morganti (EFD), in writing. – (IT) In this generally difficult situation, some sections of the population who already suffer more than others must certainly not be abandoned; in fact, they need to receive more help than usual. Disabled people, unfortunately, still have numerous difficulties accessing the labour market, which is the basis for achieving a full and independent life.

It is also necessary to encourage their mobility as much as possible. The simple example of the European mobility card is very important. It does not seem to me too difficult a project to implement, but the European Union would have to insist in order to definitively resolve the issue. Finally, I believe the explicit reference to sign language as an official EU language is very important. Let us hope that this sends a strong message to the Member States, so that they begin to move in this direction. This report touches on these and many other important issues, which is why I voted in favour.

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE), in writing. – (ET) In order to bring more persons with disabilities into employment and to promote a sustainable society, Member States should develop a corresponding disability policy and also implement it. This should begin with all Member States acceding to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and taking the established objectives seriously. In contemporary society, it is possible to employ persons with disabilities in various positions, and considering our ageing society and the rapid increase in the ranks of the disadvantaged, the employment of persons with disabilities as fully-fledged members of society is extremely important. I fully support this report and hope that equal opportunities for persons with disabilities to participate in and shape community life will not remain just words, but that concrete steps will be taken.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution because the disabled are one of the most vulnerable groups of people, to whom particular attention must be paid through targeted and active policies.

Every effort must be made to involve this social group in public life, guaranteeing high-quality jobs, protection from discrimination, independence and freedom of choice.

We must enable disabled people to choose for themselves what they want and are capable of doing, and it is society’s duty to help them achieve this.

In order to reduce the difference between ‘healthy’ and ‘disabled’ and to guarantee respect for the human rights and freedoms of people in residential institutions, there should be a control mechanism in every Member State to provide services and legal protection for victims. Furthermore, we need to promote the transition from an institutional to a community-based care model.

In order to implement the objectives set, I believe that greater funding should be allocated to organisations for people with disabilities and the development of social integration.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) The report on mobility of people with disabilities, which I voted in favour of, refocuses the debate on the targets of the EU 2020 strategy for people with disabilities. However, I disagreed with paragraph 53 and voted in favour of the amendment urging the Member States to approve the proposal for a directive against discrimination. The Member States continue to make minimal efforts in supporting this specific social group (many have not signed or ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) and, as a result of the financial crisis, numerous Member States, including Greece, have made unacceptable cutbacks in public spending in this sector.

The much higher target set for the integration of people with disabilities into the job market (from 30% today to 75% by 2020) is at risk and there is no sign of any improvement in the current ratio of one to four people with disabilities living in poverty. Clearly, the EU and the individual Member States need a new, more ambitious and obviously more generous strategy. Every developed society has an obligation to provide equal opportunities and to safeguard the right of all citizens, without exception, to enjoy the same rights.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report on mobility and inclusion of people with disabilities and the European Disability Strategy 2010-2020 because I agree with the majority of the concerns expressed by the European Parliament. It should be pointed out that financial expenditure and investment made in an attempt to establish dignified conditions for the social lives of disabled people constitute a fundamental issue of justice and human rights, as well as a long-term return investment in the wellbeing of all in a sustainable society where people can live longer and work more efficiently under better conditions. As such, I am totally opposed to unjustified cuts being made in the context of public austerity measures to services for people with disabilities, or to projects whose purpose is their social inclusion, since that would represent a failure to guarantee the basic and inalienable rights of the disabled person.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The integration of people with disabilities and recognition of their rights are crucial for the creation of a sustainable society founded on a human-rights-based approach. The Member States should therefore not only ratify the United Nations Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities, but also develop national policies and strategies on disability in order to ensure equal opportunities, focusing on factors such as increasing the employment rate, education and training systems and the movement of people without barriers. I am pleased with the motion for a resolution on a topic of primary importance in the area of human rights. I therefore feel that it is a duty as well as a necessity to vote in favour, in order to move in the direction of a human rights-based approach that will improve equal opportunities for people with disabilities.

  Rovana Plumb (S&D), in writing. – The employment level for people with disabilities and whose work capacity has changed is generally low throughout the EU, with 30-40% of them working; the situation is even worse in the poorer Member States, whilst the employment level needs to rise by approximately one per cent per year if the 75% level set out in EU 2020 is to be met. Meanwhile, 12 million jobs suitable for low qualified workers will disappear by 2020. In this respect, employers should allow people with disabilities to take up a position, if qualified, advance in it and to support them by training. The European Commission and the Member States should support the flexibility in the labour market combined with an adequate social security system by creating flexible and secure contractual arrangements and work organisations, effective active labour market policies, and reliable and responsive lifelong learning systems.

Member States should review their provision of health services for people with disabilities, such as measures relating to physical accessibility to services, training and medical staff, information provided in accessible formats, customised counselling services, including translation into various languages, and health services customised to the needs of people with disabilities.

  Tomasz Piotr Poręba (ECR), in writing. – (PL) People with disabilities represent a large percentage of society in the European Union, but they frequently encounter marginalisation, difficulties in finding work and restricted opportunities to meet their basic needs. Many of them live on the poverty line, suffer discrimination and are excluded from participating in education and society.

In the report adopted by the European Parliament today on mobility and inclusion of people with disabilities, many measures have been proposed which will contribute to the development of more specific measures intended to improve the situation in which disabled people live. We must not, however, forget two important matters: the necessity of including disabled people themselves in the process of making decisions which directly affect them and the fact that in many cases, it is actually at the level of Member States and not the level of EU institutions that solutions can be found which are best adapted to the needs of disabled people living in those Member States. However, the report which has been adopted today lays great emphasis on creating new legislation at EU level, and this legislation is also to move away from the matter of disabled people themselves and be applied to much broader social groups. Therefore, despite the many good measures which have been included in the report, I abstained from voting.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Disabled citizens are not generally viewed as ready labour, creating undeniable problems for their social inclusion. Indeed, access to a job equates to a singular route to personal achievement and to independent involvement in social life, and cannot be ignored in any strategy whose purpose is the social inclusion of disabled citizens. Although it is a section of the population whose characteristics vary greatly within itself, it shares the capacity for work and the possibility of contributing to the common good using this means. As such, there is a need for an inclusive, comprehensive strategy, which is set out in this report, for which I voted.

  Frédérique Ries (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Considering the impact of an ageing European population alone, the number of so-called ‘dependant’ people is liable to double between now and 2050, according to Eurostat forecasts. The Kósa report voted on this afternoon therefore highlights the need to improve the living conditions of people with disabilities. More than anything, this is a matter of human rights, of respect for people who are doubly disadvantaged, firstly by their disability, and secondly by the too numerous obstacles that they face on a daily basis. Disabled people, being more vulnerable, face physical difficulties (such as restricted access to goods and services, and to public transport) as well as social problems (such as minimal employment opportunities and limited access to communication tools).

The adoption of this report helps establish a number of objectives to be met by Member States in terms of equal opportunities. They include increasing disabled people’s rate of employment, mobility and participation in public life. The creation of a European mobility card for providing uniform care to people with disabilities or access to services and communication tools for the visually impaired or the hard of hearing would be a significant step forward in this regard.

  Robert Rochefort (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Eighty million European citizens are currently living with a disability – that means more than one European in six. Often the victims of discrimination, these people are severely affected by exclusion, unemployment and insecurity – only 30 to 40% of them have a job and the rate of poverty among them is 70% higher than average. This report deals with two major difficulties faced by people with disabilities: mobility on the one hand, and social inclusion on the other. Ambitious policies must be undertaken as soon as possible at European level to give them access to the labour market and real freedom of movement. Mr Kósa’s proposals on improving physical access to public places and on the creation of a European mobility card, introducing disability entitlements and specific support for parents of disabled children, are all on the right track, which I welcome. I also welcome the report’s reference to the challenges posed by an ageing population – the number of people over the age of 65 with a disability will increase over the coming years by 77%. This increase in the numbers of vulnerable people means that we must act now to find a more inclusive social model.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. It was crucial that Amendment 1 on paragraph 53 was rejected, and that the original text remains as follows:

53. Notes that the Member States should, as a priority, agree and adopt as soon as possible the proposal for a Council directive on implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation (COM(2008)0426); calls on the Commission to continue to support the overcoming of technical difficulties within the Council in order to ensure that a swift agreement is reached; notes that anti-discrimination policy plays a key role in promoting social inclusion and employment for people with disabilities;

  Joanna Senyszyn (S&D), in writing. – (PL) I supported the European Parliament’s resolution on mobility and inclusion of people with disabilities and the European Disability Strategy 2010-2020. As a member of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality, I would like to draw particular attention to the need for considering gender issues in the European Disability Strategy 2010-2020.

Nearly 80% of women with disabilities fall victim to violence. The risk of sexual violence is higher in their case due to their physical, economic, social or mental dependence on other people. In the case of domestic violence, women with disabilities remain with the perpetrator nearly twice as long as people with no disabilities. Women with disabilities suffer double discrimination on the grounds of their gender and on the grounds of their disability. Therefore, public campaigns concerning the situation of people with disabilities and, in particular, of women with disabilities, as well as activities aimed at raising awareness of their situation, are essential.

Moreover, it is important to optimise the use of structural funds in these areas and to increase funding possibilities for such actions in post-2013 programmes. I support the European Parliament’s call for the Commission to assess whether further measures taken in the context of the European Structural Funds with special regard to the Rural Development Fund help people with disabilities to be active citizens living in rural areas in Europe.

  Debora Serracchiani (S&D), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the report by Mr Kósa, which highlighted the physical and social obstacles that unfortunately still exist in many Member States and that restrict the lives of 80 million disabled people living all over Europe. To date, however, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has not yet been ratified by all the EU countries. Out of 27 Member States, 11 still have to sign, and even where ratified, implementation is still deficient precisely in accessibility to spaces and buildings.

According to the EU 2020 strategy, one of the most important objectives is to increase the rate of employment. This requires removing all the barriers that hinder the access of disabled people to the labour market and developing national policies in line with the European Commission’s European Disability Strategy, including simple access to public and private transport. Social inclusion and employment must also play a bigger part in strategies and in European funding.

Finally, I agree with the rapporteur on the need for a European mobility card for reciprocal recognition of care for people with disabilities, which would guarantee travel on any means of transport for all.

  Claudiu Ciprian Tănăsescu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this report because I think that it is imperative to increase equal opportunities for people with disabilities. This means granting these people the right to health care and education, social protection and suitable means of communication, while also ensuring that they are integrated into society and facilitating their access to suitable jobs.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union stress that disabled citizens must have access to the same goods and services as other citizens, and that existing physical or social barriers must be removed. I am voting for this report because it provides for the adoption of national policies and strategies directed at those 80 million people – in other words, some 16% of the total population of the European Union – that are in line with the European Disability Strategy and the targets of the Europe 2020 strategy. I believe that the civil and human rights of disabled people should be respected, and that it is appropriate to involve them in the consultation procedures launched by the European Commission, to encourage exchanges on the measures already adopted by the various Member States, to strengthen inter-generational solidarity amongst young people, and to facilitate free movement without barriers. The intention is to provide society with a sustainable vision based on an approach that respects human rights. Finally, I believe the new measures should be accompanied by a precise and strict timetable that enables the implementation of the aforementioned programme to be monitored, and the necessary corrective measures to be adopted wherever justified.

  Thomas Ulmer (PPE), in writing. – (DE) Congratulations to Mr Kósa, who has produced a good report. The entry into force of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is useful and necessary and will bring benefits for everyone involved. Disabled employees are reliable, hardworking and highly motivated and they love their work. This is a very positive situation. Inclusion in daily life is important. It is true that there are limits in practical terms where society can no longer guarantee inclusion, for example, when there is no funding for converting buildings. However, these cases will remain an exception. It is equally important to respect the wishes of disabled people who do not want to be included and who, for example, want to remain living in a home for the disabled or another type of institution.

  Viktor Uspaskich (ALDE), in writing. – (LT) This is a very important issue. According to Lithuania’s Union of Disabled Social Enterprises, there are approximately 270 000 people with disabilities in Lithuania, 29% of whom are people of retirement age, while six per cent are children. Only 16% of people with disabilities work. I agree with the rapporteur that one of the most important objectives of the European Disability Strategy should be to provide more employment for more than 65 million people living in Europe with disabilities. We need to involve them in general economic and social development, otherwise they will remain disadvantaged. The latest study by the International Labour Organisation shows that workers with disabilities would be able to achieve better results if their work was adapted to their competences and opportunities. We cannot discriminate against people with disabilities. The reports of most non-governmental organisations reveal that today’s education and training systems are not adapted to the needs of people with disabilities, and there continues to be a high drop-out rate among students with disabilities. In Lithuania, 52% of all schools lack specialist teachers or speech therapists. There is also a lack of social enterprises for people with disabilities who live in rural areas.

  Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. – I welcome this important report, which is Parliament’s response to the European Disability Strategy 2010-2020 and is a positive step towards a more inclusive society. I also support Parliament’s call for the Council to adopt the directive on implementing the principle of equal treatment for citizens irrespective of religion, disability, age or sexual orientation. Providing social protection, health care and education to persons with disabilities is vital in order to boost the social integration of 80 million people living with a disability in the EU. In addition to this, there is no doubt that access to the labour market for persons with disabilities is limited; only 30 to 40% are in employment. The integration into working life, and the economic independence, of persons with disabilities is extremely important for their general social integration, and is becoming even more important in this time of financial austerity.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) The objective of the report is to sign and ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, including the optional protocol. People with disabilities are exposed to an increased risk of poverty. For this reason, we have a social obligation to guarantee them the best possible care. Their existing rights must at last be implemented and all the problems of social barriers and poor access to products and services must be resolved.

Support during early childhood is particularly important in this respect. The commitment to and efforts made on behalf of people must be seen as a lasting investment in society. The support measures must be tailored to individuals and their disabilities. I have voted in favour of this report.

  Anna Záborská (PPE), in writing. – (SK) I very much regret the fact that people with disabilities have become hostages in the game played by certain groups for the wholesale promotion of so-called new human rights. A solution to their actual problems regarding integration is being postponed indefinitely, because the rapporteur’s proposal to secure the rights of people with disabilities as a matter of priority did not pass the vote. Instead of this, the original text approved in committee was adopted. This includes the requirement for a directive on equal treatment to be implemented as soon as possible. That is highly controversial, and many Member States reject it. I am surprised that the cynical opportunism of some organisations has gone so far as to suppress our natural humanity and solidarity in this case.

  Artur Zasada (PPE), in writing. – (PL) I would like to thank the rapporteur for reminding us of the challenges related to the integration of people with disabilities. Mr Kósa rightly emphasises the importance of respecting the rights of disabled people, which, as a result of many different barriers, are not properly upheld. Disabled people are more at risk of poverty, so we must endeavour to create conditions which are as helpful as possible in enabling disabled people to play an active role in life at work and in society in all Member States. In my work in the Committee on Transport and Tourism, I am reminded daily of the fact that disabled people do not know their rights.

At every railway station and airport in the European Union, disabled people have the right to receive assistance – which is specified in EU law – because of their reduced mobility. Unfortunately, most disabled travellers simply do not know this, and the staff of railway stations and airports do not inform them of the rights to which they are entitled. We should therefore promote the removal of all barriers as well as tolerance towards disabled people as we strive for a fair European society.

Report: Heide Rühle (A7-0326/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report, essentially because of its component intended to guarantee transparency and non-discrimination, and safeguard competition in the area of EU public procurement law. The Commission should also table a separate regulation for service concessions, and such legislation should, in accordance with the most recent case-law of the Court of Justice, be confined to the bare essentials. Its field of application should be defined in a manner consistent with the Services Directive, and it should be considered by Parliament alongside the revision of the public procurement directives, in order to avoid any further fragmentation of the law and to ensure consistency. In this area, legal certainty for public-private partnerships would also need to be clarified.

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) An open and regulated policy is crucial in making public procurement more transparent, non-discriminatory and competitive, and in avoiding the traps of nepotism and corruption.

I agree with the rapporteur, Ms Rühle, when she says that the award should no longer be made based on the criterion of lowest price alone. Today, with a view to compliance with many of the objectives contained in the EU 2020 strategy, quality and innovation are also important and, furthermore, are criteria offered by small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).

SMEs currently win a smaller percentage of public procurement contracts compared with larger companies because the procedures for accessing procurement contracts are too complex and costly. Therefore, I agree that there is a need for clearer rules, simplification of European law and better access to flexible instruments, not only for SMEs, but also for non-governmental organisations offering social services.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Highlighted in the Europe 2020 strategy, the European Union policy on public procurement is central to achieving the targets relating to innovation, competitiveness and the environment. The fact is, this policy needs to be modernised. The Rühle report, which I endorse, makes a number of recommendations: a clearer legal framework; developing the full potential of public procurement, for example, by putting the emphasis on the most advantageous bids in the long term (economic, social and environmental benefits) rather than on the criterion of lowest price; and allowing more flexible procedures to improve access to public procurement, particularly for SMEs.

  Sergio Berlato (PPE), in writing. – (IT) This year marks the 40th anniversary of European public procurement law. Council Directive 71/305/EEC concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts came into force in 1971. In my view, the anniversary offers an occasion for taking stock and examining where European public procurement policy has succeeded and where it has failed. On the plus side, I believe that European public procurement law has been crucial in making public procurement more transparent and in combating corruption. By contrast, a disproportionate emphasis on legal considerations has meant transaction costs and the expense incurred for external consultancy services have risen. This is a particularly problematic development in times of economic crisis when public budgets are squeezed. In addition, I would like to mention that there are many hurdles for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in accessing public contracts, particularly of a bureaucratic nature.

Therefore, I welcome a review of European public procurement law. I would like to take the opportunity of asking the Commission to consider looking at the introduction of measures to reduce transaction costs for SMEs and, in addition, of simpler, more flexible public procurement rules.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because I agree with the objectives set by the European Commission to modernise the public procurement system in the European Union. The directive currently in force was adopted relatively recently in 2004, and although, at that time, many innovations were introduced into the public procurement system previously in force, the situation has changed again in the last six years.

One of the main issues surrounding the public procurement system was always the simplification of procedures so that they could be used effectively even by buyers with limited resources, and also the regulation of the issue of service concessions at EU level, the mandatory inclusion of social criteria in procurement procedures, and transaction thresholds above which the EU directive would automatically be triggered. With this document, the European Parliament has once again reaffirmed its position that the current regulation of services concessions at EU level is not necessary, while the inclusion of social criteria in procurement procedures should always remain voluntary, but it recognises that the European Commission should draw up improved procurement manuals on this issue.

  Jan Březina (PPE), in writing. – (CS) I applaud the fact that the Commission has decided on the basis of a review to amend EU legislation on public procurement, in order to make it simpler and more flexible. The submitted Green Paper, however, also contains discrepancies. On the one hand, the scope and details of the questions give the impression that implementation of a kind of ‘micro-declaration’ on public procurement is involved, while, on the other hand, many of the questions or submitted proposals are contradictory. For example, quotas or binding targets in public procurement would conflict with the stated aim of simplifying and ensuring greater legal certainty, and would also contribute to greater bureaucracy and the creation of new legislation.

I firmly believe that the review of public procurement directives should be based on the need to slim down public procurement legislation and return it to its original essence, so that it guarantees transparency and non-discrimination, while ensuring competition. The main focus should, in my opinion, be devoted to the tendency of public bodies to rely on bureaucratic procedures in the event of legal uncertainty, which leads to risk aversion and, in contentious cases, to the awarding of contracts to the cheapest product or service rather than the most innovative or the best overall bid. This development is particularly problematic in a time of economic crisis and limited public budgets.

  Antonio Cancian (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the report presented by Ms Rühle on the modernisation of public procurement, as I think a review of the matter is appropriate, in order to bring it more up to date. It was initially necessary to establish strict standards to ensure a uniform framework within Member States, based on criteria of transparency and free competition. Now that these principles have become rooted in the Union, I share her opinion that it is appropriate to revise the rules in order to make them more flexible and modern.

Public procurement plays a significant role in the Europe 2020 strategy, which is why we must ensure that this discipline helps to guarantee efficient use of public funds. In particular, through the appropriate use of this financial instrument, support can be provided for energy efficiency, innovation and environmental protection.

I appreciate the call for the prevention and suppression of corruption, to be implemented through the use of more transparent and controlled selection procedures, in cooperation with Member States. I also share the desire to make it easier for SMEs to access the public procurement market, which would thereby also enable small and medium-sized enterprises to participate in this significant economic sector.

  Lara Comi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted for this own-initiative report drawn up by Parliament in response to the European Commission’s Green Paper. Public procurement could be a real driver for the European market in promoting jobs and developing skills and innovation. I believe it is crucial to up the stakes in the fight against the corruption and favouritism that is rife in public administration.

The existing laws must also be improved by simplifying the rules, especially through the use of information and communication technology and suitable standards. This would result in wider participation, and therefore a reduction in costs: optimum efficiency in public expenditure. I agree with the fact that the criterion of ‘lowest price’ should no longer be the determining one, and that it should be replaced by the criterion of ‘most economically advantageous tender’.

This would undoubtedly stimulate innovation and efforts to obtain the best quality and value. Furthermore, improving access for small and medium-sized enterprises to public procurement contracts is a crucial issue, because they need to be able to participate on a more equal footing, bearing in mind the hindrances they encounter as a result of their smaller size.

  Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the modernisation of the EU’s public procurement policy. Public procurement accounts for approximately 17% of the EU’s GDP and can play an important role in ensuring sustainable employment, in encouraging innovation and sustainable working conditions and, particularly for businesses, in promoting social inclusion. The public procurement legal framework must also reflect the particular nature of social services and the economic and innovative potential of SMEs and, last but not least, guarantee that the applicable principles are observed concerning competition, transparency, non-discrimination and efficiency.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) At a time when Europe is looking for solutions to exit the crisis and achieve economic growth, I regard the proposal to review the public procurement criteria as beneficial for taking into account the life-cycle costs of the relevant goods, services or works, and not only the lowest price. It has transpired that sometimes, this criterion has incurred further additional costs simply because the post-contracting services required while goods or services purchased at the lowest price are used were not taken into account.

This principle should be taken into consideration, especially in areas such as food or health, with the aim of providing access on the basis of the quality/price ratio and not only of the cheapest bid available to consumers such as hospitals, elderly care homes, schools or nurseries, so as to provide equal access to healthy food.

  Marielle De Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Public procurement accounts for approximately 17% of the European Union’s GDP. This shows the importance of good policy in this area in times of crisis. The current rules on public procurement should be amended to better support the development of small and medium-sized enterprises. Contracts should be awarded not just to the lowest bidder but also to the most innovative bidder or the one that offers the most interesting environmental or social benefits. It would also be useful to secure the inclusion in the Government Procurement Agreement of a clause allowing the EU to give preference to European producers, especially SMEs.

  Harlem Désir (S&D), in writing. – (FR) In the resolution on public procurement, the European Parliament has strengthened the Commission’s proposal towards a social Europe: the most significant step forward is that authorities should no longer opt for the lowest bid, but for the most economically advantageous tender – one which includes, for example, environmental aspects. Likewise, the issue of subcontractors is taken into account in order to prevent abuse in relation to working conditions and workers’ safety. Nevertheless, there is still progress to be made where European public procurement policy is concerned.

In particular, the Commission must impose the principle of reciprocity on its trading partners: if the Union agrees to open up its public procurement markets to third-country operators, then European companies should also have access to markets and public works in these countries outside the EU. European companies and employment in Europe must be a priority when business opportunities are looked at. The Commission must ensure that its forthcoming Public Procurement Directive serves the dual purpose of providing more quality jobs and offering quality services to users.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report on ‘modernisation of public procurement’ because it proposes a reformulation of the criteria for awarding contracts so as to encourage proposals that are more advantageous, not just in economic terms, but also in social and environmental terms, taking into account costs throughout the life cycle of the goods, services and works in question. I believe public contracts should drive the transition to a more sustainable economy and to achieving the Europe 2020 strategy’s targets.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Given that public procurement represents millions of euro every year, its economic importance is in no doubt. For this very reason, although there is a long tradition of EU legislation on such contracts, it will never be going too far to call for better, more effective laws that guarantee the total transparency of procedures; that prevent all forms of corruption or manipulation of proposals to benefit one candidate; that put a ceiling in terms of numbers and of value on the number of awards without a call for proposals or without negotiation; and that guarantee proper competition in the internal market between candidate companies, irrespective of their country of origin. It should also be stressed that Portugal now sets a good example regarding e-procurement, with all the gains that it represents in terms of simplified procedures, of cost and time efficiency and savings – both for businesses and for public authorities – and of transparency and accessibility.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report on modernisation of public procurement emerges at the time of the 40th anniversary of the entry into force of the Buildings Directive, which was the first European legislation on public procurement. While the benefits of the application of this legislation in terms of transparency and reducing the price of work done are indisputable, we cannot say that every aspect of it is positive. Indeed, transaction and external consultation costs have increased. At this time of crisis, we need clear rules and transparency in processes, qualification systems, and electronic passes that make companies’ lives easier, cut costs and constitute an incentive for modernisation. The target of 50% of public contracts being awarded electronically by 2010 failed, except in Portugal. There is no justification for companies having to submit around 20 original documents for each call for proposals. There is a need to increase efficiency through the use of e-mail and electronic models. I therefore welcome this initiative to make public procurement policy simpler, more flexible and more modern, and I hope that it will be of benefit to small and medium-sized enterprises by cutting transaction costs and enabling them to access calls for proposals that they do not currently have.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report cannot be dissociated from the specific conditions in which the European integration process is taking place, its nature, its fundamental characteristics, and its objectives. The debate on this issue in the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection – which is responsible for the subject matter – is enlightening as regards its intention: to primarily clear the way to a market worth around 17% of overall EU gross domestic product for large European companies – the public procurement market. All the rest is not enough to hide that intention, including all the rhetoric about the social and environmental principles to take into account in public procurement.

While it is true that public procurement should fully take into account these principles of maximising social wellbeing and protecting the environment – if we are talking about the use of public money, pursuit of the common good should certainly be of paramount importance – we cannot be unaware, as we stated in the debate in plenary, that the prospect of trade opening set out in this report is not the best way to ensure observance of these principles. The suggestion and challenge that we set in motion during the debate remain: to give preference to national companies in public procurement, particularly in the Member States currently facing the greatest difficulties.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) Public procurement should, across the board, include principles like maximising social wellbeing or protecting the environment, so the purchase of goods and services by the public authorities, using public funds, should effectively meet the needs of the public in each Member State and should do so whilst safeguarding respect for criteria of economic, social and environmental sustainability. However, the creation and development of a European public procurement market, under the specific conditions in which the European integration process is currently taking place, does not safeguard these objectives. At bottom, what is intended with this initiative is to clear the way towards a market worth around 17% of EU GDP for large companies. With the imbalances currently existing within the EU, and the extremely serious situation faced by the weaker economies, public procurement could be geared towards the national preference in those Member States. This would stimulate national production, the activity of small and medium-sized enterprises, and shorter supply chains that are more socially and environmentally sustainable. It would therefore constitute an important instrument for economic recovery for the growth and development that is essential, and would enable the deficits and obstacles faced today to be overcome.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The European directive on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts entered into force 40 years ago. European public procurement law has been a contributory factor in making public procurement more transparent, combating corruption, encouraging greater professionalism on the part of public contracting authorities and reducing prices, but, on the other hand, the fall in prices has come at the expense of quality and innovation, and an increase in other costs. The Commission’s effort to make public procurement law simpler and more flexible in the EU Member States by means of this revision is therefore to be welcomed. I firmly believe, however, that it should be done in such a way that tried and tested procedures are not undermined. At the same time, I believe we should try to reach a compromise over the resolution of issues such as, for example, the environmental and social challenges in the area of public procurement policy, the quality of the work performed, including appropriate wages, equality and social cohesion, all in the interests of achieving optimal conditions for citizens, businesses, employees and also taxpayers.

In terms of the general principle of public procurement, the lowest price should not be the deciding factor for awarding contracts. The bid that is economically the most advantageous from the perspective of the costs of the services or goods in question should be a more decisive factor. It is necessary to simplify public procurement law again so as to return it to its original essence – guaranteeing transparency and non-discrimination, and ensuring competition.

  Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), in writing. – (IT) My colleague’s report aims to provide an analysis of European policy on public procurement. I find that the report contains some very significant indications, such as flexibility in its procedures, and greater transparency in its implementing rules. The report calls on the Commission to take the road towards simplification. One aspect that I find very important is the encouragement of tenders which stimulate innovation. For that reason, I shall vote in favour.

  Elisabetta Gardini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) In a period of budget restrictions throughout the world, the public procurement policy must ensure a more efficient use of Member State money in order to help revive the economy.

Currently, in Europe, spending in this sector makes up a significant proportion of the budget, that is, about 17% of EU GDP, but needs further simplification to enable our companies to gain easier access to tenders.

That is why I agree with the rapporteur on the choice of criteria for awarding contracts. These relate to criteria capable of selecting the most advantageous tender in terms of both economic and social benefits, taking into account the entire production cycle for the goods or services we are seeking to guarantee, such as contracts relating to the food sector.

The new provisions, provided for in the Green Paper on public procurement, therefore need to ensure that even passive consumers, such as patients in hospitals or nursing homes, can gain access to healthy foods with the best quality-price ratio and not simply to the cheapest products available.

It is my hope, finally, that with the introduction of these new measures, public procurement may increasingly act as an engine of innovation and encouragement for companies to come up with solutions that can benefit the whole of Europe.

  Małgorzata Handzlik (PPE), in writing. – (PL) Far too often, the cheapest offers come first in public tenders. At times, the price stated is so low that it raises the suspicion that it has been lowered intentionally, and in prevailing market conditions, successful tenderers may find it difficult to fulfil their obligations. The issue of tenders based on excessively low prices is often raised in conversations with entrepreneurs from my country. They stress that price is an important factor that cannot be excluded, but that there are limits to the economic profitability of offers, in particular, when tenders are submitted which deviate significantly from the calculations carried out by the bodies responsible for the preparation of tenders and the awarding of contracts. Therefore, I agree with the principles of the resolution which state that we should be using the criterion of the most economically advantageous offer, encompassing the entire life-cycle costs of goods, services and works which are the subject of public procurement.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. – I wish to congratulate my colleague, Ms Rühle, for her excellent work on this report. I welcome her calls to make public procurement procedures simpler and more flexible as well as calls for better access to the process for SMEs. I also support replacing the ‘lowest price’ with the ‘most economically advantageous tender’.

  Filiz Hakaeva Hyusmenovа (ALDE), in writing. – (BG) Public procurement makes a considerable contribution to increasing the transparency of public expenditure and to combating corruption. However, it needs to be modernised in order to improve its effectiveness.

I supported this resolution because I share the view that the EU’s rules for conducting public procurement must be simplified to provide a greater opportunity for small and medium-sized firms to take part in bids. I think that wider use of the opportunities provided by e-government will result in reducing the duration of procedures and streamlining administrative and business expenses. Therefore, I feel that more European e-procurement initiatives are required.

I also share the view that the lowest price should not be the determining factor when selecting a supplier so that other criteria can also be focused on, such as economic, social and environmental benefits, and the entire life-cycle costs of the relevant goods and services can be taken into account. Measures also need to be taken to promote innovative proposals and ensure a higher quality of performance.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed this document because it is aimed at improving public procurement by simplifying procedures and giving small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) more opportunities. With regard to the scope of the directives, it should be made clear that the field to which they apply is that of public procurement – a concept defined, according to the most recent European Court of Justice rulings, by the existence of a direct benefit to the contracting authority. I warmly welcome the European Commission’s efforts to involve public contracting authorities more effectively in the pursuit of general social aims, but should point out that the public procurement directives themselves are the main impediment here. Given the major economic problems that public contracting authorities face, there will be little change so long as the criterion of the lowest price carries the same weight in the directives as that of the most economically advantageous tender. Change will come about only if it is stipulated that contracts are to be awarded to the most economically advantageous tender (for example, using the ‘apply or explain’ principle) and if the criteria for selecting what is most economically advantageous are made easier to implement. Simplifying the European Union’s public procurement rules and improving access to flexible procedures will help to promote sustainable and innovative procurement. There are various possibilities, including systematic market monitoring, better use of the negotiated procedure with prior announcement and additional complementary measures to improve transparency, and the systematic admission of alternative bids, with bids being considered particularly from a sustainable development standpoint.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The issue touched on by Ms Rühle’s report is significant as well as delicate for the world of business and public administration. This year, as outlined in the text, the European law on procurement turns forty, with reference, in particular, to Directive 71/305/EEC. Implementing a process of public procurement modernisation, including the computerisation of the system, is a complex procedure and requires attention to issues relating to the protection of firms, especially small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), the competition system and a level of operational transparency that will give the procedure a legal basis.

I am convinced that reconciling the various aspects of what is a sensitive area (that is, public procurement) is a mechanism that requires careful attention towards all those involved, so as to ensure that rights and obligations are guaranteed. We cannot, indeed, draw up a procurement modernisation plan simply because we are dazzled by the efficacy of words such as ‘sustainability’ and ‘computerisation’.

  Morten Løkkegaard (ALDE), in writing. – (DA) I look forward to this report serving as an input for the Commission’s work to modernise the public procurement directives. The public procurement directives are in need of modernisation in order to ensure that they focus on the core tasks, which are to ensure transparency, non-discrimination and competition on the market. However, it is important for me to emphasise the fact that more streamlined procurement rules and greater flexibility must not be at the expense of the equal treatment of the tenderers. European procurement law has made procurement procedures more transparent and it has reduced corruption and nepotism and lowered prices, so there is a great deal to be grateful for. So far, so good. On the other hand, the procurement rules have also resulted in a significant rise in transaction costs, one reason for this being that the rules are so complex. These are costs, which, unfortunately in some cases, exceed the savings which can be recovered on tenders for a particular task, and that, of course, is not the intention here.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this resolution, which, in the field of public procurement, calls on the Commission to assess the problems associated with exceptionally low bids and to propose appropriate solutions; recommends that contracting authorities provide, in the event of abnormally low bids being received, for early and sufficient information to other bidders, in order to allow them to assess whether there are grounds for initiating a review procedure; and asks for greater consistency between the EU’s common external trade policy and the practices in Member States where exceptionally low bids are accepted.

  Iosif Matula (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The aim of European public procurement legislation has mainly been to implement transparent measures for awarding public contracts by tackling irregularities, cutting red tape and simplifying the application procedures. Current practice in this area indicates the need for national criteria to be better aligned with European legislation. The new provisions may create a legislative framework conducive to increasing the access that SMEs have to public procurement by avoiding the introduction of further bureaucratic procedures. I should emphasise how important it is to establish additional criteria for awarding public contracts. The introduction of the ‘most economically advantageous’ criterion will take into account objectives providing economic and social benefits and with less of an environmental impact. Only 50% of public procurement transactions in the EU are carried out online. However, even in this area, there are many flaws in the implementation of an effective e-procurement system.

I think that a common framework is needed to establish the procedures for appealing the outcomes of tenders. In some Member States, appeals are the main obstacle to kick-starting investment. I voted for this report because I think that the future of public procurement may provide an important source for creating jobs and developing skills in the areas of research and innovation.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Modernising public procurement means increasing transparency and equality of treatment and therefore combating corruption. I agree with the rapporteur on the objectives and how to achieve them, as well as the objections to the Commission’s proposal: a review of public procurement directives should proceed from the recognition that there is now considerable experience with EU public procurement law in Europe. I vote in favour.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) This text includes a number of ecological considerations and a concern to see collective agreements complied with, which I welcome. However, it focuses on respect for the sacrosanct principle of free competition. It also commends the Green Paper that the Commission drafted last January, which advocates, among other things, public authorities lowering their requirements in order to encourage more competition. The general interest is once again being sacrificed at the altar of liberalism. I voted against.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE), in writing. – (SK) The proper functioning of the public procurement market throughout the EU is of fundamental importance for stimulating economic competition and innovation in the single market. I support the idea of supranational public procurement. Unified European public procurement rules are making a big contribution towards increasing transparency and equal treatment, but additional simplification of the rules and elimination of unnecessary bureaucracy is needed, so that small and medium-sized enterprises can also gain access. The challenge for Member States is still to transpose European rules into national legislation, and to provide sufficient professional training, as public procurement requires a high level of professionalism. Public procurement must not lead to a lowering of environmental and social standards.

I take the view that the criterion of lowest price should no longer be the determining one for the award of contracts, and that it should, in general, be replaced by the criterion of most economically advantageous tender, in terms of economic, social and environmental benefits – taking into account the entire life-cycle costs of the relevant goods, services or works. The submitted report presents the main principles by which public procurement should be governed in future, and which I am happy to support with my vote.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – This report highlights ‘environmental and social public policy challenges, as well as quality-of-work issues including adequate pay, equality, social cohesion and inclusion, while achieving optimal value for citizens, businesses, employees and taxpayers’ and, with regard to the general principles for awarding contracts, states clearly that the lowest price should no longer be the determining factor and that ‘it should, in general, be replaced by the criterion of most economically advantageous tender, in terms of economic, social and environmental benefits – taking into account the entire life-cycle costs of the relevant goods, services or works’. I therefore believe that the report is a very important document and I support it.

  Claudio Morganti (EFD), in writing. – (IT) Public procurement contracts, particularly during a period of general economic stagnation, can undoubtedly be a driver for recovery. This report proposes a clearer definition of the rules and tender procedures, as well as their simplification. Ample space is dedicated to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), so it is necessary to have laws which are as simple as possible. One proposal, in particular, is to make it easier to split larger contracts into lots, in order to allow far greater participation by SMEs in a larger number of tenders.

I would also like to emphasise the need to increase the electronic awarding of public contracts. This system would greatly reduce costs and charges, as well as saving significant amounts of time. Finally, I believe that the report was very well put together and is a move in the right direction. This is why I voted in favour.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution because public procurement must provide contracting authorities with a direct economic benefit, not the opposite. In order to achieve sustainable and modern procurement, we must provide for simpler public procurement rules and more flexible procedures.

I do not feel that it is appropriate for public procurement authorities to include environmental costs in their assessment of the most economically advantageous offer. Consequently, I welcome the proposal that the decision to use criteria which are not procurement-related must be reserved for decision-making bodies.

Attention should be drawn to the fact that the current provisions on subcontracting should be strengthened so that public authorities are informed of all details relating to the use of subcontractors before a contract is concluded. Furthermore, we must ensure that SME subcontractors are not subject to conditions worse than those applicable to the main contractor.

We should raise the level of thresholds for supply and services contracts so as to facilitate access to public procurement by not-for-profit and social-economy operators, as well as SMEs.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) The Public Procurement Directive first entered into force forty years ago (Directive 71/305/EEC). Despite its important contribution over all these years, the directive has reached its limits. It needs to be revised so that it responds to modern requirements (simplified procedures that prevent bureaucracy) and challenges (problems of corruption and legal insecurity).

In fact, in the present financial crisis in Europe, bureaucracy may well cause delays in preparing important development initiatives, while corruption and convolutedness appear to be on the increase. The debate on public procurement has thus been re-opened at the right moment in time and I therefore support it.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report on modernisation of public procurement. In fact, European legislation on public procurement is celebrating its 40th anniversary this year. I think this is an appropriate time to draw up an inventory and analyse where the successes and failures of European procurement policy have been. The new rules should be based on the original essence of the first text: the guarantee of transparency, non-discrimination and safeguarding competition.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The forty years of European law on procurement (Directive 71/305/EEC on public works contracts first entered into force on 26 July 1971) have enabled the legislator to gain considerable experience, such that it has achieved great successes, on the one hand, and failures, on the other: the lack of legal certainty that has led to contradictions and confusion, for example. I therefore regard it as essential that a review of European law on public procurement should take place in order to simplify it and make it more flexible, providing guarantees on issues such as transparency, non-discrimination and competition guarantees. I therefore welcome the following motion for a resolution, and shall vote in favour of it.

  Rovana Plumb (S&D), in writing. – The report on the modernisation of public procurement (PP) is based on the Green Paper preceding the imminent legislative proposals from the Commission on PP (due to come in December 2011), its content being relevant to the future legislative report. I voted for this report because PP could be a real driver in promoting quality jobs, wages and conditions, and equality, developing skills and training, promoting environmental policies, and providing incentives for research and innovation. I fully support the request to the Commission to encourage governments and contracting authorities to increase the use of sustainable public procurement supporting and promoting good quality employment, and providing quality services and goods in Europe. I consider there are good provisions relating to SMEs, to the fight against corruption and to e-public procurement.

  Phil Prendergast (S&D), in writing. – I welcome this report on the modernisation of public procurement rules.

European rules on tendering procedures must not undermine workers’ rights and social conditions. When public authorities purchase goods and services to meet our citizens’ various needs, we must not – for the sake of securing the cheapest price at any price – ignore the needs of the workers who provide them. The ‘cheapest tender’ principle needs to be reviewed so as to cover social and environmental criteria, taking into account the full costs of each option presented.

Decent work standards have to be upheld. Otherwise, when pursuing public interest goals, we risk undermining social conditions. Fair and equal pay and proper working conditions, which safeguard health and safety, are not incompatible with sound financial management. Tender applicants must not be allowed to evade their obligations by hiding behind a chain of subcontractors which can render them unaccountable.

We also need to consider changes to the current thresholds for supply and services contracts, so as to ensure that charities, NGOs and small local operators are not deprived of access to these markets as a result of legal and administrative burdens which are unjustified in the environments where such organisations operate, and which paralyse them, to nobody’s benefit.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Public procurement legislation is one of the areas where Union law intervention is felt most, and where it has the longest tradition, since it is celebrating the 40th anniversary of its first legislative intervention this year. This is an area where any intervention capable of Union law could have results beneficial to the economy. It benefits not just freedom of competition, but also the taxpayer in general, since it makes the central framework for processing public procurement transparent. However, the highly technical nature of this field has been increasing so-called ‘transaction costs’; in other words, the costs that applicants have to bear in a public procurement process – for example, legal advice – in order to submit an application. The future of this legislation must, therefore, involve simplification. In relation to another area, this path is also justified since it ensures a greater increase in flexibility: instead of the primacy of the best price, the best solution will win. I voted in favour because I agree with this vision.

  Robert Rochefort (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Public procurement – which accounts for 17% of GDP in the European Union – is a major instrument for bolstering economic growth, innovation, employment, environmental protection, and even the efficiency of public spending in Europe. Making sure that it works optimally is therefore crucial to the European economy. This report, which I support, sets out six priority tasks for reforming current legislation which the Commission should propose in the coming months. One such task is improving SME access to public procurement. With this in mind, Parliament proposes modernising the Tenders Electronic Daily (TED) website, supporting the division of public contracts into lots, or promoting the ‘electronic procurement passport’ – which would prove that the economic operator fulfils the conditions required under EU legislation on public contracts. I am very much in favour of this. Among the other objectives, we should also point out that of achieving the best value for money, in particular, by replacing the criterion of lowest price by the criterion of most economically advantageous tender, taking into account the entire life-cycle costs of the relevant goods.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – I voted in favour. This year marks the 40th anniversary of European public procurement law. The entry into force on 26 July 1971 of Council Directive 71/305/EEC concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts is an event seldom recalled. The Commission Green Paper on the modernisation of EU public procurement policy mentions the directive only once.

Nonetheless, the anniversary offers an occasion for taking stock and examining where European public procurement policy has succeeded and where it has failed. The EP position is that any revision of the public procurement directives should proceed from the recognition that there is now considerable experience with EU public procurement law in Europe: whereas, in the early days, strictly formalised procedures were necessary in order to bring a certain degree of professionalism to public procurement practice and to accustom the contracting authorities to the principles of transparency, non-discrimination and competition, these things are nowadays common practice. What is required today is a slimming down of public procurement law to refocus it on the core task of guaranteeing transparency and non-discrimination and safeguarding competition.

  Lucia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of this document because the European public procurement rules must be simplified in order to provide small and medium-sized enterprises with easier access to tenders. In addition, contracts should not necessarily be awarded to the lowest bidder, but also to the most innovative bid or to the one with a more advantageous environmental impact. Finally, in order to simplify the procedures for awarding a contract, a true electronic passport should be brought in, certifying compliance with Community rules by the firm participating in the tender.

  Tokia Saïfi (PPE), in writing. – (FR) This report marks a significant step ahead of the European Commission’s formal proposal due at the end of the year, and that is why I voted in favour of it. In particular, the rapporteur argues that the lowest price criterion is no longer suited to current circumstances, and I support this idea. Indeed, driving down the price of tenders with no regard for basic social or environmental standards comes at a cost, a cost that is borne by citizens and not by the company awarded the contract. This is no longer acceptable, and we must change this rule.

Likewise, we need to put a stop to commercial naivety: when they apply for non-European contracts, our companies are nearly always sidelined. On the other hand, it is easy for foreign companies to tender for, or even win, European public contracts. The Union must use all the instruments at its disposal to open up our partners’ public procurement markets on a reciprocal basis. This will enable European companies, when trying their luck abroad, to benefit from a level playing field.

  Matteo Salvini (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I should like to congratulate the rapporteur for having made such a complex subject and report accessible to everyone. I welcome the document, as it invites the Commission to simplify and safeguard the different legal practices in the various Member States, as well as the refusal to introduce new rules for tenders below European thresholds.

Furthermore, the report dedicates a lot of space to the protection of small and medium-sized enterprises in respect of their ability to access European contract tenders. Finally, I would like to underline that simplifying legislative procedures not only offers many advantages to local administrators; it also helps to eradicate the wasting of funds. I therefore invite the Commission to continue along this route towards improving legal clarity.

  Laurence J. A. J. Stassen (NI), in writing. – (NL) The Dutch Party for Freedom (PVV) voted against this motion for a resolution. The present resolution claims to want to simplify administrative and judicial procedures for public procurement, yet then adds in extra criteria instead. By stipulating which criteria governments must adhere to in public procurement, the European Parliament is playing the national governments’ role. This makes sure that the lowest price can no longer be the decisive criteria in public procurement. Instead, we are to have sustainable, environmentally friendly and carbon-neutral procurement and government contracts that promote what is known as the ‘European social model’. The PVV believes that it is up to the Member States themselves to set the criteria for public procurement, not the European Union. That is why the PVV voted against this resolution.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Commission Green Paper on the modernisation of EU public procurement policy, entitled ‘Towards a more efficient European market’, argues that public contracts should play a key role in the Europe 2020 strategy and ensure public funds are used as efficiently as possible. I am voting for this report because I believe the European public procurement market should remain open throughout the EU, contribute to Europe’s new challenges, promote competition, and stimulate business investment. I would argue that the Member States should make extra effort to increase the number of transactions through e-public procurement. I consider it important to adopt measures to prevent and combat corruption, and that certain legal concepts remain ambiguous and need to be clarified. The rules should be simplified so as to make public procurement procedures more flexible. I also believe the criterion of price should not be the most important factor in awarding contracts, with the criterion of the most economically beneficial proposal in economic, social and environmental terms being adopted. I therefore intend to ensure better use of public funds and investments with a high long-term return for new generations.

  Viktor Uspaskich (ALDE), in writing. – (LT) I agree with the rapporteur that EU rules should be simplified in order to make it easier for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to offer a price bid for a contract. SMEs are the backbone of the Lithuanian economy. These companies account for 76% of labour market employment in the business economy, which is as much as nine per cent higher than the EU average. Despite this, according to statistics from the European Commission, compared with the EU average (28% as opposed to 21%), a large proportion of Lithuania’s SMEs experience difficulties in the area of funding. In Lithuania, small enterprises receive a smaller proportion of public procurement contracts than they should if we take into account the share of the economy they represent. This is because today’s public procurement rules make tenders for contracts complicated and expensive. Much more needs to be done to establish a fair and transparent EU regulatory framework which would regulate public procurement and help SMEs obtain better access to public procurement contracts, both in the EU and third countries. I agree with my colleagues in the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe that the ‘once only’ principle should be applied, according to which authorities should not request the resubmission of proof that has already been submitted during other procedures. Cumbersome bureaucratic barriers should thus be avoided.

  Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. – The report, which I fully support, states the importance of ensuring that taxpayers’ money is used effectively to boost the economy and enhance job creation. This must be done by creating clear, simple rules to encourage public authorities as they look to boost innovation and growth. The proposals outlined in the report highlight the need to establish an EU-wide electronic procurement passport to give evidence that EU public procurement rules are complied with. This would be effective in reducing the currently costly and inefficient administrative burden linked to tendering for contracts. I also fully support the proposed changes to the criteria for tenders, which will benefit SMEs. Compared to their share in the economy, SMEs are struggling to secure public procurement contracts. A contract should be awarded to the proposal offering the most advantageous economic, social and environmental terms, rather than being based solely on the ‘lowest price’ criterion. I support this because it will undoubtedly be beneficial in terms of generating more innovative bids in line with EU 2020 strategy goals.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) Since Directive 71/305/EEC came into force, there have been a number of successful developments in the field of public procurement. However, the regulations on public procurement must be improved, in accordance with the judgments of the European Court of Justice. The low price processes that take little account of quality, innovation and sustainability represent a problem. In addition, the technical production process is of crucial importance with regard to sustainability. Access must be made easier for small and medium-sized businesses by removing existing obstacles and guaranteeing equal conditions. I have voted in favour of this report.

  Hermann Winkler (PPE), in writing. – (DE) The subject of public procurement law is a crucial one for our businesses. However, I do not believe that we need to review the EU procurement regulations again only a short time after they came into force. Ms Rühle’s report represents a good compromise. Unfortunately, the EU Commission has already decided to submit its proposal for a revision in December. Therefore, it is important for us to express our concerns during the legislative procedure that will follow. Businesses, in particular small and medium-sized enterprises, need practical rules which give them the easiest possible access to public contracts. As a result, I do not want to see EU procurement law being overburdened with regulations. We should not be making the rules unnecessarily complex and we should not be introducing large numbers of criteria that are not related to procurement. Involvement in the manufacturing process, as the EU Commission is currently planning, is totally excessive and puts too great a burden on companies.

The most cost-effective tender should win the contract, not the cheapest or the most politically correct. During the process of procuring services from self-employed engineers and architects, the threshold should be increased to EUR 1 million to correspond with the procurement threshold for building services of EUR 5 million. The formal documentation requirements must be simplified and the period of validity of the references must be increased to at least 10 years.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted for the text presented by Ms Rühle on the modernisation of public procurement, also in view of the upcoming debate on the proposal to review the so-called procurement directives. While I wholeheartedly support a general simplification of procurement rules and procedures, which would undoubtedly help to speed up the awarding process, I believe there need to be more controls on self-declaration. On the one hand, this is a useful tool for simplifying the participation of companies in tenders, but, on the other, a database of the legal documents and administrative procedures needs to be created in order to provide proof that they have the necessary requisites and combat the presentation of fake certificates or documentary proof.

Report: Traian Ungureanu (A7-0258/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report because, in order to acquire a thorough understanding of the current situation and of future developments in the labour market, the positive efforts of the European Commission towards effective application and in support of workers’ mobility need to be stepped up. To achieve this, more in-depth analysis with respect to infringement procedures targeted towards the non-compliant Member States, trends of labour mobility in terms of skills, sectors and geographical area, and the tabling of a long-term, comprehensive, multidisciplinary, mobility strategy aimed at analysing and removing all existing legal, administrative and practical barriers to free movement of workers, is required. The economic reasoning for opening the labour markets becomes as clear as ever in the current times. I should like to stress that excessive protectionism in terms of labour mobility will induce a growing separation among Member States and a mistrust that could affect the European Union’s performance as a world player and weaken its position on a competitive scale. This is the moment when the European Member States need to work and grow together.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. – I support this report, which aims to reaffirm the European commitment to reinforcing the right of free movement for workers.

Member States must facilitate the exercise of this right, implementing existing legislation fully, whilst bringing national legislation into line with the European provisions, in order to eliminate possible direct or indirect barriers, notably with regard to discriminatory behaviour based on nationality, refusal of rights for family members, and social security scheme rules, as well as other barriers that can prevent workers from moving freely in search of a job or can create disincentives to their doing so.

In an era of globalised markets, the free movement of workers can address the problem of finding a profitable fit between labour demand and supply. The Commission must strengthen its efforts in enforcing and supporting labour mobility, must conduct more in-depth analysis in relation to infringement procedures for non-compliant Member States, and must present a long-term, comprehensive, multidisciplinary mobility strategy for analysing and removing all existing legal, administrative and practical barriers to the free movement of workers. Over-protectionism in terms of labour mobility will induce a mistrust that could affect the EU’s performance as a world player. Member States need to work and grow together.

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The Union is an area of freedom and security, where freedom of movement means the freedom to move to another Member State to find work or to respond to a job offer. However, statistics show that few citizens exercise this right, and only 2.3% of EU citizens are resident in a Member State other than their own.

In the context of an economic crisis, the current rate of mobility is not sufficient to enhance the efficiency of the labour market; we therefore need to encourage worker mobility.

The most recent studies have shown that exercising the right to freedom of movement for workers has no negative effects on labour markets; therefore, Member States should facilitate this by adapting national legislation in order to remove potential direct or indirect obstacles, in particular, those relating to discriminatory treatment based on nationality.

In order to achieve the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy and to support the economy during this current crisis, concrete joint actions are needed on the part of Member States in order to strengthen mutual trust and thus support workers and markets.

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Although the right to live and work in any country in the European Union is a basic aspect of European citizenship, recognised by the Treaties, the statistics show, nevertheless, that there are still too few people who exercise this right. In times of economic crisis, professional and geographical mobility of workers can help reduce unemployment by matching labour supply with demand, provide job creation opportunities, get the economy, society and demography to adapt to structural changes, as well as promote economic growth and the EU’s competitiveness. These barriers and restrictions infringe a fundamental right of workers, make it more difficult for EU economies to recover, and can generate counterproductive effects, such as illegal work and worker exploitation.

I think that the free movement of workers needs to be encouraged because it offers a positive socio-economic model for both the European Union and Member States, marking a milestone for integration which contributes to economic growth, social cohesion, personal professional development, tackling prejudices, racism and xenophobia, thereby also counteracting the adverse impact of the economic crisis.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Mindful of the fundamental right that each and every European worker has to move freely within the European Union, I voted for the resolution presented by Mr Ungureanu. This resolution encourages the integration of workers from new members of the Union, in particular, from Bulgaria and Romania, into the European market, and denounces prejudice. We must fight discrimination against workers on the basis of their nationality: one of the cornerstones of the European project.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) The right to live and work in another country of the European Union is one of the EU’s fundamental freedoms, a basic component of EU citizenship recognised by the Treaties. However, in some EU Member States, there still remain administrative and bureaucratic barriers which prevent EU citizens from fully exercising their rights, and not enough effort is being made to combat discrimination against, and abuse of, migrant workers. I welcome the calls for Member States to simplify administrative procedures relating to the right of workers to move freely in order to avoid unjustified, unnecessary or complicated administrative procedures restricting the opportunity to exercise this right. The Commission should carry out in-depth research to identify barriers faced by European Union workers who wish to exercise their right to move freely and evaluate the Member States’ actions in this area. The Commission should also evaluate the current economic situation in the Member States with regard to the labour market and monitor the Member States so that they balance migration policies and labour aspects better, address issues of labour shortages more effectively and boost domestic production and economic growth.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The right to live and work in a different Member State is one of the Union’s fundamental freedoms, and is a basic element of Union citizenship recognised by the Treaties. In fact, there is a need for better transposition and implementation of current directives on free movement of workers, given that there remain legal, administrative and practical obstacles to the full implementation of this fundamental freedom. I therefore voted for this report, which stresses the need to promote information strategies about the rights of migrant workers, and to simplify administrative procedures relating to the free movement of workers. There is also a need for better coordination among social protection systems, in order that previously acquired social rights might be recognised. It is essential to strengthen the current legal framework regarding recognition of academic and professional qualifications. The geographic mobility of young people should be promoted through mobility programmes for the purposes of learning, and the teaching of foreign languages should be actively promoted. Finally, I would stress the importance of the European Employment Services network in promoting the mobility of workers within the European Union, by making available information on job offers, information on education and professional training opportunities, and on living and working conditions.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) We all know the figures. Mobility among Europeans is still extremely low: only 2.3% of people in the European Union reside in a Member State other than their own. However, 17% intend to work in another Member State, and almost half would consider looking for work in another Member State if they were made redundant. These figures show the discrepancy that exists between a so-called integrated single market and a European area of free movement of people and workers where barriers actually still exist. There are many reasons explaining this state of affairs: the barriers are social, linguistic, cultural, legal or even administrative in nature. The objective of enabling people in the EU to take full advantage of the free movement granted to them under the Treaties is yet to be achieved. It hinges on improving the coordination of national systems, whether this is in terms of social security and pensions or in terms of recognition of diplomas and professional qualifications. Too many people in Europe are still hampered in their plans for the future by the lack of coordination and recognition of national rules.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because I was appointed the principal rapporteur for the opinion, and I believe that the text put to the vote in the plenary session reflects the main idea I proposed – that workers’ mobility must be promoted, but that this must be done in a responsible manner. In other words, when encouraging people to move, we must offer them a guarantee that their rights as workers will not be violated and that they will not be exploited in a foreign country. We must also ensure that people leaving to work in other countries are not forced to waste the education, qualifications and work experience they have acquired and take lower qualified jobs, even if these are better paid. Finally, I called for an evaluation of the situation in countries where, particularly in recent times, the scale of emigration is very significant due to exceptional economic reasons, with many educated and highly skilled work forces leaving such countries. Such mass emigration might cost these ‘donor countries’ very dear in the future, not just in an economic, but also in a social sense. The Commission and the Member States should therefore begin to seek solutions to this problem now.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The call from the European legislative to Member States to allow Romanians and Bulgarians to have access to their labour markets by the end of 2011 is actually a call for normality. This is especially the case as the analyses clearly show that the integration of both states in 2007 has not had an adverse impact on the labour market in any of the Member States.

The official figures, including those from the European Commission, indicate that workers from Eastern Europe have not caused unemployment and have not put a strain on social protection systems. On the contrary, their arrival has led to economic growth in the destination countries, assessed at one per cent of GDP. It is becoming absolutely vital for all Member States to review their rules on the transitional periods before providing access to their labour markets.

We hope that the countries still imposing restrictions on Romanians and Bulgarians will lift them by the end of 2011, in other words, before the final deadline of 2013 stipulated in the EU Accession Treaty. These restrictions may have an adverse impact in the long term on the fundamental values and rights enshrined in the EU Treaties, such as the freedom of movement, non-discrimination, solidarity and equal rights. Europe does not have first-class or second-class citizens.

I congratulate Mr Ungureanu on his report.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted for this report because I believe that, despite the fact that the right to live and work in another EU country is one of the fundamental freedoms enshrined by the Treaties, the specific initiatives undertaken to support mobility are not yet sufficient to ensure its full implementation. A word of caution, however: mobility must be seen in a positive light and as an opportunity.

I think that exercising the right to free movement of workers is essential for reviving economic performance in the EU and for achieving the EU 2020 strategy employment objectives. European commitment to this aim needs to be further emphasised. We need to support full harmonisation between national and European law, in order to ensure the elimination of potential barriers to mobility, and greater convergence with other existing policies and strategies, in order to facilitate the movement of workers between one Member State and another.

  Jan Březina (PPE), in writing. – (CS) It should be added that the mobility of workers is not only reflected in the provisions in the area of employment policy, but is linked to measures adopted in the area of completing the internal market, coordinating social security systems, rights to pension schemes, protection of workers, education and vocational training, language requirements and tax measures, as well as measures for limiting dual taxation. I also consider it important to harmonise the impact of worker migration with existing strategies at European level, especially the EU 2020 strategy, and also with strengthening the role of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The involvement of SMEs will ensure job growth, and dynamic progress here may enable a cyclical migration of workers that will mainly entail improving skills through training, within which new skills will be acquired or existing skills expanded, and also through the maintenance of a competitive environment, leading to better end products. The current situation and the lessons from the financial crisis have brought a new set of opportunities on how to strengthen economic performance again and increase the level of employment. To this end, worker mobility is a very important benefit because it contributes to greater social and economic convergence, and brings lasting shared experience that is beneficial both to employers and employees. The objectives in the area of job creation will also be better achieved if worker mobility is fully implemented.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I believe the labour market restrictions being imposed by some Member States on Romanian and Bulgarian nationals should be lifted by the end of 2011. I believe these barriers are counterproductive and constitute discriminatory measures against European citizens. As long as there are no negative effects registered from labour mobility, there is no socio-economic justification for maintaining the barriers for entry into a new job market. Official figures, including those from the Commission, show that workers from Eastern Europe have neither caused unemployment nor put pressure on social security systems. Instead, the influx of these workers has generated economic growth in their destination countries, estimated at approximately one per cent of gross domestic product. I voted for this report, as I regret the recent legislative proposals in certain Member States aimed at weakening the rights of workers from countries that joined the EU in 2004 and 2007, and I call on the Commission to investigate whether such policies are in breach of EU law.

  Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The basic argument in this report is that the best way of addressing unemployment is to promote worker mobility. It takes the view that workers who lose their job as a result of the crisis and of the austerity policies imposed throughout the EU, and to an even greater degree in countries such as Greece, Portugal and Ireland, simply need to migrate. Despite the fact that there are currently too few jobs available at European level, the report fails to understand that promoting worker mobility at all costs conflicts with regional policy and cohesion policy. The purpose of cohesion policy is to support endogenous economic and social development in the poorer regions of Europe, so that people can stay and find work there.

The only way to address unemployment in Europe is to reverse the current policies being applied, which are the cause of mediaeval practices and flexible forms of employment and which are putting wages and pensions at risk. As this particular report has failed to properly map the true causes of unemployment and propose radical and fair ways of reducing it, I voted against today’s motion for a resolution.

  Ole Christensen (S&D), in writing. – (DA) The Danish Social Democrats in the European Parliament (Dan Jørgensen, Christel Schaldemose, Britta Thomsen and Ole Christensen) voted against a separate vote on paragraph 31. This is because we do not believe that there is any need for this paragraph. Firstly, account must always be taken of current EU legislation when the Member States draw up new draft laws. Secondly, we believe that the wording places the right to free movement above social rights. In our view, these rights should be considered of equal importance.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) European citizens and their families have the right to move and reside freely in the territory of the Member States. Living and working in another Member State is a fundamental right of any European citizen, although the figures show that few people – 2.3% – make use of it at the moment. Worker mobility is socio-economically important, for both the EU and the Member States, and also makes a positive contribution to pursuit of the employment targets set in the Europe 2020 strategy. Several obstacles to, and restrictions on, the full implementation of this fundamental freedom still remain, which violate this right and also make it difficult for the EU’s economies to recover. Moreover, they can have counterproductive effects, such as increased illegal work, the exploitation of workers and the expansion of the parallel economy.

I support the promotion of professional mobility on the basis of a comprehensive, multidisciplinary and long-term strategy prohibiting all existing legal, administrative and practical obstacles to the free movement of workers. I would stress the need to develop a consistent, efficient and transparent policy focused on the needs of the labour market and on economic trends; to step up solidarity and responsibility sharing among Member States; and to set out a clear legal system regarding legal migration.

  Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the resolution on promoting workers’ mobility within the European Union in the hope of abolishing the discriminatory barriers imposed on Romanians and Bulgarians after joining the EU. Apart from these restrictions being unfair, it has transpired that exercising the right to free movement does not have an adverse impact on the labour market. It is also concerning that gender differences in terms of workers’ mobility within the EU are detrimental to women. This is why better monitoring of this is required. A large proportion of women who go abroad to find a job work for private individuals as baby-sitters, often illegally. Consequently, they are not eligible for social security, medical care and protection against abuse from their employers. Greater attention and involvement in this matter are required. Last but not least, lifting the counter-productive restrictions within the European Union may help kick-start economic recovery and the achievement of the Europe 2020 strategy objectives.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) As the ageing process of Europe’s population continues, I think that workers’ mobility in the EU market is a beneficial process, but all current restrictions must be lifted for workers from the new Member States. To ensure that the EU meets its economic growth targets and Europe 2020 strategy objectives for creating new jobs, I think that it is beneficial to carry out regular evaluations of the professions where there is a need for staff and of the sectors facing difficulties recruiting staff. These evaluations must be correlated with European educational programmes and measures for using the experience acquired by older workers at the end of their career, so as to pass on the baton as efficiently as possible to young workers. Last but not least, there must be a correlation between the professional retraining programmes for the unemployed, so as to reduce their number and meet the labour requirements for those professions experiencing shortages.

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The principle of freedom of movement has been one of the great achievements of the European Union as a Union of states and peoples. It translates ideas of freedom of movement for workers, of establishment and of provision of services across the various Member States. These concepts strengthen notions of cooperation, solidarity and progress, so they should be further developed and constantly improved. I believe the free movement of European citizens, when motivated by labour issues, is a right which helps us as Europeans. I therefore believe policies should be devised to protect Europeans who choose to move. If legislative frameworks for labour mobility are well implemented, citizens benefit from the easier conditions they encounter, on the one hand, and the host country benefits from simplified integration with its national labour force, on the other. I voted for this own-initiative report, owing to its pertinence and the ideas that it presents.

  Proinsias De Rossa (S&D), in writing. – I support this report, which calls for the mobility of workers in an EU free of barriers, with strong integration policies and guaranteeing the respect of social and labour rights, including the right to strike, collective representation and equal pay for work of equal value. The Commission should promote labour mobility by presenting a long-term, comprehensive, multidisciplinary mobility strategy to remove all existing legal, administrative and practical barriers to the free movement of workers, and the Member States should create mechanisms of cooperation aimed at preventing the negative effects of mobility, mainly on families. The equal treatment of workers is the way to prevent social dumping. For adequate protection of labour rights, the principle of ‘equal pay for the same work in the same place’ must be applied in both national legislation and collective agreements. Labour inspection services and their coordination at EU level should be increased, not least in order to counteract both the direct and indirect discrimination and exploitation of migrant workers and false self-employment among mobile workers.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported the adoption of these measures which should allow for better implementation of European legislation on the matter. These measures for harmonisation and for combating discrimination within the Union provide a real opportunity for our people, and allow provisional barriers to be maintained when opening up markets in our territories to the citizens of new Member States. With these measures, we should regularise the current status of European workers.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this report as I think that the free movement of workers is a vital step towards achieving the single market and reinforcing a strong European identity. Even though some Member States are maintaining restrictions on providing the new Member States with access to their labour markets, labour migration has had a positive impact on the EU as a whole.

Through the amendments made to this report, we have highlighted the fact that labour mobility within the European Union is vital to economic recovery and to achieving the Europe 2020 strategy objectives. We have called on Member States maintaining the labour market restrictions on Romanian and Bulgarian citizens to lift them by the end of 2011.

Furthermore, I believe that there are no sound socio-economic arguments to support these labour market restrictions being maintained.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report as I believe certain Member States should lift the labour market restrictions that they are imposing on Romanian and Bulgarian nationals by the end of 2011. These barriers are counterproductive and represent discriminatory measures against European citizens.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Mobility is increasingly a value that needs to be taken into account in contemporary economies and, in particular, in an area in which freedom of movement is in force for people and goods, such as the European Union. Despite this fundamental freedom, there are still few Europeans that benefit from it, truly exercising their professions in Member States other than their country of origin. There are some well known obstacles to Europeans’ mobility, which urgently need to be removed. Solidarity makes the European Union and the Member States responsible for seeking to promote the mobility of workers and businesses within Europe, and for removing the obstacles that still remain. Given the crisis that the Union is currently experiencing, European workers and their families, as well as the host countries, will have much to gain if they are not overloaded with administrative requirements and are able, instead, to enjoy freedom of movement, of establishment and of the exercising of their professions.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) When the EU expanded to incorporate peoples in the east, many citizens of these countries wanted to head west in search of better living conditions, particularly higher wages. However, some Member States, fearing increased insecurity, closed their borders to these EU citizens. This own-initiative report, drafted by Mr Ungureanu, concerns the mobility of workers within the EU and is based on the principle, agreed by all the Member States, that the freedom of movement of people and goods is an unalienable right. Every EU citizen has the right to seek work in the west. There is also a need to debunk the idea that the influx of such workers is something negative, not only because they contribute to European integration, especially at a time when there is a shortage of skilled labour in certain sectors, but also because they account for a one per cent increase in gross domestic product for the host Member State. I am therefore voting for this report, which calls for an end to legislative proposals undermining the rights of EU citizens.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report proposes a range of measures to encourage the mobility of workers throughout the EU. Its perspective in doing so is not neutral, however. This movement of skilled labour is encouraged, with a view to forcing the workforces of different countries to compete with one another, leading to their devaluation and a levelling down of working conditions. It is no wonder, therefore, that along with mobility measures, the report stresses the need to strengthen the implementation of ‘flexicurity’. The report does not cover key issues such as collective bargaining and the issue of wages in the countries of origin and the host countries, neither does it properly address issues relating to the ‘brain drain’ phenomenon, which is increasing due to the profound crisis in the weaker EU economies.

Therefore, mobility cannot, as this report claims, be regarded as the most effective solution for resolving the unemployment problem. The vision underlying the entire report is that of using the EU’s 25 million unemployed to impose a further devaluation of the workforce on other workers, making the lack of job security, intermittent employment, and structural unemployment widespread.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report contains measures which not only seek to strengthen the conditions for implementing ‘flexicurity’, but also encourage and give the green light to the distribution of workers throughout Europe, while constantly advocating a position that is of greater benefit to capitalism than to the workers, who are placed in competition with one another. Generally speaking, what we are therefore seeing here is social dumping and other negative consequences of these unwanted migrations. Despite some positive measures which, in general, are nothing more than mere palliatives, the report does not once consider the problem of unemployment and migration as a result of the neoliberal system and the policies which have been followed, nor the issue of collective bargaining and wages in the host countries. Instead, it deems the mobility of workers to be the most effective solution for solving the unemployment problem.

The old policies are justified and made viable under the influence of the Europe 2020 strategy and its instruments, with well known consequences: labour flexibility and deregulation, and the priority given to deepening the internal market through the liberalisation and privatisation of even more economic sectors. The approximately 25 million unemployed are being used to impose a further devaluation of the workforce on other workers, making the lack of job security, intermittent employment, and structural unemployment widespread, and this report seeks to go further down that wrong track.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) Labour migration within the EU has long been perceived as a potential problem in terms of shortages of labour supply, and as having a negative effect on collective bargaining and wages within host countries. The free movement of persons is enshrined in the Treaty in order to strengthen a European identity and as a guarantee for the completion of the single market. Member States have the right, however, to retain barriers for a transitional period, in relation to access to the labour market for the new EU Member States. However, concerns from the past related mainly to the fear of a large influx of immigrants, job losses in respect of host country nationals or pay erosion have not come to fruition. On the contrary, there is an evident and clear added value to the benefit of the entire EU. No jobs have remained unfilled, productivity in the Member States has not fallen, and the income of workers who have chosen to provide their services in another Member State has risen.

I therefore firmly consider it very important to encourage worker mobility, and to remove all remaining legal, administrative and practical obstacles to the free movement of workers. Attention should be focused as a matter of priority on creating cooperation mechanisms aimed at preventing the negative impacts of mobility, protecting families with children in particular. Today, as we confront the consequences of the economic and financial crisis, it is more necessary than ever for Member States to support each other, and to grow and progress together.

  Mathieu Grosch (PPE), in writing. – (DE) The mobility of workers is one of the pillars of European policy and it is important that administrative obstacles, in particular, are removed. Increased mobility should also lead to the recognition of qualifications and especially to the gradual harmonisation of social and wage conditions. As this latter aim has still not been achieved, we must ensure that mobility is not transformed into its opposite, in other words, social dumping, where low wage countries are used to undermine existing social and collective agreements.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I supported this report which calls on the European Commission to find ways to make workers’ mobility and equal rights a reality throughout the European Union. The main point in this text is our final demand to end the transitional arrangements, introduced by some Member States, imposing labour market restrictions in respect of some European citizens. France, as well as others, therefore needs to lift these restrictions on Bulgarian and Romanian nationals as soon as possible. This would be a great step forward, among others, for the social inclusion of the Roma. I would also point out the inclusion of the ‘equal pay for equal work’ principle which combats social dumping and fights direct or indirect discrimination against migrant workers.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. – The right to workers’ mobility is one of the fundamental freedoms of the EU. The economic, social and cultural benefits of this freedom are felt across the EU and this report rightly calls for the ending of various restrictions to this right.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed this document because living and working in a different Member State is one of the European Union’s fundamental freedoms, irrespective of a person’s ethnic origin, a basic component of Union citizenship and recognised by the Treaties, yet statistics show that still too few people take advantage of this right despite the specific initiatives taken to support workers’ mobility. The free movement of workers represents a positive socio-economic example for both the EU and the Member States because it is a milestone for EU integration, economic development, social cohesion, self-improvement at a professional level, combating prejudices, racism and xenophobia, and can help counteract the negative effects of the economic crisis and better prepare us to address the challenges of global change, by engaging all decision-making stakeholders and civil society in dialogue. The Commission must continue to promote labour mobility and present a long-term, comprehensive, multidisciplinary mobility strategy to eliminate all existing legal, administrative and practical barriers to the free movement of workers. There needs to be a consistent, efficient and transparent policy focused on the requirements of the labour market and economic trends. It should be noted that mobility should remain voluntary and that the negative side effects of increased mobility, leading to brain drain and youth drain, as well as the negative impact on family life and children when one or both parents are working abroad, should be better mitigated at EU level.

  Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) The free movement of workers within the European Union has always been a very special subject. As a fundamental requirement for achieving a single market in Europe, the unrestricted movement of workers threatened to destabilise the economy of more than one Member State. For this reason, some Member States introduced transitional periods before opening their labour markets to workers from new Member States. It turned out, however, that open migration ultimately had a positive impact on the Union’s economic results. It is, of course, true that measures are needed which regulate and monitor the flow of workers in EU Member States and the fact that they start work. However, it is necessary to move towards the removal of all barriers which make it difficult for Europeans to take up work in their home continent.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) At this particular historical moment, marked by an overall strength which forces us to rethink the labour market model, I find Mr Ungureanu’s proposal relevant and determined to resolve crucial issues regarding the role played by mobility of workers within the EU. I therefore voted in favour. Worker mobility must be encouraged in two ways: firstly, by working for the removal of bureaucratic barriers that limit a correct approach to the free market, and secondly, by encouraging the workers of Member States at a cultural and social level and properly informing them of the opportunities provided by worker mobility.

Among the proposals in the report, there is one on the recognition of diplomas and qualifications acquired in the worker’s home country. Streamlining a step in the bureaucratic process, which is often an obstacle to worker mobility and therefore to a process of economic and social growth, is an outcome that must be supported by similar initiatives for the future on the part of Europe, both politically and institutionally.

  Bogusław Liberadzki (S&D), in writing. – (PL) I endorsed the European Parliament resolution on promoting workers’ mobility within the European Union. I think this initiative will improve the legal situation of workers in the Member States of the Union. The free movement of workers is a strategy being pursued as part of the single market, which is why support for further initiatives in this area is so important.

In transitional periods, Member States were granted the right to apply temporary restrictions on opening their labour markets to the new Member States. This was because Member States were afraid of an influx of immigrants from the poorer Member States, the loss of work by citizens of the receiving countries and a reduction in the level of earnings brought about by the influx of cheaper labour. However, none of these kinds of danger have yet materialised. Therefore, I think our objective should be to support a policy of developing the movement of workers. It is necessary to strengthen the law affecting workers throughout the European Union.

I also think it is necessary to adapt legislation within Member States to ensure that it does not hinder the employment of workers from other Member States. It is essential to monitor and support employment policy at national level. Issues such as discrimination, granting social rights or the rights granted to family members are very important matters which require support and also cooperation at national and European level.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) We are familiar with the studies highlighting the positive impact of the mobility of workers from the new Member States on the overall GDP, the moderate impact on per capita GDP and the minor impact of labour mobility after enlargement on local workers’ wages.

I supported this resolution drafted by my colleague, Traian Ungureanu, because the reasons for the restrictions introduced by some Member States cannot be economic, as Romanians are sought after in highly skilled professions. By this I mean engineers, doctors, teachers and IT specialists. The latest statistics highlight new trends showing mobility among the highly skilled, a situation which is also becoming more prevalent against the background of the economic crisis.

Given these factors, I hope that the European Commission will encourage Member States by the end of this year to lift the barriers imposed on Romanian and Bulgarian workers accessing the labour market.

  Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE), in writing. – (PL) As we know, the movement of workers within the European Union is anchored in the European Treaties. Member States have been granted the right to maintain provisional barriers for transitional periods with respect to employment policy; however, in my opinion, labour migration has a positive effect on the European Union as a whole, because it stimulates the economy, which quickly responds to needs and new challenges. Furthermore, the free movement of workers is the right of European citizens, and governmental, local and regional authorities should implement the principles of promoting workers’ mobility on a large scale. I therefore voted in favour of the report by Traian Ungureanu on promoting workers’ mobility.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report. The issue of labour migration within the EU has long been perceived as a potential problem for disbalances at national level in terms of shortages of labour supply, as well as affecting collective bargaining and wages within host countries. Although the notion of ‘free movement of workers’ has been present in the Treaties as a guarantee for the completion of the single market, and for the strengthening of a true European identity, Member States have been granted the right to maintain provisional barriers for transitional periods in terms of opening the labour market for new Member States. Historically, fears have always been focused on two main aspects: numerous inflows of immigrants from poorer countries coming into the more prosperous ones and losses of jobs for the nationals of the host countries or, in a better scenario, a drop in the level of salaries. However, recent studies have shown that these fears have never been justified and that, on the contrary, labour migration has had a beneficial effect for the EU as a whole

  Clemente Mastella (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The issue of labour migration within the EU has long been perceived as a potential problem for imbalances at national level in terms of shortages of labour supply. However, labour migration has registered a beneficial effect for the EU as a whole, often having the merit of restoring the balance between labour demand and supply.

The notion of ‘free movement of workers’ has been present in the Treaties as a guarantee for the completion of the single market, and for the strengthening of a true European identity, but Member States have been granted the right to maintain provisional barriers for transitional periods with regard to opening the labour market for new Member States. Free movement of workers is a right that citizens have, and by exercising this right, there are no negative effects registered on the labour markets.

The Member States, together with their local and regional authorities, therefore play a crucial role. They need to work together to assure the elimination of possible direct or indirect barriers, especially the ones related to discriminatory behaviour based on nationality, refusal to grant rights to family members, social security schemes and other barriers that can prevent or provide disincentives for workers to move freely in search of a job.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for the report on promoting workers’ mobility within the European Union. The mobility of our citizens enables day-to-day exchange and construction of Europe. Workers’ mobility is particularly key as it balances out supply and demand in the labour markets by filling in any gaps in the workforce. It therefore helps enhance market efficiency. There are still many barriers on the path to mobility. We need to knock them down. The report calls for a lifting of restrictions that prevent some European citizens from working in another Member State. Another pillar of the report is the call for greater recognition of diplomas so that everyone can put their training to good avail wherever they are in Europe. To facilitate mobility, social security systems and pension schemes need to be coordinated so that workers’ rights are easily transferable. The principle of non-discrimination is also clearly upheld. Lastly, information about the various opportunities for mobility that exist and related rights must be made more accessible.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I shall vote in favour of the report on encouraging worker mobility within the European Union. Freedom of movement for workers is one of the greatest achievements of the European Union. I agree with the rapporteur that this right must not have any negative effects on the labour market.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. – Paragraph 31 of the motion for a resolution calls for an examination of Member States’ legislation in relation to social security, the care system and taxation. It is important that such legislation should remain within the remit of the Member States. Taxation is, and should remain, a Member State competence. For this reason, I did not support paragraph 31.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) This report reduces European workers’ status to that of an internal market adjustment variable. It only just concedes that mobility should remain voluntary. It also advocates the liberalisation of the regulated professions. I abstained because it enshrines the right of all European citizens and members of their families to work in another Member State. Citizens are not commodities. The right to free movement must not end up forcing people to become nomads for the sake of their work.

  Louis Michel (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The free movement of people and workers has become one of the symbols of European integration, and Europeans view it as the most positive outcome of this integration. However, too few people take advantage of this right. Despite the initiatives taken to support workers’ mobility, there are still too many social, linguistic, cultural, legal and administrative barriers. The Member States must play a crucial role in encouraging people to exercise this right. Consequently, there is a need for greater cooperation so as to eliminate the barriers preventing workers from moving freely in search of a job.

SMEs are one of the primary sources for job creation and can act as a trigger for economic recovery and development. They therefore need to be supported and involved in the process. Improved mobility allows for experiences to be shared, which is beneficial for employers and employees alike, and the job creation target will be more easily achieved if labour mobility is fully implemented. Priority must also be given to investing in education and vocational training, as well as to exchanges of professional experience.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE), in writing. – (SK) The free movement of workers is one of the fundamental principles of the EU. Its aim is to enable Member State citizens to pursue their professions or engage in business freely in any EU Member State they decide on, with no barriers or restrictions whatsoever. In contrast to current misguided impressions, worker mobility does not harm national labour markets in terms of pay erosion or higher unemployment among the local workforce. On the contrary, mobility has a positive impact on productivity growth, which is hugely important in a period of economic crisis. Worker mobility also creates relatively little direct competition with local workers, since it involves jobs in sectors where local workers are either not qualified for the work in question, or do not want to do it. Worker mobility is an extremely important topic for the future, and it is necessary to create a common policy aimed at ensuring support for the effective management of mobility, with the aim of gradually increasing employment, and I therefore fully support this motion.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – Since our group fights for the mobility of workers in an EU free of barriers, with strong integration policies and guaranteeing the observance of social and labour rights, including the right to strike, collective representation and equal pay for work of equal value, I voted in favour of this report.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) It would be preferable for the problems that are still outstanding with regard to the coordination of the systems, such as supplementary pension rights, double taxation and so on, to be eradicated. However, in the interests of democratic development in particular, it remains open to question whether the measures to promote worker mobility, which also go hand in hand with the loosening of family ties, are sensible at all if we look at the bigger picture. In the process of accepting new Member States with low wage levels, transitional periods for the labour market were agreed. Ultimately, a large flow of immigrants from poorer countries into more prosperous regions goes hand in hand with falling wages and job losses.

When a study reaches the conclusion that, on account of a convergence of labour demand and supply, immigration from low wage countries has no negative effects, but is actually beneficial, I have to ask myself whether this study was only carried out for the labour areas where there has already been massive pressure on prices for a long time on account of (illegal) immigration. The extent to which this study included ostensible self-employment and ‘mac-jobs’, which are only recent phenomena, is also open to question. I voted against the report on account of the labour market problem.

  Claudio Morganti (EFD), in writing. – (IT) The issue of the mobility of workers within the EU is undoubtedly an important one. The report underlines the fact that little has been done to provide incentives for this practice which essentially, according to the rapporteur, benefits all. I would like to disagree on this point, because it is not true that complete freedom of movement only has positive results. In a period of major growth, it may be that inflows of workers compensate for gaps in production, but this is now a situation that belongs in the past. The present is made up of enormous difficulties for everyone, and it will certainly not be greater mobility that solves the problems; in fact, it could exacerbate them.

The arrival of foreign workers en masse in areas where there are problems could, for example, cause numerous problems, perhaps also leading to cases of racism and xenophobia. History has taught us this: if there is widespread prosperity, then there may be mobility, but otherwise it is better for everyone to stay in their own country. At this point in time, I do not believe that the conditions are in place for full European mobility, and therefore I decided to vote against the report.

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE), in writing. – (ET) I consider it regrettable that in the conditions of the present economic crisis, the free movement of labour has not been sufficiently implemented, while barriers still exist to participation in the European labour market for the citizens of several Member States that acceded to the EU in 2004 and 2007. Recent experience has demonstrated a solely positive influence on the European economy, since Member States with ageing populations need new labour, and people living in countries with high unemployment need work. In other words, demand and supply are essentially in equilibrium, and we should not establish barriers to this, because to do so would violate the fundamental principles of the European Union. Of course, the arrival of a large number of immigrants can create problems with integration, especially in smaller societies, but free language instruction and the provision of necessary information are extremely important for their solution. I support this report, which draws attention to the abovementioned problem, and I hope that our European decision makers and those of the Member States also understand that the free movement of labour is the key to success in achieving a strong European economy, and not merely an issue of integration.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution because the remaining barriers to the right of workers to move freely must be removed throughout the European Union and favourable conditions must be created for integration into a new social and cultural environment.

A uniform approach to workers must be properly implemented in all Member States, adequate protection of labour rights must be guaranteed and a programme of active labour market policies promoting mobility must be drawn up. We must also strengthen EU policy, which would help to combat direct and indirect discrimination and would eliminate legal and administrative barriers.

Attention should be drawn to the fact that, in order to create favourable conditions for worker mobility, we must ensure that this right is not abused with a view to unequal treatment, wage and social dumping.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (S&D), in writing. – The free movement of workers is a very sensitive issue. It will shape the economic and social future of the EU. The free movement of workers is a right that all Member States agreed upon, yet many Member States have introduced or reintroduced restrictions. Approximately one third of workers in the EU are in precarious job situations, and this leads to an increase in workers seeking jobs in other countries.

The Commission provided figures proving that Eastern European workers, in particular, did not hinder the economy, but, in fact, brought economic growth. There is a single market for capital and goods, but there are still limitations on the single labour market. Western companies can operate without restrictions in Eastern Europe, and do so with varying degrees of success, but Eastern European workers face restrictions in Western Europe. This is economically, politically and morally wrong. People have a right to jobs: a right that is granted by the EU.

I voted in favour of this report because it emphasises that the EU must guarantee European values, including freedom and mobility, for all. Comprehensive mobility for workers must be promoted, the rights of workers in foreign countries must be protected, and such workers must not be exploited. It is vital to reaffirm the principle of job mobility and to promote geographic mobility.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) At times of economic crisis, worker mobility is crucial to growth and this is therefore a very topical debate. Despite the fact that the EU is an area of freedom of movement of its citizens, only 2.3% of citizens have declared that they are living in a different country from their country of nationality. There are numerous reasons for this, such as language barriers, culture, emotional ties with their country and so on. Be that as it may, the Member States have important responsibilities at national, local and regional level to facilitate the exercise of the right of worker mobility by eliminating all direct and indirect obstacles.

This applies, in particular, to obstacles in the form of discrimination based on nationality, refusal of the right to family unification, social insurance systems and any other obstacles that might act as a deterrent or dissuade workers from seeking work in another Member State. The report seeks to provide specific answers to the above problems and is a step in the right direction, and I therefore voted in favour of it.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report concerns promoting workers’ mobility. I agree with the conclusions presented, in particular, with regard to the need to boost the positive efforts of the Commission towards effective implementation and support for workers’ mobility. Given the current situation, the economic rationale for opening up the markets has never been clearer. Over-protectionism in terms of labour mobility will engender a growing separation between Member States and a mistrust that could affect the EU’s performance as a global player and weaken its competitive position. I agree with the rapporteur’s statement that the time has come for the European Member States to work and grow together.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Based on the premise that the right to live and work in another EU country is one of the fundamental freedoms of the Union, there are still too few citizens who have exercised this right, despite the numerous efforts that have been undertaken to promote and support the mobility of workers. However, it should be considered that mobility of workers contributes positively towards achieving the employment targets set by the Europe 2020 strategy; additionally, at times of economic crisis, the occupational and geographical mobility of workers can help to reduce unemployment. Despite legal acts and EU programmes designed to encourage the freedom of movement for workers, I would argue that there are still obstacles to the full implementation of this freedom. I am voting in favour of the proposal.

  Rovana Plumb (S&D), in writing. – Labour migration within the EU has long been perceived as a potential problem, causing imbalances at national level in terms of shortages of labour supply and affecting collective bargaining and wages within host countries. It has, though, had a beneficial effect on the EU as a whole. According to the November 2008 Commission Communication, mobility flows have had a major positive impact on economic growth in the European Union. However, if we focus on details, we notice problems related to changing cultures, adjusting to new languages and alienation from the family, to which there are also other barriers related to enjoying the full exercise of free movement.

The Member States should improve the situation of the children left behind by their parents and help them develop normally, benefiting from education and an appropriate social life. The Member States should create mechanisms of cooperation aimed at preventing such devastating effects on families, especially on children, caused by separation from their parents and the distance between them. The Member States and the European Commission should determine the social partners and the NGOs which will be more involved in such actions aimed at improving the situation of migrants’ children.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The free movement of workers is one of the great flagship issues of EU law. The experience that the Member States have gained shows that initial fears that freedom of movement would jeopardise nationals’ access to jobs are unfounded. In fact, it has been a major factor in balancing supply and demand; in other words, it has made the common market work better. In view of this statement, that freedom of movement offers value for the single market, it is, first of all, necessary to reduce the artificial barriers it faces. Firstly, it is justifiable, a priori, to increase the information available to EU citizens about the Member State to which they wish to emigrate, and secondly, a posteriori, to ensure that the host Member State makes adequate instruments to immigrants to ensure their successful integration. I voted in favour because I agree with these ideas.

  Evelyn Regner (S&D), in writing. – (DE) The report promoting workers’ mobility includes a number of good points, such as the principle of equal pay for the same work in the same place. The equal treatment of employees on the European labour market is one of the most important principles that I support in my role as a Member of the European Parliament. People in the European Union should be able to move to wherever they want, so that they can work wherever they find a job. In the same way, it should not be possible to force people to leave their home country. This is often the downside of workers’ mobility. In Austria, where I come from, a good solution has been found for the labour market and the concept of a gradual flow of workers based on the needs of the labour market has been put into practice.

Since, alongside the many positive points, the report proposes abolishing the possibility for Member States to establish transitional periods for workers from Romania and Bulgaria, I have abstained during the vote on the resolution. Despite the relatively good position of the labour market in Austria, the Member States should have sufficient options available to them for controlling their labour markets, in particular, in the light of the financial crisis.

  Robert Rochefort (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) To live and work in any Member State of the European Union is one of the fundamental freedoms of European citizens. However, only 2.3% of them actually reside in a Member State other than the one from which they originate. On the other hand, when asked about their intentions to take advantage of this freedom in the future, 17% of Europeans respond positively. Solutions need to be provided to the problems encountered by European citizens in this area, particularly with the current economic climate as it is. That is the logic behind the report by Mr Ungureanu, which I endorse. To determine the nature and extent of these problems, the text calls on the Commission to produce a scoreboard presenting the obstacles faced by workers wanting to settle in another Member State. I think that this is an excellent idea. As for what solutions can be provided, better recognition of professional qualification in the EU is absolutely vital. I am also looking forward to the Commission’s forthcoming legislative proposal on this matter. Equally, enabling migrant workers to enjoy portable social security rights is essential in ensuring that they effectively benefit from the prerogatives they have acquired.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. I am glad that Article 21 has been kept: ‘Calls on the Commission to ensure that Member States implement Directive 2004/38/EC without any discrimination, including on grounds of sexual orientation; reminds the Commission of previous calls to ensure freedom of movement for all EU citizens and their families, regardless of their sexual orientation’.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted for this text because I believe it is crucial that citizens from other EU countries, including citizens from countries that only joined the EU in 2004, should not be discriminated against in the labour market. Any restrictions should be removed by the end of the year, as they are counterproductive and against the EU values of freedom of movement, non-discrimination, solidarity and equal rights. In this regard, the Commission should initiate infringement procedures against non-compliant governments as soon as possible.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. – (IT) The report holds that the lack of mobility of workers between Member States is an obstacle to the functioning of the internal market. It therefore presents and promotes a complex framework of migrant workers’ rights with a view to concrete implementation of the principle of free movement.

We oppose the report, as its application would result in a considerable burden on Member State budgets for costs of training, learning, language support, health care and education for migrant workers and their families. Furthermore, we believe that workers coming from countries where the cost of living is lower would create situations of unfair competition compared with workers in countries with different living standards.

For example, a building firm coming from Romania to Italy in order to find work would be happy to accept 35-40% less than local firms, thus resulting in market distortion. Free and complete movement of workers between Member States can only take place when the cost of living and working is the same throughout the European Union.

  Tokia Saïfi (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report. The proposals it contains will allow for real progress to be made on behalf of all European citizens. Forty-eight per cent of citizens would consider looking for a job in another EU country, but only two per cent have actually carried out this plan. This discrepancy shows that there are still too many obstacles of every description (excessive red tape, problems with recognition of diplomas, discrimination, lack of information, and so on), which are putting off potential applicants. The fact is, in the current economic climate, workers’ professional and geographical mobility helps to balance the supply of and demand for jobs, thus reducing unemployment. What is more, it limits wage and social dumping.

A long-term, large-scale work programme that includes European education systems (language teaching, harmonisation of diplomas, exchanges), national employment agencies and companies is a necessity. The Union must play two roles: it must act as a driving force and as a policy coordinator so that citizens can take full advantage of all the opportunities offered by freedom of movement.

  Joanna Senyszyn (S&D), in writing. – (PL) I voted in favour of the resolution on promoting worker mobility within the European Union. The mobility of workers represents an effective tool in combating unemployment, since it makes it easier to find a job. The increasing transnational geographical and occupational mobility of workers is particularly important at a time of economic crisis, which has led to increasing unemployment, particularly among young people.

Free movement of labour is one of the most important achievements of the single European market. However, despite the EU legislation and programmes aimed at its promotion, the number of Europeans using their right to take up work outside their country is still low. Only 11.3 million Europeans live outside their country. It is about four million more than 10 years ago, but still only 2.3% of the EU population. As a member of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality I wish to draw your attention to two issues: support for women and wage inequality.

It is necessary to provide relevant services to women who follow their husbands or partners to another Member State, such as courses facilitating integration into the new social and cultural environment (including language and professional or vocational training). Women in the EU earn, on average, 17.5% less than men. It is necessary to develop national policies aimed at eliminating the disparities in accordance with the directive on equal pay for women and men.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Freedom of movement for workers is one of the fundamental principles in the history of the European internal market. This principle has been gradually evolving over the last 40 years, and is today enshrined in Article 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. In its communication on reaffirming workers’ freedom of movement, the Commission refers to all nationals of the 27 Member States working in a Member State other than the one in which they were born, including the members of their families. However, some categories of worker such as posted workers, workers from third countries, unsalaried workers and volunteers, are not included. The issue of labour migration in the EU is seen as a potential source of imbalances in national labour markets, so, although it is considered a right, it is possible for Member States to maintain barriers to the free movement of workers on a temporary basis, as regards opening their labour markets to citizens of the new Member States. Although, in general, the movement of workers is positive for the whole EU, it is vital that additional measures such as adapting to new languages, recognition of diplomas, better information and more administrative simplification be adopted.

  Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. – I supported this report as it includes many important steps to promote labour mobility across the EU. MEPs have today called on the Commission to implement a long-term, comprehensive strategy which will remove all legal, administrative and practical barriers to the free movement of workers. However, I remain concerned that this report removes a Member State’s ability to put in place transitional measures that overcome potential distortions in their domestic labour market. We need to look at solutions to deal with this problem and we need further research into the effects on labour markets across the EU before we make a decision on this.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) According to studies carried out on behalf of the European Union, labour migration has always had a positive effect. As some jobs are not attractive to European citizens, labour migration has made it possible to meet the demands of the labour market.

In order for workers to take jobs in other countries, measures to harmonise social security, the protection of workers, language requirements and taxation are needed. As a result of the changing structure of the labour market, it is important to coordinate the improvement of qualifications and to speed up the process of recognising them. The report calls for a comprehensive mobility strategy to be drawn up and I agree with this.

  Anna Záborská (PPE), in writing. – (SK) Worker mobility is one of the fundamental freedoms underpinning the idea of European integration. In this sense, I support any initiative simplifying the free movement of workers in the EU for the purposes of work. I do not agree, however, with European institutions and legislation meddling in the area of family policy under the pretext of greater labour market flexibility.

The definition of the family and family policy falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Member States. It concerns me that the rapporteur for this otherwise inspiring report has decided to exceed his remit. Section 21 interferes with Member States definitions of the family, which includes sexual orientation. I cannot, on principle, agree to this attempt to prescribe to Member States indirectly what different forms of cohabitation they should consider a family or a marriage.

  Artur Zasada (PPE), in writing. – (PL) I endorsed the document with conviction. I am pleased that in the report, the rapporteur has raised many very important problems. The promotion of workers’ mobility throughout the Union is of considerable importance for its function and cohesion. The right of European Union citizens to work in any of the Member States should be a part of yet greater integration between different EU Member States. Therefore, I hope that the European Commission will carefully consider the matter of the need to simplify administrative procedures related to exercising the right to the free movement of workers and that it will also give consideration to the comment in the document which talks about promoting the streamlining of administrative practices and administrative cooperation so as to allow synergy between national authorities.

I am profoundly convinced that promoting workers’ mobility in the European Union will greatly help slow down the growth of unemployment in the Union, which at present stands at 10%, and that in the future, it will perhaps even help bring about a reduction in that figure.

  Gabriele Zimmer (GUE/NGL), in writing. – I recommended to my group to vote against this report. The report advocates promoting mobility of workers as a major strategy to overcome unemployment, which is a flawed approach: current Member States’ austerity policies contributing to persistent unemployment, promoting mobility by way of temporary emigration of workers from poorer regions to the richer ones, will not overcome unemployment. Such a strategy could instead lead to a process of workers undercutting each other in terms of wages and working conditions. Promoting labour mobility at any cost contradicts regional and cohesion policy aiming at socio-economic development in poorer European regions. The report does not have much to say on improving workers rights under existing policies on free movement of workers. The most severe problems concerning workers’ mobility are currently to be observed under the freedom to provide services and the posting of workers. On these issues, the report has nothing to say. We deplore that the report does not address areas where the real problems occur. We do support some issues addressed, such as ending the transition periods on free movement of workers for Romania and Bulgaria, the need to combat social dumping and undeclared work, and a greater role for labour inspectorates.

Report: Małgorzata Handzlik (A7-0324/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report. ‘Cluster sessions’ should continue to be used in mutual evaluation processes. However, the composition of the clusters should be debated more thoroughly with the Member States, taking into account their expectations and, in particular, their impact on the single market. The rapporteur also believes, as do I, that the process should be made more transparent. Some degree of confidentially seems to be necessary in order to foster debate between the Member States’ administrations, but regular reports should be made available to stakeholders.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The single market in services in the European Union is an ongoing process. Convinced that its effectiveness is key to generating growth and increasing competitiveness in Europe, I voted in favour of the report by Ms Handzlik. An assessment has been made to establish those areas that remain problematic for integration of the European internal market. In particular, this report advocates the setting up of fully operational Points of Single Contact under the Services Directive. These points of contact enable European service providers to do their paperwork electronically. The report also deplores the delays in the implementation of the directive in some Member States. However, it welcomes the European Commission’s initiative to conduct a mutual evaluation of the single market in services and invites it to go into more detail in this evaluation for cross-border services.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) The Services Directive was adopted in 2006 and remains a vital tool for the establishment of a fully functioning single market in services. Member States have made a significant effort towards implementation. Nevertheless, efforts should be stepped up for the full and correct implementation of the Services Directive and the setting up of fully operational Points of Single Contact. A functioning single market in services is a prerequisite for generating growth, decent employment and innovation in Europe and for maintaining Europe’s competitive role on the world stage. The mutual evaluation process in the Services Directive is an important instrument for identifying further initiatives aimed at improving the functioning of the internal market for services. I agree that the Commission should continue and step up work with Member States on an individual basis so as to achieve a complete and correct transposition and implementation of the Services Directive in all Member States and to eliminate the remaining barriers faced by business to fully reaping the benefits of the internal market.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Services Directive, adopted in 2006, remains a vital instrument for the establishment of a fully operational single market in services. The mutual evaluation process, set out in Article 39 of the Services Directive, is new. Its aim is to assess the state of the single market in services following implementation of the directive. This report urges the Commission to ensure maximum transparency when carrying out this assessment and calls on the Commission to present its findings to Parliament as soon as they are available. It calls on the Commission to raise awareness among the Member States, so as to ensure the complete and correct transposition and implementation of the Services Directive at national level. Finally, it calls on the Commission to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the provision of cross-border services in the EU. I voted for this report for these reasons.

  Sergio Berlato (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The transposition of the Services Directive has been the most long and complicated transposition ever in Europe, in terms of both complexity and scope. Services in fact account for over 40% of EU GDP. The main provision of the directive concerns the setting up of Points of Single Contact throughout Europe, which, objectively, is still a long way from being complete and operational. Therefore, I would like to underline the importance of implementing fully operational Points of Single Contact in the EU, and I share the hope that the information will always be available in English too.

Furthermore, before going ahead with a review of the directive, I agree with the suggestion to conduct a quantitative study into its impact on economic growth and employment. My hope is that a review of the Services Directive will aim, first of all, to remove the legal and bureaucratic obstacles that still persist and which, in my view, are responsible for slowing down the free movement of services within the EU.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because in it, the European Parliament presents its evaluation of the functioning of the mutual evaluation process, one of the mechanisms consolidated in the Services Directive adopted in 2006. This is a novel instrument used for the first time in EU law, and its main objective is to evaluate the state of the internal market for services following implementation of this directive. Consequently, the report not only examines results but puts forward proposals on how to improve this process in the future, above all, giving Parliament an opportunity to evaluate the application of such an instrument in other policy areas. The mutual evaluation process only covered those provisions of the directive which left a certain degree of discretion to the Member States, such as certain provisions concerning the establishment of businesses and the cross-border provision of services. The European Parliament believes that the objectives of mutual evaluation are not yet defined clearly enough, leading to misunderstandings among the Member States, and that more effort is required to make the process transparent. After all, although a certain degree of confidentiality is an important condition for creating mutual trust among Members States, the report proposes ensuring that stakeholders receive regular feedback on the ongoing process.

  Jan Březina (PPE), in writing. – (CS) In view of the vagueness regarding the precise objectives of mutual evaluation in Article 39 of the Services Directive, there is confusion over mutual evaluation in the work on implementation and transposition of the Services Directive. It is therefore necessary to clarify that mutual evaluation takes place only after implementation. In my opinion, this sequence is justified, as it was during the mutual evaluation that Member States discussed the changes to their regulatory framework and the requirements maintained, abolished or amended as a result of the implementation of the Services Directive. Thanks to this, the discussions led to a better understanding of the situation in each Member State, and the remaining barriers still in place following implementation of the Services Directive. I consider this a great contribution towards the better assessment of the current state of the single market in services. However, mutual evaluation raised questions as to the transparency of the process and as to whether, or to what extent, stakeholders should be involved in a process that directly affects them. The full and correct transposition of the Services Directive remains the urgent priority, in my opinion. Bilateral meetings between the Commission and the Members States on the implementation of the directive are already taking place, and the Commission should not hesitate to take enforcement measures, where necessary.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report on the Services Directive’s mutual evaluation process as I believe that implementation of this directive is very important. Transposition of the Services Directive could bring the EU economic benefits worth EUR 140 billion, along with a 1.5% increase in gross domestic product. For this reason, and given the economic climate that Europe is currently experiencing, I believe its implementation is crucial for economic growth in the EU.

  Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The mutual evaluation process applied by the Member States for the purpose of assessing the operation of the single market is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a neutral practice, as it comes within the European Services Directive and basically takes its cue from it. Apart from its own shortcomings, such as the selection and composition of working parties solely by the European Commission, the mutual evaluation process is a basic means of applying the Services Directive, the reference point for which is the failed EU 2020 strategy and the Single Market Act.

The application of the Services Directive, also known as the Bolkestein Directive, will not bring about an increase in jobs and the development of SMEs, as it purports to do. By making even more cuts to labour and social rights, as a result of the liberalisation of the services market throughout Europe, it is strengthening the predominance of big business and, at the same time, exacerbating the impact of the crisis on European workers. That is why I voted against this particular report.

  Lara Comi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted for this report because it highlights the main aspects to be considered during the current stage of transposing the Services Directive into national legislation. The overall potential of the common market in services has not yet been fully exploited, and the correct implementation of this directive is undoubtedly a prerequisite for completion of the internal market.

Therefore, it is necessary to ensure coherence of the implementation of the different pieces of legislation of central relevance to service activities, such as, for example, the new rules for European standardisation, on which I am the rapporteur, which, among other things, will look at the subject of applying standards to the services sector. However, I would like to point out that proper transposition of the directive must not threaten the safeguarding of characteristic national business activities mainly carried out by small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).

In my opinion, the Commission should assess whether the Services Directive may have negative repercussions on SMEs in certain industries – for example, SMEs in the Italian seaside services business – and propose measures to mitigate such repercussions and to ensure that the specific characteristics of certain professional categories are borne in mind when applying the directive.

  Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of this, given the need to stimulate the mutual evaluation process of the Services Directive. The experiences and results of the mutual evaluation are useful and valuable and, therefore, the report proposes to extend its use to other policy areas. The Services Directive was adopted in 2006 and remains a vital tool for creating a fully functioning single market in services. Member States have made significant efforts towards implementing it. Nevertheless, efforts should be stepped up with the aim of transposing the Services Directive fully and correctly and of setting up fully operational Points of Single Contact.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report by Ms Handzlik which sets out the mutual evaluation process of the Services Directive and pushes for better enforcement of European rules adopted in recent years on the matter. A better implementation of these rules would enable the European economy and the economies of our territories to take advantage of the benefits of the single market in services.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report as I believe that the mutual evaluation process of the Services Directive is essential for clarifying the ambiguous situations still prevalent in the provision of services at both national and cross-border level. I would like to highlight the spirit of cooperation and mutual trust which has prevailed during the ‘cluster discussions’, which were arranged in groups of countries, enabling better mutual understanding between the Member States, thereby contributing to making the internal market for services work better.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) As is well known, services represent one fifth of all EU internal trade, but more than two thirds of gross domestic product (GDP) and jobs, while the activities covered by the Services Directive represent 40% of GDP and of the jobs in the EU. A single market in services is, therefore, crucial to the success of any European policy intended to boost growth, jobs and innovation, as well as to preserve European competitiveness in a global world. However, the mutual evaluation has demonstrated that the Commission needs to take further measures in order for the European economy to benefit fully from the potential of the single market in services. As such, the Commission will prioritise work with the Member States on an individual basis, so as to achieve proper and full transposition and implementation of the directive throughout the EU.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report, drafted by Ms Handzlik, concerns the mutual evaluation process for the Services Directive. The purpose of this directive, adopted in 2006, is to make the single market in services work better. Although we believe that this directive is one of the best in recent years, the fact is that two years down the line, few Member States have implemented it. Hence, the importance of this report and the need to move forward, not only with actions to improve it on the basis of the assessment, but also with its extension to other policy areas. The fact is that nine in every 10 jobs in the EU are in the services sector, so implementation of the directive should be mandatory, although it requires monitoring by the Commission and the Member States to ensure its correct implementation and respect for the freedom to provide services set out in Article 16. I welcome the adoption of this report and hope that all the Member States will implement the Services Directive, as well as creating effective Points of Single Contact, as this is a key instrument in the functioning of a single market in services.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The purpose of this report is to explain the state of play regarding the single market in services following implementation of the Services Directive, whilst bringing pressure to bear on those Member States that have not yet done so to effectively transpose the directive. As in 2006, we vehemently oppose this directive, as well as its transposition into national law. Transposition of this directive liberalising services could have serious implications for various countries, particularly those with weaker economies, such as Portugal. It constitutes bringing the market into ever more areas of social life, so threatening sectors where the Member States have traditionally played their social roles through public services. It constitutes yet another attack on aspects of civilisation we have achieved. Liberalisation will increase unemployment, poverty and social inequalities, and will only benefit major services companies and large companies, especially in the richest countries. We would argue that each country should continue to have the sovereign right to make decisions on the public services it wants, on its public property, on how it operates and organises itself, and on the rights of its workers and users. This is a fight that will continue against the attempt to transpose this directive into national law.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The purpose of this report is to assess the state of the single market in services following implementation of the Services Directive, whilst bringing pressure to bear on those Member States that have not yet done so to actually transpose the directive. We would re-emphasise that we reject this directive, and we maintain our opposition to the unacceptable pressure being brought to bear on the Member States to transpose it into national law. The transposition of this directive liberalising services could have serious implications for various countries, particularly those with weaker social situations, thus exacerbating the crisis that we are currently experiencing, not least in Portugal. Despite all the care that has been taken in the various Member States, if measures are not taken immediately to defend social and labour rights and to protect weaker sectors, including public services, we may have even more serious problems. Liberalisation could increase unemployment, poverty and social inequality in the weakest Member States, and will only benefit major services companies and big business, especially in the richest countries. Each country should continue to have the sovereign right to make decisions on what services it wants, including on its public services, on its public property, on how it operates and organises itself, and on the rights of its workers and users.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The Services Directive was adopted in 2006 and it remains a vital tool for the establishment of a fully functioning single market in services. Member States have made a significant effort towards implementation. The mutual evaluation process is set out in Article 39 of the Services Directive. It is a tool used for the first time in the EU legal instrument. Its main goal was to assess the state of the internal market for services following implementation of the directive. The article remains vague, however, as to the precise objectives of mutual evaluation. This lack of precision resulted in different expectations and perceptions of process among stakeholders but also policy makers. The common confusion is also to associate mutual evaluation with the work on the implementation and the transposition of the Services Directive. When working on mutual evaluation, Members States have been divided into six clusters of five countries each.

The overall assessment of mutual evaluation as a policy tool is positive. I take the view that the mutual evaluation process should continue to function in the form of cluster discussions. We must, however, try to increase the transparency of the process. A certain level of confidentiality is essential if we are to encourage discussions between Member State administrative bodies, and stakeholders should have access to regular reports.

  Louis Grech (S&D), in writing. – I believe that the mutual evaluation process has served as a useful assessment tool in gauging the level and quality of implementation of the Services Directive within each Member State, as well as the progress of the sector for services as a whole within the wider single market. This was a key exercise in clarifying certain ambiguous situations still prevalent in the provision of services at both national and cross-border level, such as the mutual recognition of professional qualifications, legal form and capital ownership requirements and insurance obligations imposed on cross-border service providers. Ultimately, the process has been instrumental in confirming whether or not the implementation measures adopted in each Member State are being carried out according to the spirit of the Services Directive.

This exercise is a clear example of Member States taking ownership, on the one hand, and the Commission showing leadership, on the other, in pursuit of a better Single European Market for Services. I urge the Commission to take action on the proposals it has put forward in a bid to tackle the shortcomings revealed by the mutual evaluation process and, moreover, to seriously consider applying the process to other policy areas in the future.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. – I voted against the Services Directive when it first went through this Parliament and I voted against this report, too. Public authorities across Europe have faced major problems in the implementation of this directive and some Member States have experienced difficulties in efficient services provision. This legislation requires a major impact evaluation and this report did not offer that.

  Filiz Hakaeva Hyusmenovа (ALDE), in writing. – (BG) A well-functioning single services market is an important prerequisite for the European economy’s recovery and growth.

I supported this resolution on the mutual evaluation process of the Services Directive because I think that it makes a considerable contribution to the better understanding of the problems facing Member States and the European Commission with regard to applying EU legislation. This process provided an opportunity to carry out a better assessment of the suitability of the measures adopted by each Member State and to explain any unclear aspects of the directive.

At the same time, I think we would have better results if objectives were clearer and stakeholders were more widely involved in the evaluation. I also fully concur with the view that, apart from removing administrative obstacles, using the opportunities offered by e-government and providing information in a number of languages would greatly facilitate communication between the Points of Single Contact and service providers and would stimulate the development of the single market.

I believe that the mutual evaluation process contributes to a more rapid and correct application of the provisions of the Services Directive which, in turn, is an instrument for stimulating growth in the European Union. I support the view that the possibilities of using this approach in other areas of European legislation, too, need to be examined.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) This report takes a look at the experiences of mutual evaluation within the framework of the Services Directive and gives general but conditional support to the application of this method for other policy areas. This report also reflects on the results and follow-up of mutual evaluation for the better functioning of the internal market for services. I agreed with the opinion that the mutual evaluation process in the Services Directive is an important instrument for identifying further initiatives aimed at improving the functioning of the internal market for services. The remaining regulatory barriers, such as rules on reserved activities, insurance obligations, legal form and capital ownership requirements, should be eliminated. The focus should be on unjustified or disproportionate requirements which should be abolished in order to guarantee the smooth functioning of the single market and bring the highest level of added value to the functioning of the single market in services. The Commission must therefore continue and step up work with Member States on an individual basis so as to achieve a complete and correct transposition and implementation of the Services Directive in all Member States. At the same time, the Member States must ensure that new and remaining requirements are non-discriminatory, necessary and proportionate.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Expansion and improvement of the services sector, which currently represents two-thirds of GDP and employment in the EU, is a commitment which must be followed through in view of the fact that services represent just one-fifth of total intra-EU trade. I voted for Ms Handzlik’s report, which emphasises the importance of implementing the mutual evaluation process provided for by the Services Directive adopted in 2006. The priority underlying improvement in the mutual evaluation process is the full transposition of the Services Directive in all the Member States and a correct approach to relations between the Member States as regards the issue which is the subject of the report.

Once this obstacle has been dealt with, it will be necessary to focus on implementing the mutual evaluation process, which is based on the principles of cooperation and communication. However, it is clear that this process must have clear and tangible objectives if it is to be considered a useful evaluation tool that will encourage and increase trade in services inside the EU.

  Morten Løkkegaard (ALDE), in writing. – (DA) I support the use of this mutual evaluation process provided it is used in areas where it provides added value. We need to remove the barriers for service providers posed by national legislation which cannot be justified on the basis of the provisions of the directive. That should help to improve the functioning of the internal market, which will benefit industry and the citizens in the EU. It is a method that we could also use in connection with similar directives in future so that they are implemented in a more uniform manner in the Union’s 27 Member States. However, it is not a tool that should be used every time. It is a cumbersome process, so it is only with regard to the framework directives, where there is a large degree of freedom in terms of how the individual Member States can implement the directive, that it would make sense to use the mutual evaluation process. Otherwise, it would quite simply result in too high an administrative burden for the authorities involved.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this resolution as, although I have a number of reservations, my overall assessment of the mutual evaluation as a policy tool is positive.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The report on the mutual evaluation process provided for by the Services Directive sees a functioning single market in services as a prerequisite for generating growth, employment and innovation in Europe and for maintaining Europe’s competitive role on the world stage. I agree with the rapporteur that mutual evaluation should be extended to other areas, but in a balanced way and in line with the experiences of recent years.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) This report deplores the delays in the transposition of the Services Directive and calls on the Commission and the Member States to go further with regard to its application. I welcome these failures. If the Left Front comes to power in France, it will repeal all the provisions transposing this harmful directive.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – This report examines experience with mutual evaluation in relation to the Services Directive, adopted in 2006. It was in the framework of the Services Directive that mutual evaluation was used for the first time for an EU legal instrument. The main goal was to assess the state of the internal market for services following implementation of the directive, and the evaluation focused chiefly on legal requirements for the establishment of businesses and the cross-border provision of services. The report gives general, though conditional, support for application of this method in other policy areas where appropriate. It is a very timely report and I voted in favour of it.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution because the experiences of mutual evaluation within the framework of the Services Directive should also be applied in other policy areas. It should be noted that the mutual evaluation process contributes to greater trust among the Member States and gives them the opportunity to exchange best practice.

The mutual evaluation process contributes to the improvement of the internal market for services and creates better conditions for the functioning of this market. This evaluation will help to ascertain the true state of the internal market for services following implementation of the Services Directive, the impact of this directive on economic activity and employment, and unjustified and disproportionate requirements.

It should be noted that, in order to ensure the smooth functioning of the single market, priority should be given to targeted actions which would bring the highest level of added value to the functioning of the single market in services, and there must also be a particular focus on those sectors and professions which promote the growth of the cross-border provision of services.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report which looks at the experiences of the mutual evaluation process of the Services Directive and supports, albeit conditionally, the implementation of this method in other policy areas. This report offers a reflection on the results and the outcome of the mutual evaluation in order to make the single market in services work better. The overall assessment of the mutual evaluation process as a policy tool is positive, so I agree with the extension of this procedure to other areas. However, this instrument should not proliferate without being monitored, since it could easily become counterproductive and create a source of bureaucracy, with negative consequences for the EU budget.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I agree with the importance of the Services Directive adopted in 2006 as an essential tool for setting up a fully operational single market in services and, in view of the fact that the results have shown the usefulness and importance of mutual evaluation, I agree with the idea of extending its use to other areas and voted in favour.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Services Directive introduced a mutual evaluation process aimed at monitoring the results of its implementation. The purpose of this monitoring is to detect how the directive has been implemented in the Member States, especially with regard to the realisation of relatively indeterminate concepts, and providing for a wide margin of discretion for national legislators. In this case, this analysis has been confined to certain requirements for implementing the directive. This model should be viewed positively, as it is a means of cooperation between elements from the various Member States, and enables the sharing of best practices and the joint resolution of any additional difficulties that may arise. It should be stressed, however, that the effectiveness of this instrument is, to a large extent, the result of its implementation being restricted to a limited number of elements, so as not to result in a disproportionate increase in the bureaucratic burden falling on national administrations. I therefore voted in favour.

  Evelyn Regner (S&D), in writing. – (DE) I have voted in favour of the report on the mutual evaluation process of the Services Directive because I believe that it is important for the Member States to share their experiences of the mutual evaluation. This is the only way in which we can put in place sensible follow-up measures to ensure that the internal market for services functions effectively. Shortcomings have been identified in the mutual evaluation process and these need to be rectified. In my opinion, it is important for the process to be more transparent and for interest groups to be included and kept informed. We must also highlight the fact that the evaluation should be restricted to the framework directive and should only cover the most important provisions, so that the Member States have scope for discretion and so that the administrative burden does not become too great.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – Against. The report unfortunately approves the mutual evaluation process of the Services Directive and calls for the abolition of remaining regulatory barriers.

  Matteo Salvini (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I would like to explain my strong opposition to this report, not just for the specific topic discussed in the text – the mutual evaluation tool, in relation to which, despite the delays and inconsistencies, it is possible to discern some positive aspects – but to the Commission’s attitude to such a complex issue.

Unfortunately, in fact, the report only examines a marginal part of the Services Directive that is of little importance. Meanwhile, it fails to address the serious problems that the directive is causing, such as the lack of consumer protection, the little autonomy left to local authorities, and the calling into question of small manufacturing operations on which entire families have depended for generations.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The internal market is one of the European Union’s major objectives, and its workings should therefore be constantly improved. On the basis of the results of the mutual evaluation of the Services Directive, the aim is to analyse the problems still remaining and set out the benefits that could and should arise from this directive. The main problems identified relate to the fact that certain rules have not been fully implemented, when these could have contributed to the internal market for services working better, and which have been progressively adopted over recent years. There are also problems resulting from the Member States’ ability to reserve some service activities for certain specific operators, meaning there are 8 000 regulated professions in one or more Member States. There is therefore a need to take further steps towards contributing to making better use of all the potential offered by the internal market for services. The Commission will assess the impact of the Services Directive, and it should continue to work towards effectively and correctly transposing standards into the national legislation of the Member States.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) This report analyses experiences from the mutual evaluation process under the terms of Article 39 of the Services Directive, which was adopted in 2006. The aim of the process is to investigate the status of the internal market for services following the entry into force of this directive. Discussions between the Member States have clearly highlighted their positions, the remaining obstacles and the difficulties suffered by those Member States which have not yet completed the process of implementing the directive. The central result of the evaluation is that the cross-border provision of services is still a highly complicated process. I have voted in favour.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of Ms Handzlik’s text on the transposition of the Services Directive, which has been, without doubt, the most difficult and complicated transposition process ever in Europe. The main aspect of the directive concerns setting up Points of Single Contact throughout Europe, which, objectively, is still a long way from happening, especially if the obstacles still existing in the various national legal systems are not overcome.

Report: Gunnar Hökmark (A7-0323/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report, and I welcome these steps to measure global imbalances by a set of indicative guidelines against which a set of jointly agreed indicators will be assessed, in order to reduce excessive and persistent macro-economic imbalances, and to maintain countries’ current account imbalances at sustainable levels, including ‘the external imbalance composed of trade balance and net investment income flows and transfers’. The commitment to strengthening multilateral cooperation in view of coordinated policy action by all G20 members with a view to achieving strong, sustainable and balanced growth is equally important.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. – I voted in favour of this important resolution on global economic governance and I support the position of the rapporteur that global imbalances constitute a potential threat to financial and macro-economic stability. Therefore, global economic governance has to be reformed in order to help rebalance the world economy and avoid another slump.

We, Members of the European Parliament, supported the need for a global understanding and a common approach in relation to monetary policy, international trade, sustainable public finances and flexible currencies, on the basis of economic fundamentals. The global economy should be characterised by open markets, in which high social and environmental standards are vital, and the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organisation should play a core role. Alongside the completion of the single market, the economic governance framework in the EU must be strengthened.

  Pino Arlacchi (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report because effective global economic governance would make it possible to minimise the negative effects of globalisation, such as rising inequality and the destruction of the environment. In particular, I support the idea of reconsidering the use of ‘special drawing rights’ (SDRs) as a possible replacement for the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. This measure could be a starting point in helping to stabilise the global financial system. The International Monetary Fund should explore further allocation, as well as broader use, of SDRs, in particular, for the purpose of enhancing the multilateral exchange rate system.

This text also calls on the Commission to design a comprehensive mechanism, largely based on and strongly interlinked with World Trade Organisation regulations, to prevent the use of trade as a foreign policy tool in a way contrary to internationally recognised democratic values as reflected in the Charter of the United Nations.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Global economic governance must be reformed to deal with the economic and financial crisis. My fellow Members and I have therefore voted in favour of a responsible monetary policy and greater financial regulation. We also advocate the democratisation of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the end of banking secrecy and a clear separation between banks’ deposit and speculation activities. The European Union’s role on the world stage must also be consolidated. It needs to speak with one voice, for example, by having a seat at the IMF and the World Bank.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Global imbalances constitute a potential threat to financial and macro-economic stability, and may have repercussions for other economies. Effective global economic governance will enable minimisation of negative impacts and will correct the dangerous effects of globalisation, such as increased inequality or environmental destruction. This report, for which I voted, advocates a strong, independent and more democratic International Monetary Fund (IMF), with sufficient instruments and resources to enable it to increase its attention to cross-country linkages. It calls for the legitimacy of international institutions such as the IMF and the G20 to be strengthened. It calls on the G20 to conclude the discussions on the existence of a financial transaction tax at global level. It also calls on the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision to propose measures to ring-fence retail banking activities. Finally, it calls on the Commission to redefine the EU trade and investment strategy to include Brazil, Russia, India and China as future major trading partners.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because it provides the International Monetary Fund, the Group of Twenty (G20) and the World Trade Organisation (WTO), as well as the Commission and the Council, with the European Parliament’s recommendations on global economic governance. I believe that the participation of the European Parliament in discussions on how the global economy should be governed in future is very important for avoiding a repeat of similar crises in the future, as well as for managing the current crisis and mitigating its consequences as much as possible. In its report, the European Parliament once again stressed that at the moment, it is particularly important to pursue a responsible monetary policy and strict financial regulation and supervision. Parliament also underlined the fact that reform of global economic governance should ensure that global markets are included in a comprehensive institutional system and that favourable conditions are created for long-term investment.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of this report and I would like to praise the excellent work by Mr Hökmark. The current economic crisis has, in fact, pushed the leading economic powers, including the European Union, to rethink the global economy management model, which has made it necessary to have a common approach to monetary policy, international trade, sustainable public finances and flexible currencies based on economic fundamentals. Only multilateral management of the global economy and trade will make it possible to prevent further economic crises and reduce the negative impacts to a minimum.

I am convinced that the EU should play a leading role in this scenario, supporting the process of reforming global financial governance and intervening unilaterally in international economic affairs, including through stronger foreign representation abroad. I believe that by acting in a coordinated fashion, the EU can, on the one hand, revive international commercial economic cooperation to include the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China), and, on the other, make a decisive contribution to reforming the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, expanding their institutional coordination action on a global level.

  Antonio Cancian (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted for the report by Mr Hökmark on global economic governance because the text deals exhaustively with all the issues of international economy, finance, and fiscal and monetary policy that relate to the current situation. Global imbalances are a powerful threat to stability. The report provides excellent proposals in terms of the improvements it would be useful to implement in order to improve the functioning of the International Monetary Fund, the G20 and the World Trade Organisation in order to tackle current and future challenges. Europe needs actions to strengthen its economic governance and single market in order to be a valid partner in the debate with other global leaders.

It is important to underline that in a global economy based on open markets that are constantly trading with one another, it is increasingly necessary to achieve a high level of shared social and environmental standards. The European Union can act as a global leader on this issue. Therefore, I believe that this constitutes an important contribution to the work Parliament is carrying out to strengthen Europe’s economy globally, following approval of the ‘six-pack’ deal on European governance of the internal market.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Global imbalances constitute a potential threat to financial and macro-economic stability, especially when excessive, and may have repercussions for other economies. Imbalances stemming from structural misalignments and a lack of competitiveness in national economies should therefore be addressed by both surplus and deficit countries. I therefore believe that global understanding and a common approach are necessary in relation to monetary policy, to international trade, to sustainable public finances and to flexible currencies based on economic fundamentals. I would also argue that the global economy should be characterised by open markets for the mutual benefit of all participants. I voted for this report as I believe in the positive effects of a stronger economic governance framework in the EU and the euro area for global cooperation and coordination.

  Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The report on global economic governance forms part of the prevailing conservative approach to the crisis, with the imposition of stricter controls and supervision on countries globally and closer coordination between their economic and fiscal policies. Its objective is to adopt global neoliberal economic policies at EU level in order to serve the interests of the ‘leading economies’ and international share capital, by imposing harsh austerity policies and trampling over what is left of people’s social rights. Furthermore, it favours strengthening the role of the IMF in the EU and globally and fully supports and demands the immediate application of the anti-grassroots and anti-social policies of the G20 group.

This report is barking up the wrong tree entirely, because the policies it promotes will not help us to recover from the crisis or to avoid the next crisis; on the contrary, they will exacerbate the impact of the international financial crisis, will inflate social inequalities, poverty and unemployment globally and will, in short, ruin people economically and socially on a global scale. It is for all these reasons that I voted against the report.

  Lara Comi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted for this report because I believe it is very important to review and improve governance mechanisms at a global level via a strategy of multilateral cooperation, especially as a result of the serious instability currently characterising our economic situation. Global imbalances are seriously compromising the financial and economic stability of all countries already hit by the recent economic and financial crises. In this regard, I believe it is crucial to adopt a common approach at EU level regarding monetary policy, international trade and public finance. Sustainable development and fair trade make a significant contribution to strong and balanced growth, as hoped for in the Treaty of Lisbon.

Improving governance mechanisms is crucial to achieving these objectives and the way to avoid situations of imbalance in which the various economies are unable to produce wealth. Therefore, in my view, Europe must adopt a consistent approach based on the definition of standards and the exchange of information with a view to creating better governance mechanisms that will benefit the entire community.

  Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this report because effective global economic governance would make it possible to minimise the adverse impact and correct the harmful effects of globalisation, such as the rise in inequality or destruction of the environment. Global economic governance is necessary, given that the US and EU are still dealing with the most severe effects of the biggest international economic recession experienced since the Great Depression. At the same time, social and economic inequalities which have appeared between and within countries must be reduced. Last but not least, Europe’s fight against poverty must be one of the top priorities for the EU 2020 strategy.

  Rachida Dati (PPE) , in writing. – (FR) I voted for this report because of the interesting proposals it contains for addressing today’s global macro-economic, monetary and financial imbalances. To resolve these, it highlights the need for and offers ways of strengthening international organisations responsible for correcting these imbalances based on the principles of legitimacy, transparency and accountability. In particular, it points out the urgent need for better governance of the financial sector on a global level, namely, by proposing better cooperation between global financial supervisory bodies.

  Marielle De Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The next summit of the group of 20 industrialised and emerging countries (G20) will be held in Cannes on 3 and 4 November. These 20 countries represent 85% of the global economy and two-thirds of the world’s population. The stated objective is to try and find coordinated responses, particularly to strengthen international regulations and financial supervision to correct current imbalances. The G20 leaders are also asked to agree on the minimum common elements of a global tax on financial transactions. As part of a new global regulation, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) should play a bigger role. It should therefore become more transparent in its operations, with a fairer distribution of voting rights, and a more open procedure for electing its chief executive. Its mandate could be extended, not only to increase international supervision, but also to improve monitoring of those economies that are systemically significant. This new democratic accountability should be required not only of the IMF, but also of the World Bank and the G20.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for this report and, in particular, for the amendments calling for the European Union to speak with one voice and to hold one seat in the IMF and the World Bank (incidentally, I believe that it should be the same at the United Nations). I also voted for the amendment which highlighted the need for high social standards in the area of economic governance – a need that should be developed in many ways (particularly given the current bleak economic climate: restructuring, relocations and so on).

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Just as Parliament has already adopted specific rules for improving economic governance in the EU and the euro area, and for preventing and correcting macro-economic imbalances, this report stresses that global imbalances also constitute a potential threat to financial and macro-economic stability.

It is for this reason that it points the way to global economic governance, so that we might recover from the economic and financial crisis and prevent such problems from affecting us again in the future. It therefore advocates the need for a common approach to monetary policy, international trade, sustainability of public finances, and financial regulation and supervision, with the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organisation as pillars of this coordination.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Economic, financial and trade problems are manifesting themselves at global level. While there are developed countries with surpluses, on the one hand, there are countries with severe shortages, especially of food, on the other. This situation requires a shift in global economic governance. This report, drafted by Mr Hökmark, analyses global economic governance and prepares for the next G20 summit, which is a crucial forum for worldwide consultation, replacing the G7, but suffers from a lack of representation for smaller countries. At this summit, the EU should demonstrate that it has a fundamental role in carrying out this governance by tabling a set of measures that foster emergence from the crisis. Demanding greater transparency in international institutions, especially the International Monetary Fund (IMF), guaranteeing a flow of trade to emerging economies and adopting measures to correct structural misalignments are some of the proposals that the EU needs to advocate. I therefore welcome the adoption of this report, as it contains several proposals to strengthen global economic governance, in particular, reforming the international financial system and the IMF.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The economic and financial crisis that the world is experiencing is a profound crisis of capitalism which clearly shows the contradictions of a system that sacrifices natural resources and the human workforce in favour of the increasing accumulation of profits. Social injustice and imbalances in the redistribution of wealth are both cause and consequence of years of neoliberal policies, in which class is a marked factor, always on the side of those with the most money and power, against those who work for a living. This report never questions these assumptions. Rather, the solution that it proposes is a framework of ‘governance’ based on the same supranational institutions, without any democratic legitimacy, that have embodied the essence of the neoliberal offensive unleashed on the people and their sovereignty.

The formalisation of the G8/G20, and the strengthening of the role of the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organisation are part of a series of measures to help impose neoliberal economic orientations. These orientations also include the so-called recapitalisation of the banks, following the same path that we are already treading. This crisis can only be resolved if there is a break with the current system, and if it is replaced by one that respects democracy, strengthens social and labour rights, and encourages cooperation based on social progress.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The economic and financial crisis that the world is experiencing is a profound crisis of capitalism which clearly shows the contradictions of a system that sacrifices natural resources and the human workforce in favour of the increasing accumulation of profits and wealth creation.

In the EU, social injustice and imbalances in the redistribution of wealth are both cause and consequence of years of neoliberal and federalist policies, in which class is an extremely marked factor, always on the side of those with the most money and power, against those who work for a living. This report never calls this into question, and suggests as a solution ‘tools’ that do not just clear the way for reduced national sovereignty, but also legitimise and deepen the same old measures that have brought us to this pass; namely, the end of the unanimity principle, the strengthening of bodies with neoliberal positions, like the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organisation, and an EU-US agreement on recapitalising the banks. The crisis can only be resolved if there is a break with the current system, and if there are policies that respect democracy, strengthen social and labour rights and encourage cooperation based on social progress.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The development of the global economy in recent decades has brought growth and prosperity, and has freed millions of people from poverty. Many others, however, still face poverty. Social and economic differences between and within countries must be reduced, and Europe’s fight against poverty must therefore be one of the main priorities of the EU 2020 strategy. The US and Europe are still tackling the consequences of the worst international economic recession since the Great Depression. The evolution of the global economy has, in recent decades, been marked by inequalities, and these are still primarily caused by a lack of competition. In view of the high degree of globalisation and the scale of capital flows, these imbalances make new demands on global governance and challenge the structures of existing institutional arrangements. Global imbalances constitute a potential threat to financial and macro-economic stability in the leading economies, and may have repercussions on other economies.

In my opinion, it is important for the EU to play a leading role in implementing reforms to the global economy aimed at improving the legitimacy, transparency and responsibility of international institutions, and the EU should also act as one party in international economic affairs. The EU must always promote fair trade, democracy, human rights, decent working conditions and sustainable development in its trade policies, in accordance with the Treaty of Lisbon, its internal agenda and the Millennium Development Goals.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. – (FR) The ink is barely dry on new European legislation strengthening the foundations of the European superstate and here we are creating a global financial government under the aegis of the International Monetary Fund (IMF). How to use the crisis to further not so honourable ideological goals, without ever really challenging the root cause of what led us to this tragic situation: the finance-driven globalisation of the economy. Yet this is not a scientific phenomenon, nor is it a historic inevitability: it is simply the work of politicians who have taken certain decisions at certain times in history, the first of them being choosing the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) over the Havana Charter in the post-war years. A very clear choice in favour of ultraliberalism against regulated trade and the primacy of the political will of States over the commercial interests of the private sector, a choice further compounded by the Marrakesh agreements and the creation of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), now run by the socialist Pascal Lamy. This just shows how the pseudo-elites running our States are in collusion. Deglobalisation is therefore a matter of choice. It requires both will and courage against all the lobbies profiteering from the system. In the National Front, we have this political will and courage.

  Louis Grech (S&D), in writing. – I agree with the Hökmark report on global economic governance, which calls for the reform of our international economic institutions. The financial crisis was caused mainly by the irresponsible speculation of banks and hedge funds – speculation that regulatory institutions were ill-equipped to cope with, in part because of a lack of proper international coordination. Therefore, I welcome this report’s emphasis on improving such coordination as a means of strengthening financial regulation and ensuring that the financial sector acts in a transparent way and is accountable to national and international authorities. The European Union has an opportunity to take the lead in this area, not only by supporting regulators and improving economic coordination within the Union, but also by working to reform the relevant international organisations and forums, with the aim of making them more effective and responsive when faced with the challenges of living in a globalised economy.

  Gunnar Hökmark (PPE), in writing. – (SV) In the report on global economic governance, the European Parliament expresses its view that discussions on a global financial transaction tax should be concluded ‘without further ado’. This is our opinion because we believe that the prerequisites for implementing such a tax are minimal and the risk of harmful effects is considerable. The sooner this tax is dropped as a solution to the problems of the global economy, the sooner these problems can be remedied by means of reforms targeted at the actual problems. There is no reason to allow this matter to continue to live on as if it were a solution to the major global problems that are discussed in the report.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) The main agent for restoring balance to the global economy is comprised of two elements: enhanced competitiveness and wide-ranging reforms fostering growth in deficit countries and the opening of markets and sound monetary policy in surplus countries. There are a plethora of international organisations designed to govern the global economy, such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, the World Trade Organisation, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and the International Finance Corporation (IFC), alongside the intergovernmental fora of the G7 and G20, of which the IMF and G20 are the most effective bodies, although both still need to be improved and global markets require global rules. Globally, it is recognised that some sectors of the financial industry contributed to the global financial crisis, revealed weaknesses in financial management and deepened the sovereign debt crisis, and there is a broad consensus that the financial sector must bear a greater responsibility, to include covering a certain amount of the losses caused by the crisis. I welcomed this document because the lack of coordinated and effective regulation and supervision of the global financial system led to weaknesses in the financial sector which subsequently exacerbated the vulnerabilities in the global economy, and I therefore believe that decisive action must be taken to prevent a repeat of similar crises in the future.

  Sandra Kalniete (PPE), in writing. – (LV) I support this resolution because we can now clearly see that irresponsible fiscal policy has led to the debt crisis, which is affecting the entire globe. I completely agree with the emphasis the report places on the fact that global imbalances constitute a potential threat to financial and macro-economic stability. Reforms in global economic governance are essential, but politicians must abide by the law and by agreements that they have signed. Members of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) must adhere to the IMF’s Articles of Agreement. We see how non-compliance with the Maastricht criteria has now placed Europe in a very grave situation. States must abide by their commitments. I also agree that member countries of the World Trade Organisation must do everything possible to develop international trade. At a time of low economic growth, the liquidation of various obstacles to trade could form the cornerstone of powerful economic growth. I firmly hope that the recommendations made in this resolution will be seriously considered at the G20 summit. This is a time of challenge, and the future relies solely on us. I should like to thank the rapporteur for his work, since I believe that the European Parliament has adopted a resolution containing good recommendations.

  Krišjānis Kariņš (PPE), in writing. – (LV) I believe that the financial sector and the bond markets are important for economic development. However, in order to maximise their beneficial influence on the global economy, we must eliminate their shortcomings. The European Parliament’s report on global economic governance contains, in my view, actions that must be taken in order to develop not only this sector but global economic development as a whole. That is why I supported this report. Taking into account the interdependence of global economic processes, we must bring about closer cooperation between international organisations and supervision of the financial sector. This report contains policy recommendations for governance of the global economy and the financial sector, as well as recommendations for the reform of the international monetary and financial system and institutions. It is in Latvia’s interests to support these efforts to curb speculation and imbalance in the financial markets and to get banks to start lending again more actively.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted for the report by Mr Hökmark because I believe that the proposals in the text go some way towards strengthening the EU in the international economic and financial institutions. The EU represents 50% of the world’s GDP and therefore we need to strengthen the role of the European economic institutions within the international institutions.

The crisis we are experiencing and exposure to attacks by speculators that have damaged and continue to damage the world markets in the context of the global economy force us to make choices that will strengthen the role of the international economic institutions. The proposals of the report move towards greater coordination between bodies belonging to political and economic institutions such as the IMF and the G20 in order to make decisions on monetary policy and on monetary and fiscal management agreements more effective. Global economic governance reform is a proposal consistent with the EU’s cooperative role and the requirements of this particular historic moment.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) This financial and economic crisis has demonstrated that the flows of capital must be accompanied by responsible monetary policy, suitable regulation and strong financial supervision.

I think that we need robust structural reforms from governments to ensure the viability of public finances and boost economic growth. This means fully complying with the agreed fiscal targets and speeding up the structural reforms.

Global imbalances pose a serious threat to states’ financial and macro-economic stability and may have long-term repercussions. Therefore, leaders of the world’s states need to continue to find viable solutions for reforming global economic governance. This will enable them to help re-stabilise the global economy and avoid another similar situation in the future.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this resolution on global economic governance and particularly welcome the following paragraph: ‘Stresses the need to ensure that multilateral tax information exchange agreements incorporate automatic information exchange provisions and calls for action to strengthen the legal basis for OECD blacklisting of non-cooperative jurisdictions, with a view to improving fiscal transparency and combating fraud and tax evasion; urges the Commission to propose by the end of 2011 a robust Country-by-Country Reporting Standard for cross-border companies, with the aim of enhancing transparency and access to relevant data by tax administrations’.

  Clemente Mastella (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Global economic imbalances constitute a potential threat to financial and macro-economic stability in the leading European economies. The current financial and economic crisis has, in fact, demonstrated that the inflow of capital as a result of global imbalances should be accompanied by a more responsible monetary policy and strong financial regulation and supervision.

We therefore support this report because it recognises the need for policy makers around the world to continue working on solutions to reform global economic governance to help rebalance the world economy and avoid another slump. The reform of global governance should ensure that markets are embedded in a comprehensive institutional framework for them to function properly; the fundamental objective must be the creation of a favourable environment for long-term investment.

The EU must play a leading role in global economic reform to make international institutions more legitimate, transparent and accountable. We believe that the EU should be able to speak with one voice, and therefore we call for an EU seat in the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the report by Mr Hökmark. The world needs policy makers to introduce solutions quickly to reform global economic governance and help rebalance the world economy and avoid another slump. The reform needs to begin by ensuring that markets are embedded in a comprehensive institutional framework.

  Kyriakos Mavronikolas (S&D), in writing. – (EL) It is high time that the structures of the International Monetary Fund were reviewed in order to make it a more political body, to stop the policy of intervening in exchange rates, and to adopt global rules to distinguish between speculative and traditional banking operations. The members of G20 should agree to apply a global tax on financial transactions and, at the same time, should adopt stronger financial regulations and supervision at global level. Our objective is to avoid further disruption, which is why we need to address current imbalances between economies globally.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. – I supported this report. The EU plays a leading role in global economic reform, and responsible monetary policies should be practised consistently throughout the Member States. Global economic governance must be sufficiently responsive, flexible and pragmatic and must allow for the adoption of a common approach on monetary policy and international trade. Particularly in the context of the current financial crisis, I welcome the calls for a more responsible monetary policy and stronger financial regulation and supervision.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) Just one thing to pick up on: making Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) the new global reference currency means that the dollar can no longer play that role. In fact, the rest of this text is an assortment of liberal nonsense and foolish projects. Giving the IMF power, ignoring the UN and its legislative committees: this whole hotchpotch is appalling. I voted against.

  Alajos Mészáros (PPE), in writing. – (HU) Recovery from the crisis requires us to address the inequalities that result from a lack of structural coordination and economic competitiveness. We need to do so both in countries that have a surplus and in those burdened by deficit. The strengthening and deepening of the single European market is exceedingly important. However, this must not prevent the European Union from making full use of the flexibility provided by the WTO in order to restore the balance of fundamental macro-economic factors and to increase prosperity.

For us to be able to reduce imported inflation and restore trade balances vis-à-vis oil-producing countries, we also need to reduce our energy dependency.

From the Commission, we need more resolute action in holding Member States accountable and emphasising the favourable effects for the EU and the euro area of a stronger economic governance framework that serves global cooperation and coordination. The financial and economic crisis has revealed on multiple occasions that the capital influx resulting from global imbalances must be addressed through responsible monetary policy and strong financial regulation.

  Louis Michel (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The economic and financial crisis has shown the limits of world governance as it stands. Our economic management must be based on an approach that is oriented, on the one hand, towards traditional macro-economic and financial policies and, on the other, towards a policy that promotes job creation and social protection as, unless internal demand revives, there will never be a sustainable recovery.

It should not be forgotten that, during this crisis, the world economy has lost around 30 million jobs. Europe needs common global solutions to bring an end to the persistent problems in the finance sector and the issue of sovereign debt. Cooperation is essential to the stability of the global economy and must take precedence over national interests. That is why it is vital for the international institutions, which are the centres of this cooperation, to reflect the changes of the last quarter of a century.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The development of the world economy generally over recent decades has entailed increased growth and prosperity, albeit unevenly distributed, lifting millions of people out of poverty. Meanwhile, however, the number of people still living in poverty and despair is unacceptably high, social and economic inequalities between and within countries must be reduced, and the fight against poverty must be one of the top priorities in the Europe 2020 strategy.

The report therefore stresses that global imbalances, especially when excessive, constitute a potential threat to financial and macro-economic stability in the leading economies and may also have repercussions on other economies. Taking this into account, it notes that both surplus and deficit countries should address imbalances stemming from structural misalignments and lack of competitiveness at a domestic economic level, as these could be sources of fundamental problems. I voted in favour of the report.

  Claudio Morganti (EFD), in writing. – (IT) It is undeniable that a global economy requires global economic governance, and this report describes some important lines of action. Firstly, greater cooperation is required at an international level, and the ‘emerging powers’ must also accept their responsibilities. It is unconscionable that there should be rules that apply only to Europe, whereas elsewhere it is the Wild West. I am referring, for example, to unanimous compliance on individual working conditions, because we can no longer tolerate the fact that these regulations should continue to be trampled in some countries.

I should also like to highlight a very important aspect of this report, which is the invitation to introduce a global tax on financial transactions. Only in this case – if applied universally – would the tax make sense. Its introduction at European level only would be absurd, because it would be easily avoided by major speculators and would only hit small investors. The report is therefore undoubtedly a good starting point, which is why I decided to vote in favour.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution because disturbances throughout the world have forced us to reform our model of global economic governance as a matter of urgency.

Globally, we, above all, need to establish common, strict and effectively functioning rules applicable to global financial markets which would ensure coordinated and effective regulation and supervision.

All participants should be guaranteed open markets, and greater competitiveness and wide-ranging reforms should be encouraged. I believe that the use of Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) as a possible replacement for the dollar as the world’s reserve currency would help to stabilise the global financial system.

It is also very important for there to be a common approach to monetary policy, international trade, sustainable public finances and flexible currencies based on economic fundamentals.

Fair trade, democracy, human rights, working conditions and sustainable development should be the main focus of trade policies.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report, which makes various suggestions for strengthening global economic governance, and for reforming the international monetary and financial system and its institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund. I also voted for the report because of the various recommendations it makes for the financial sector, the banking system and trade policy.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Although the development of the global economy during the last decades generally has entailed increased growth and prosperity, lifting millions of people out of poverty, the number of people still living in poverty is unacceptably high. This is the result of social and economic inequalities between countries which create a framework of unsustainable imbalances for the development of the global economy. In these circumstances, effective global economic governance is required in order to minimise the negative effects and correct the undesirable effects of globalisation.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Union should play a key role in ensuring that global economic governance serves the common good, whilst respecting the autonomy and participation of the Member States. At present, we are seeing what we could call ‘diffuse governance’: the G20, for example, which brings together the 20 most developed economies in the world, has an informal structure, despite the enormous power that it holds. In other institutions, the rule of unanimity has been hindering the adoption of fairer solutions, since every decision maker effectively has the right to veto. In view of this, the way forward should aim to strengthen governance models based on the principles of representativeness and transparency, with the common good being paramount. I therefore voted in favour.

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Today in the House, we voted on Mr Hökmark’s resolution on global economic governance. In the run-up to the G20, Parliament has approved its contribution to the reform of global economic governance. The resolution asks for a reorganisation of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), more incisive regulation of global finance and stringent controls on possible subterfuges. It also highlights the need to correct existing imbalances in the global economy in order to avoid further turbulence, something the G20 has so far had difficulty doing.

In addition, it invites greater democratic participation in the decisions of the IMF and the World Bank, asking for parliaments to be involved in their decision-making processes. Furthermore, it asks all of these financial institutions to coordinate their work better.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – I voted against. The rapporteur made the choice to negotiate, on a bilateral basis, compromises with the S&D Group, which had the expected consequence of improving some of the most controversial parts of the draft report. However, the outcome remains negative as the accent is still on the need to increase trade liberalisation and the free movement of capital, as well as promoting the IMF as the global institutional coordinator and standard-setter, even though some useful amendments (including ours) were adopted.

Moreover, and because of the useful amendments adopted, certain parts of the report are inconsistent. Apart from its content and its purely formal aspects, the report (which in the end is quite long) is also messy, as the original structure was altered by amendments adopted and by the poor quality and scope of compromises negotiated by the two big groups. Therefore, all in all, the draft report adopted in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs is not acceptable from a green perspective.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted for this text because I believe it makes an excellent contribution to the reform of global economic governance in the approach to the G20 in Cannes. The IMF needs to be reorganised to make it into a political organisation. The regulation of global finance needs stringent and incisive controls, the priority being to correct existing imbalances in the global economy in order to avoid further turbulence, something the G20 has so far had serious difficulty doing.

  Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD), in writing. – (EL) The development of the global economy, with the emergence of important new actors, is such that coordinated action is needed at European and international level in order to combat the impact of globalisation. I voted in favour of the report because I consider that it is a move in the right direction. However, we need enhanced cooperation and extensive reforms that will promote growth and financial and macro-economic stability. I endorse the rapporteur’s view of the importance of measuring imbalances using a set of indicators to cover both internal imbalances and external imbalances, in order to achieve strong, sustainable and balanced growth. The lack of coordination in fiscal regulations needs to be addressed, so that certain financial actors are not allowed to take advantage of regulatory arbitrage.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) Among the many causes of the economic crisis – the global economic crisis – which some EU Member States are going through, we can also point to the lack of economic coordination and the need for appropriate supervision of financial institutions. It is rightly thought that the highly developed countries are currently experiencing a serious economic crisis. One of its causes has been the lack of the necessary coordination and then of economic governance at world level. It has turned out that leaving everything to the ‘invisible hand of the market’, without state supervision, was a mistake.

Without doubt, a key forum for the exchange of views regarding the global economy is currently the G20. However, this is an informal body and it does not possess features characteristic of an international organisation such as the ability to make binding decisions and supervise their implementation. Another problem of the G20 is the lack of legitimisation from the international community. It seems that it is just an elite club of the world’s largest economies. The fact that the forum does not have broader foundations is a serious obstacle to its credibility, and this is something which should be given due consideration.

Finally it is worth asking ourselves the question as to whether, in the light of the very different and often conflicting interests of particular states, global economic governance is possible at all. In my opinion, it will be difficult to move out of the structure of simple consultation and coordination of positions at political level, but even this is a lot for a beginning.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Over recent decades, there has been global economic growth, with the purchasing power of the citizens of more developed countries increasing. Recently, Europe and the US have been faced with an economic and financial crisis resulting from unsustainable macro-economic imbalances, and they must react rapidly and promptly. Having voted for the ‘six-pack’ on economic governance tabled by Parliament, I am once again voting for the suggestions made in this report, which consist of strengthening global economic governance, and of reforming the international monetary and financial system, as well as its institutions.

I also advocate a global understanding and the adoption of common measures by the Member States in the area of monetary policy, international trade and the sustainability of public finances, consolidating the opening up of markets, and strengthening financial regulation and banking supervision. Finally, I believe there must be greater cooperation between public and private authorities, and a commitment to stronger economic governance in the EU, in order to avoid another crisis in the years to come.

  Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. – This resolution calls for an overhaul of the current global economic system and signals Parliament’s position ahead of the G20 summit to be held in Cannes in November. MEPs were clear that they wanted stronger global financial regulation and supervision to close loopholes and are calling for measures to be put in place to overcome imbalances between global economies. Key to this overhaul would be a new direction for the IMF which would allow it to bridge the global leadership gap on these issues and become a more legitimate, accountable and transparent body at this time of uncertainty.

  Dominique Vlasto (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The subprime crisis, the generalised use of automatic trading and the spirals of speculation on the falling value of the debt of certain Member States all show that the current rules are unsuitable and make us very vulnerable. It is high time to tackle the issue of the financial economy so that it serves the real economy. This must include brave decisions which the international institutions dedicated to the world economy (IMF, World Bank) and the informal forums (G7, G20) have to take. I therefore welcome this report which recommends the drawing up of a tax on financial transactions capable of both limiting high-frequency trading and creating a new source of income for Member States, regulating excessive speculation on the debt of countries in difficulty and increasing control over the ratings agencies which were, in part, responsible for the crisis in 2007. Whilst the EU has decided to show the way forward by now drawing up binding standards for all of these issues, it cannot be alone in reforming the system. Emerging and developed countries must contribute to this effort, which must, of necessity, be global.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) Although the increase in global economic growth over recent decades has resulted in greater prosperity, millions of people still live in poverty because of the uneven distribution of wealth. Current-account imbalances are the consequence of imbalances in domestic economies. The lack of regulatory and supervision mechanisms for the global financial system have led to weaknesses in the global financial sector. It is now important for us to combat the imbalances both in the countries with surpluses and in those with deficits. We need a cautious monetary policy and stricter financial regulation.

The EU should play a leading role in reforming the international monetary and financial system and take an increasingly united stance. It should become more involved in World Trade Organisation (WTO) activities and work towards finding solutions which involve better coordination between the ‘G’ groups and the United Nations systems. The European Parliament is now proposing that the EU supervisory authorities should take the lead in building international cooperation and in establishing reliable instruments for financial regulation. In this context, a joint financial regulation framework covering the USA and the EU is desirable. I have voted in favour.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The global economic crisis, which started in the financial sector, has now led to high levels of indebtedness in some of the leading political powers, such as the United States, Japan and the European Union. The weaknesses in the economic system have revealed some gaps caused by a lack of coordinated regulation and supervision of financial regulation, thereby exacerbating the sovereign debt crisis.

As highlighted in Mr Hökmark’s report – which I voted in favour of – we now need to reform the international monetary and financial system. There should be shared global economic governance regulations which would give operators and investors back the guarantees and certainties that no longer exist today.

Report: Barbara Matera (A7-0317/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report, as I believe a social Europe should not give up on its social system, in spite of the crisis. Europe should offer tax breaks and incentives for businesses that provide child care and nursery facilities for children, enabling single mothers to work while their children are being looked after and taught. In addition, tax breaks should be offered to companies that provide training courses to single mothers on the complex situation of managing being a mother and a worker. An example of a similar practice that can be implemented by other Member States is the case of the Netherlands, where childhood assistance is free for single mothers. Flexible job opportunities such as part-time work, tele-jobs, and e-jobs should be offered at local, national, and EU level, so that single mothers can reconcile their private and professional lives. Single mothers should also be offered priority access to affordable housing. Extra unemployment benefits should be allocated to single mothers for each child under their custody. Member States can use Germany as a model for implementing this, where unemployment benefit for single mothers with dependent children has already been increased.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. – I strongly support this proposal, which aims to combat the inequalities that single mothers face in Europe. Member States must invest and must promote research into the issue, taking advantage of the newly created European Institute for Gender Equality in Vilnius, while also initiating dialogues with other Member States in order to develop implementation strategies.

Policies towards single mothers differ across Europe. The high unemployment rate for single mothers – combined with the gender pay gap – results in their being torn between taking on debt and caring for their children. We must encourage national policies that will guarantee indirect subsidies for the purchase of food. We must provide tax credits for single parents, along the lines of the arrangements that exist in Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands and the UK. A European incentive to Member States that provide health care for mothers and children where the family is below the national average would be a positive step. Flexible job opportunities, including part-time work, teleworking, and e-jobs, should be offered at local, national and EU level to enable single mothers to reconcile their private and professional lives. Germany can be used as a model in relation to increasing unemployment benefits for single mothers with dependent children.

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) In Europe, a very high proportion of single parents are single mothers over the age of 25. Member States must ensure equal treatment and maintain a high quality of life for all children, regardless of their parents’ marital status or their family circumstances, by granting universal allowances.

With regard to encouraging activities aimed at helping single mothers, I think that these efforts should be geared towards enhancing the self-reliance and independence of single mothers, reducing their feelings of passivity and isolation, improving their social resourcefulness and parenting skills, and giving them easier access to information on employment rights and opportunities.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Representing five per cent of women in Europe, single mothers are faced with poverty and social exclusion. Barbara Matera has therefore proposed a series of measures to improve their situation and to promote their integration into the world of work. As president of the ‘Femmes au Centre’ (‘Women at the Centre’) association, I am firmly committed to the solidarity and social inclusion actions in favour of women. I have therefore lent my support to this proposal.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report, which highlights the need to respond to the problems faced by single mothers in the EU. Single mothers, whether as a result of divorce or separation, or because they have never been married, are an increasingly large group. In the EU, five per cent of women are single mothers, and the majority are between 25 and 64 years of age. Living conditions for certain categories of single mother could have consequences for their children. These children, who live on fewer resources and have fewer opportunities to access education, could be future victims of poverty and social exclusion. By performing tasks normally shared between two parents, mothers are also more exposed to stress, have less access to health care and are more vulnerable. The Member States should therefore respond to this situation and adopt public policies to support the needs of these families. I should like to draw attention to some of the measures that could be implemented, such as the adoption of the indirect subsidies policy, the guarantee of provision of medical care, the opportunity to opt for more flexible working hours, priority access to social housing, and increased child care facilities. Finally, the exchange of best practices with northern countries should be encouraged.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Society has evolved a great deal over recent decades. Nowadays, more and more parents are raising their children alone. The fact is, 85% of single parents are women. This explains the adoption of an own-initiative report on the situation of single mothers in Europe. Conscious of the difficulties faced by these women, we call for greater attention to be paid to them. One of the priorities today is to achieve a balance between one’s professional and private lives: governments and companies must act to ensure that working conditions are as favourable as possible to reconciling employment and family life. Amongst the proposals that we should take away from this report, I support the major role for the European Social Fund (ESF) in allocating study grants for single mothers or in supporting their return to study.

  Sergio Berlato (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Presently, five per cent of European women are single mothers. The economic and financial crisis has affected the entire European community, but women have been especially hard hit. Furthermore, recent studies show that the impact has been even more severe on the large majority of single mothers in their prime working years.

The problem of single mothers must not be overlooked. The high unemployment rates among them strongly affect the education and care of the dependent children of single mothers. In fact, these children have fewer resources to succeed in education, thus creating fewer opportunities to enter the workforce at a competitive level. Therefore, I share the rapporteur’s concerns and her determination in tackling the issue.

The inequalities that single mothers face in Europe should be combated through concrete actions such as investment in and promotion of research into the issue, including making use of the newly created European Institute for Gender Equality. As soon as their research findings are available, in my view, Member States should initiate dialogues with other Member States to share best practices in the implementation of European policies for solving the problems encountered.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report and am pleased that the European Parliament has paid much attention to single mothers, whose numbers in Europe are unfortunately increasing dramatically. Currently, five per cent of European women are single mothers. When discussing single mothers, we also must not forget single fathers, but in Europe, 85% of single parents are single mothers. I would like to stress that during the economic recession, in nearly all parts of Europe, women who are bringing up children on their own have been worst hit by poverty. In terms of the risk of poverty, it is very important to understand that children cared for by single mothers experience greater poverty than children growing up in traditional families, in which both parents usually work. We also should not forget that not all single mothers can work full-time if their children are very young. We also need to take into account the number of children being brought up by a single mother. So that single mothers can balance their career and family, they need to enjoy flexible working conditions, such as distance working and part-time work, and should be given the opportunity to work flexible hours. Single-parent families should enjoy tax deductions and should be reimbursed for the cost of medical treatment. We also need to set up family centres and initiate special training programmes for single mothers. Priority should also be given to single mothers when obtaining places in nurseries and kindergartens.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted for this report because I believe more attention should be paid to the situation of single mothers, by investing and promoting research into the issue. Presently, five per cent of European females are single mothers, who are an often overlooked but increasingly significant demographic category in all advanced and industrialised countries, often living in conditions that make them vulnerable, something which might have consequences for their offspring. Statistically, these women in particular often unfortunately have less access to education compared to other mothers and therefore tend to have a higher unemployment rate, lower wages and low quality jobs.

Therefore, I support the need to respond to this new reality, by initiating a dialogue with the other Member States in order to share best practices in the implementation of policies to reduce the risk of financial insecurity that single mothers encounter in the world of work. I therefore hope that new provisions will be introduced to improve their rate of employment.

  Zuzana Brzobohatá (S&D), in writing. – (CS) On 24 October 2011, Parliament’s plenary debated the report on the situation of single mothers. The report contains many interesting findings and ideas on improving the position of single mothers. The report states that five per cent of European women are single mothers. They are burdened, above all, with a high level of unemployment and the cyclical nature of poverty, which affects their children’s access to education. Poor access to education means fewer opportunities to enter the workforce at a competitive level. The health status of single mothers is also statistically more unstable than those of mothers in dual parent families, Often, they cannot afford adequate medical care or proper rest. Statistically, single mothers throughout Europe are less educated then their married counterparts.

I personally consider the ideas for measures making use of experience from other Member States highly useful: the introduction of lower tax on food for single mothers or the provision of tax relief and incentives for companies providing child care facilities in workplaces and crèches, enabling single mothers to work whilst their children learn and are looked after. For the reasons mentioned above, I have supported the report.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Single mothers represent a demographic group which has often been ignored; five per cent of the female population of Europe is currently made up of single mothers. There is an urgent need to analyse the daily challenges that single mothers in the EU face, particularly in terms of work, the risk of poverty and social exclusion, and the difficult balance between family and working life. I voted for this report because I believe it is important to improve single mothers’ access to employment, housing, child care services, education, health and social security systems. I think tax breaks should be designed for single-parent families and tax credits granted to companies employing single parents.

  Andrea Češková (ECR), in writing. – The report on the situation of single mothers is a very useful report, which highlights the difficulties facing single mothers across the EU, where single mothers represent nearly 90% of single parents. This report encourages Member States to review their policies towards single mothers in the areas of health care, child care, education, pensions, social security and welfare and housing. Whilst the ECR Group does not object to the EU raising the awareness of such issues and encouraging cooperation and the sharing of best practice, we do oppose interference at EU level on social and employment issues. We defend the rights of national governments to make their own policies in the areas of health care, pension system, education and social security.

It is for this reason that we have chosen to abstain on this report.

  Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) In the EU, on average, 85% of single parents are mothers aged 25-64 and, in some Member States, single mothers even account for nine per cent of the total female population. The statistics indicate that single-parent households are much more vulnerable to the risk of poverty and its endurance than two-parent households. According to the most recent data available from 2006, 32% of single-parent households in the EU-25 were at risk of poverty as against 12% of couples with children. Furthermore, the gender pay gap, which, on average, is 18% in the EU, widens when women become mothers and continues as such until retirement. I voted for the resolution given this harsh environment for single mothers and the need to support them, especially in the countries where support for single-parent families is non-existent or has decreased alarmingly during the crisis, as is the case in Romania.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The latest statistics indicate that the number of single mothers is rising at an alarming rate across the European Union. In light of this, Member States need to focus attention on this matter as the main risk is poverty, which these women may fall into. Being a single mother in northern countries, where they are protected and helped, is quite a different experience to being a single mother in other countries, where they are subject to social exclusion.

I firmly believe that the European Union and Member States must devise more gender-focused strategies and identify common policies also based on the exchange of existing good practices in Europe, to make sure that single mothers are no longer discriminated against in any of the EU Member States.

  Proinsias De Rossa (S&D), in writing. – I support this report, which focuses on the situation of single mothers in the EU. Single mothers face multiple problems, such as the interruption of their education, bad health, unemployment and a higher risk of poverty – in fact, 32% of single-mother households in the EU-25 were at risk of poverty, compared to 12% for couples. The Barcelona European Council called for the provision of child care for at least 33% of children under 3 years and for 90% from 3 years up to school age. However, only five Member States have met these targets. This report calls on the Member States to redouble their efforts and be more ambitious and ensure access to child care facilities for 50% of 0-3 year-olds and 100% for 3-6 year-olds. It also proposes tax breaks for companies that employ single parents and provide child care facilities. The report also addresses the role of the father and shared care, which is very common in some Member States but almost non-existent in others. It urges the Member States to introduce specially designed policies and financial assistance for single mothers and to ensure regular payment.

  Marielle De Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The European Union must do more and do better to help single mothers and their children. The economic crisis has worsened the situation of these single-parent families which were already very exposed to insecurity and social exclusion. 85% of these families consist of a woman bringing up one or more children alone. With the knowledge that European women earn, on average, 18% less than men, the fragile situation of single mothers is evident. To confront the problems of the increasing numbers of such families, the resolution adopted by Parliament proposes the introduction of ‘family centres’ that are able to offer them accommodation, advice, and training and education aid. These support measures for single mothers should, of course, be extended to men who find themselves in the same situation.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report which provides concrete measures to support mothers who are raising children alone and who face discrimination in our societies. The difficulties in finding a job and the related risk of poverty are real and still too often lead to social exclusion for these single-parent families. As Barbara Matera’s report stresses, it is now becoming necessary to support these women’s access to the jobs market by developing and strengthening suitable employment policies.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) It is a fact: in Europe and elsewhere, single mothers are becoming increasingly significant as a group (in the European Union, 85% of single parents are single mothers). I wholeheartedly welcome Ms Matera’s report, which endeavours to encourage associations working in support of single mothers and training courses aimed at facilitating their access to the job market. What is more, unlike the rest of my group, I voted in favour of the following recital: ‘Education and information about the sexual and reproductive rights of women, in particular younger women, are essential to avoid unwanted pregnancies’.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report, as I would argue that the Member States should continue investing in policies that encourage the reconciliation of working life and family life, and that reduce poverty and make single mothers and fathers more financially independent. I believe the authorities of the 27 Member States and of the European Union should support single mothers as much as possible, thereby contributing to greater social cohesion and the combating of child poverty, an issue which must also be one of the EU’s priorities.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The reality is that social change means parenting alone is increasingly frequent, since, as the rapporteur rightly stresses, ‘single-parent families do not form a homogeneous group, but cover a very wide range of family, financial and social situations’. Therefore, there are all types of single mothers and single fathers needing non-discriminatory mechanisms that enable them to fully adopt maternity/paternity, without that representing social or professional penalisation.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Ms Matera has delivered us an excellent report on the situation in which many mothers in the European Union find themselves. Indeed, there are increasing numbers of women who find themselves in this situation: unmarried, divorced or widowed women find themselves raising their children and running a home on their own, performing tasks that should be done by two people. Of European women, five per cent are single mothers, who are at increased risk of poverty as a result of the current economic and financial crisis.

The EU is aware of this problem and, mindful that the problem of single mothers is often linked to child poverty, is committed to eradicating this situation by making it a priority, and by implementing new initiatives in line with the Europe 2020 strategy’s targets as regards poverty reduction, employability and gender equality.

There is an urgent need to set up conditions for access to health care, tax incentives for companies and flexible job opportunities. I welcome the adoption of this report, which encourages Member States to implement policies providing support for single-parent families, particularly in relation to education, and to health and social security systems, as well as policies promoting employment, housing and child care services.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report addresses the situation of single mothers and some of the problems they face. These problems are inseparable from the current socio-economic context, which is dominated by serious attacks on the dignity and living conditions of mothers, particularly working mothers and children. As the rapporteur says, single-parent households are at greater risk of poverty. In 2006, 32% of single-parent households in the EU were at risk of poverty, as against 12% of couples with children. This risk is increasing significantly at a time when unemployment is rocketing, wages are under attack, benefits are being cut, and restrictions are increasingly being placed on access to public services and social protection, which, in some cases, forces mothers to put their children into care, as they are no longer able to guarantee basic living conditions.

In view of this, we believe that this report falls short of what is necessary in relation to employment with rights; to decent wages; to respect for the right to maternity and paternity leave in labour legislation; to the creation and maintenance of networks of state-owned and state-managed crèches, nurseries, and schools; and to free health services and health care for mother and child.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report addresses the situation of single mothers, particularly in the current socio-economic context, which is exacerbating the problems and the attacks on the dignity and living conditions of mothers and children. Single-parent households live in situations which entail a greater risk of poverty, as the rapporteur herself states: in 2006, 32% of single-parent households in the EU were at risk of poverty, as against 12% of couples with children. This risk is increasing significantly at a time when unemployment is rocketing, wages are under attack, benefits are being cut, and restrictions are increasingly being placed on access to public services and social protection, which, in some cases, forces mothers to put their children into care, as they are no longer able to guarantee basic living conditions, access to essential foodstuffs for their children or the family home.

We therefore believe that this report falls short of the measures that are necessary, as jobs urgently need to be created, along with decent wages; with respect for the right to maternity leave, especially in terms of labour legislation; with the creation and maintenance of networks of state-owned and state-managed crèches, nurseries, and schools; and with free health services and health care for mother and child.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The negative effects felt throughout the European Union from the economic and financial crisis have hit women especially hard. Single motherhood in particular is often overlooked and simplified. In many societies, particularly those dominated by patriarchal models, single mothers are held in very low regard. Many view single motherhood as a kind of temporary situation that will change once the single mother finds a partner. However, this distorted view complicates the position of single mothers in society even further. We must therefore respond to this factor through policy adjustments. The situation has grown more serious in recent years, and it is therefore necessary to address this problem as a matter of priority, and devote greater attention to the situation of single mothers.

I firmly believe that Member States should also adopt public policies, including pay policies, care provision, health policies, policies in the area of employment, social security systems and policies in the area of housing, that will alleviate the living conditions of single-parent families, particularly in light of the reality faced by single mother families.

  Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), in writing. – (IT) Five per cent of the European population find themselves, by choice or necessity, in the situation of being single mothers. The report highlights the social and economic difficulties of the mothers (and children), and asks the Commission to take action so that Member States that do not have any measures to assist this category introduce such measures. I therefore voted in favour.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) This report gives us an opportunity to insist on the urgent need for action in response to the particularly precarious situation for increasing numbers of single mothers in Europe. This is why I have given it my full support. These women who decide to take sole responsibility for their children are too often the victims of social exclusion and even stigmatised, especially in societies where conservatism is dominant. We have here a new model of the family which we certainly cannot ignore. Rather, we must seek to meet the resulting requirements. Going beyond this issue, we must lay the emphasis on educating and informing women, in particular younger women, about their sexual and reproductive rights.

  Gunnar Hökmark and Anna Ibrisagic (PPE), in writing. – (SV) The report on the situation of single mothers states that education and information about the sexual and reproductive rights of women, in particular young women, are essential for avoiding unwanted pregnancies. We support women’s sexual and reproductive rights, but we do not believe that this text belongs in this report. There are many different reasons why women are single mothers and one of these might be that that is what they themselves have chosen.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed this document because it calls for greater attention to be paid to the situation of single mothers. The Member States must adopt public policies, including policies on education, care provision, health, employment, social security systems and housing, to support the needs and realities of single-parent families, taking particular account of the reality faced by the families of single-mothers. I believe that efforts should be aimed at enhancing the self-reliance and independence of single mothers, reducing their feelings of passivity and isolation, improving their social resourcefulness, improving their parenting skills and giving them easier access to information on their employment rights and opportunities. The European Commission and the Member States must take into account the specific circumstances faced by single mothers in different European countries and provide single mothers belonging to the most vulnerable groups with special assistance.

  Sandra Kalniete (PPE), in writing. – I support this motion because I want to emphasise that education is key both to preventing high rates of single motherhood and to providing single mothers with opportunities to attain higher professional status and therefore better pay. This motion puts forward initiatives which will help to reduce discrimination in employment. As we know from statistical studies, women in general suffer from discrimination at the workplace, and, unfortunately, this is worse in the case of single mothers. Europe must take advantage of the newly-created European Institute for Gender Equality in Vilnius to help alleviate such disparities. European institutions can work to reduce this workplace discrimination by providing tax incentives for employers to encourage the recruitment of single mothers and provide more flexible working hours and child care services.

While the initiatives put forward by this motion are aimed at helping single mothers, they are not limited to this; most can help single fathers and working-class families in general. I believe it is important for Europe to help support the development of our future generations, and for this reason I have chosen to support this motion.

  Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE), in writing. – (DE) Every society is obliged to support single mothers and to provide them with a financial and social foundation. In the EU, 85% of single parents are women. In Austria, the figure is as high as 90%. Particularly at a time of economic crisis, it is necessary to give single mothers additional support, as they experience a three-fold pressure: bringing up their children alone, gender-specific discrimination on the labour market and the pay gap allow women and their children to quickly slip into a cycle of poverty without any prospects of escaping it. For that reason, I gave the report by Ms Matera my support.

  Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE), in writing. – (PL) According to statistics, five per cent of women in Europe are single mothers. The EU Member States have different rules. For example, single parents bringing up children in Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom are entitled to tax relief. I believe that we should strive to harmonise the legislation in this respect, and family policy should not be sacrificed in the face of Europe’s current economic crisis and demographic problems. We should also work out compromises that will help women who are single parents to reconcile work and family life; this is why, among other reasons, I voted for Barbara Matera’s report on the situation of single mothers.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report on the situation of single mothers. Single motherhood is an often overlooked demographic category since it is very difficult to place a face to the issue. Encompassing ages spanning over forty years and including all socio-economic backgrounds, single motherhood lacks an identifiable, visible lobby that can advocate for all single mothers, since policies affect each mother differently. Geographically across Europe, one can see a difference in the perceptions and policies towards single mothers. In the southern Mediterranean states (Italy, Portugal, Spain, Greece), it is generally accepted that extended family will assist in the raising of single parent children on a voluntary basis without reimbursement. In the northern and Nordic states (France, Sweden, Germany, Denmark), government welfare systems are in place to offer single mothers benefits and social assistance policies. In the Eastern European Member States, there is a general mix of policies, some holding on to strong familial values from the Communist regimes and others having a mix of the northern and southern European policies, while the geographic distributions, along with the age and socio-economic divisions, already make it difficult for single mothers to organise and lobby.

  Clemente Mastella (PPE), in writing. – (IT) We support this report because we share the aim of pushing Member States to address the issue of single mothers by investing in and promoting research into the issue. In doing so, Member States could take advantage of cooperation with the newly created European Institute for Gender Equality in Vilnius.

Additionally, through their individual research findings, they should initiate continuous dialogue with other Member States in order to share and learn the best implementation practices and solutions. We are convinced that some examples could be useful and transferable to all Member States. We should encourage national policies that will guarantee indirect subsidies through the purchase of food, or provide tax credits for single parents such as the existing procedures in Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.

Health care benefits should be afforded to single mothers along with their dependent children in order to counteract the lack of two parent providers. A European incentive to Member States that provide health care for mothers and children with incomes below the national average would be a positive step.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) As politicians, we owe it to ourselves to adapt to changing societies and to take into account the new needs and issues that are appearing. That is precisely what this own-initiative report does. There are more and more single women with responsibility for one or more children who find themselves in vulnerable situations, in poverty or socially excluded, which also have repercussions for their children. This is the reality that we must deal with: above all, equal treatment must be guaranteed. The fact of having a child and raising it alone must not be an additional handicap for these women who most frequently suffer, rather than choose, this situation. It is important that Member States exchange good practices. Single mothers must have support for access to employment via training policies and measures that facilitate a work-life balance. This means allowing them to be financially independent and to escape from poverty. From the start of my career, I have fought for women’s rights and equal treatment. This report is one more step in this direction.

  Iosif Matula (PPE), in writing. – (RO) In a society where the concept of family is changing, we must pay appropriate attention to the difficulties encountered by single parents, both women and men. However, the pay gap means that the situation is more difficult for single mothers. In European societies, the methods deployed to resolve this issue vary from assistance provided by the extended family to highly developed national social protection systems. However, the threat of poverty remains, with the risk of it persisting in future generations and providing fewer chances for these children to be successful in life. In addition, the social stigma attached increases the risk of children being abandoned.

Possible solutions call for medical care to be provided to single mothers on incomes below the national average and the provision of accessible housing and child care networks in crèches and day centres so that the mothers can continue their careers.

Furthermore, suitable unemployment allowances for single mothers can help provide a decent life for these single-parent families. I feel that the concept of social entrepreneurship is similarly useful. This is a business which tackles a social issue in different areas and involving a variety of target groups. This provides personal and professional added value to the vulnerable individuals who are employed, while also generating profits for the company.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The situation of single mothers in Europe is one of hardship, which we must tackle immediately though a series of actions that Member States must implement in as coordinated a manner as possible. I voted in favour.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. – Currently, five per cent of European females are single mothers, and 85% of all single parents in Europe are single mothers between the ages of 25 and 64. The current economic crisis has highlighted the hardships faced by single mothers across the EU.

I welcome the calls in this report for Member States to identify common policies through the exchange of best practices in Europe, and for measures to prevent and combat the risk of poverty and social exclusion for single mothers. I supported this report overall. However, I voted against Recital M because matters of sexual and reproductive rights are a responsibility of the Member States.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) This report has the great merit of taking an interest in those people of whom society often asks the most: single mothers. Trapped in a situation of uncertainty exacerbated by the economic crisis, they struggle more than others to find meaningful employment and decent housing and to provide for their family’s needs. This situation is unacceptable.

This text calls for the prevention of unjustified dismissals of single mothers. It insists that they should have access to child care services and housing support. It demands that single mothers who are in education receive suitable scholarships. What a shame then that it sets a child care target of only 50% for 0-3 year-olds and that it fails to call for meaningful employment contracts for those women that it is supporting. I voted in support of the criticisms made and the steps forward proposed.

  Louis Michel (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The concept of the family unit is changing fast, reflecting the changes in our societies. Single mothers make up five per cent of all women in Europe and 85% of these mothers are aged between 25 and 64. These women, who are often in a fragile situation, must receive special attention from our governments, as they are faced with the same challenges as those of a two-parent family unit, like education, training, employment and so on. This accumulation of issues is not without repercussions for the children. Now, the latter should enjoy the same opportunities in education and access to employment as the children of two-parent families. It is up to the EU, which wishes to ensure compliance with the values of equality, democracy and freedom, to make the Member States who have yet to adapt their economic and social policies aware of these new models of the family. Both the ‘single mother’ and the ‘single father’ suffer prejudice in certain countries and regions in the EU. The fact is that the right to be different is a founding expression of human rights. Any minority, regardless of the nature of that which makes it a minority, must enjoy identical rights.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE), in writing. – (SK) The demographic challenges Europe is facing in relation to the low birth rate and the resulting substantial ageing of European society require the adoption of additional measures to protect mothers with children. The implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy must also include the creation of specific policies and the subsequent translation of their core principles into law, helping to create more favourable conditions for single mothers in terms of the work-life balance. We must, above all, provide effective protection for mothers from unlawful job dismissal, and, on the other hand, encourage businesses in particular to take on more single mothers, by providing tax relief, for example, or other sorts of financial incentive. Facilitating the access of single mothers to the labour market is, in my opinion, a tool in the fight against poverty and social exclusion, as it provides mothers with financial independence, and I therefore support the motion.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – This report focuses on the situation of single mothers in the EU. The rapporteur outlines all sorts of problems that single mothers face, including interruption of their education, poor health, unemployment and a higher risk of poverty – in fact 32% of single-mother households in the EU-25 were at risk of poverty, as against 12% of couple-based households.

Many Member States also fail to meet the Barcelona target of providing child care for at least 33% of children aged under three, thus making the situation for single mothers even worse. The report suggests that Member States should take a more progressive approach and ensure access to child care facilities for up to 50% of children aged under three, and 100% of those in the three-to-six age band.

It also invites the Commission, while developing programmes such as Progress and Equal for the next multiannual financial framework, to consider awareness-raising programmes for promoting greater participation by certain economically fragile social groups, including single mothers. It proposes tax reductions to companies that employ single parents and provide child care facilities. The report is very important and I supported it.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) As a consequence of social trends, the number of single parents, not only single mothers, but also single fathers, has continually increased. Whereas in the southern Member States, it is assumed that, in this situation, the family network will help out, in the northern and Nordic countries, there are state measures such as financial support and support systems and in the Eastern European states, there is a combination of these approaches.

Understandably, women are feeling the effects of the economic crisis of the last few years particularly keenly. They are often affected by a high unemployment rate. As a result, single mothers, in particular, all too easily fall into a cycle of poverty, which is then passed on to their children. Single parents have a difficult situation to deal with, but it is not only mothers that can end up in a precarious situation as a result. For that reason, I abstained.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) At present, as much as five per cent of the entire female population of the EU are single mothers, mostly women aged 25-40. In Latvia and Estonia, this rises to nine per cent. This is a relatively new social phenomenon. The growing number of single mothers is linked to the devaluation of the family as a basic social cell. I believe that this new social category that is difficult to define must be included in the social security system. However, we should find an optimum basket of support measures – the good proposals set out in the report should not create incentives to put the traditional family in a less advantaged position because we want as many children as possible to grow up in two-parent families. This report is not just about single mothers, but about child poverty, and I therefore welcome the proposals contained in it, which will help prevent children from falling into an inescapable cycle of poverty.

Furthermore, in the current economic situation, particularly for those Member States which are suffering from emigration, we must promote the involvement of all categories of society in economic growth. Single mothers and fathers form one of these important categories which should receive support and have easier access to the labour market.

  Katarína Neveďalová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) I am delighted that we have approved the European Parliament’s position in relation to single mothers. This marks an historical first, and our consensus over this issue is truly symbolic. I hope the Member States will adopt this standpoint as good advice and will begin to treat this issue seriously. Unfortunately, the number of mothers raising children alone is increasing every day in Europe. In my opinion, the most important change here is to stop traumatising and blaming these mothers. It is not their fault that they have become single mothers. It is almost always a decision of at least two people, and the woman is the weaker one in the relationship. It is therefore important for society to start addressing the issue of how to help them. I consider it particularly important to allow them access to education, or to complete their education, because these are often young mothers who gave birth to a child before finishing school and thus became part of a much more vulnerable group on the labour market – those without education and with a young child. Access to state school and pre-school facilities is also important. I believe that many governments will be sympathetic to this initiative, and will start to implement it.

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE), in writing. – (ET) In solving problems associated with single motherhood, it makes sense to implement tried and tested solutions from the experience of other European Union Member States. In applying the best practices, however, one must certainly also take into consideration the distinctive features of the Member States – historical experience and the stage of development when dealing with a particular issue. The offering of tax benefits for single mothers could, for instance, promote the rise of formal single motherhood, particularly in poorer Member States. A system of support measures should, however, be organised so that it precludes abuses. One of the most important questions is, above all, the safeguarding of employment for single mothers, the family’s sole provider and the person upon whom her children’s welfare and future depend. Infant child care must definitely be guaranteed. I consider it regrettable that single mothers have essentially been left alone with their problems in many societies, and they are treated with disregard, even disdain. I support this report, which effectively reveals the main problems faced by single mothers and also proposes the requisite solutions.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution because there needs to be a common policy in this area since unmarried mothers make up a significant proportion of the population. It should be noted that this family model often suffers from poverty and experiences social exclusion.

In order to address existing problems and improve living conditions for single mothers, we must foster their self-reliance and independence. Above all, using money from the European Structural Funds, we must promote the employment of mothers, the work of family centres and other informal networks which care for single mothers and the exchange of best practice.

Only through joint efforts can we ensure that single mothers are not crippled by fate, but are strong women who enjoy motherhood.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (S&D), in writing. – In the EU, five per cent of women are single mothers. This group is difficult to identify as it is categorised differently across the EU, yet these women need help. In some parts of Europe, a woman’s extended family helps to bring up a child or children, but in other areas, social benefits are of great help to single women. These women have to cope with a task often shared by two parents.

Single mothers and their children are at a high risk of poverty. Among single-parent families, every third child lives below the poverty line or is in danger of being in poverty. The current economic crisis has not helped the situation.

I voted in favour of this report because it calls for a change in policy – particularly in public policies involving education, health care, employment, social assistance and housing – to benefit single mothers. Member States should promote appropriate models to support single mothers: models that help these women enter the labour market. There must also be an exchange of good practice among Member States. Only then can strong policies in support of single mothers be developed and implemented.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The studies presented indicate that the negative effects felt throughout the European Union from the economic and financial crisis have hit women especially hard. This impact has been even more severe for the large majority of single mothers in their prime working years, from 25 to 40. In view of this, I voted for this report on single mothers, which calls on the Member States to provide tax credits for single-parent households and tax breaks for companies employing single parents. My main concern, although this is obviously not the focus of the report, is for the countless families in which one or both parents are unemployed.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Looking at the wide variety of situations that characterise single motherhood, and therefore the equally broad range of problems affecting each mother in a different way, it is very difficult to identify a pressure group that could support the interests of the category of single mothers as a whole. Furthermore, more importantly, there is no definite possibility for single mothers to guarantee education or support for their children in view of the high rate of unemployment among single mothers. The fact that they can only count on limited resources also means that single mothers are not guaranteed a stable livelihood. It is for these important reasons that I congratulate the rapporteur and have voted for the report, while I would also like to highlight the importance of urging Member States to tackle the issue of single mothers through investment and research into the issue.

  Rovana Plumb (S&D), in writing. – (RO) Single mothers are a frequently neglected demographic group, currently comprising five per cent of women in Europe.

With the negative impact of the economic and financial crisis, in addition to the high unemployment rate among single mothers, poverty entails severe consequences for children being raised and looked after by single mothers.

Member States must adopt public policies, including policies relating to education, care provision, health care, employment, social security systems and housing, to support the needs of single-parent families. Easier access must be provided – by funding through the European Social Fund (ESF) and Member States – to basic training, vocational training and bursaries for single mothers (unmarried, widowed or separated), and young pregnant women must be encouraged not to stop their education, since it will enable them to obtain qualifications and maximise their chances of having decent working conditions, getting well-paid jobs and gaining financial independence.

Member States must ensure that all allowances (maintenance payments) from non-custodial parents are paid regularly and take into account the gender factor, especially the situation of single mothers during the reform of their pension systems.

  Phil Prendergast (S&D), in writing. – I welcome this report for its examination of an issue which is often overlooked, namely, the plight of the single mother. While it may feel uncomfortable to consider the issue of single mothers, as opposed to single parents, the fact remains that women make up the vast majority of single parents across Europe. In fact, in Ireland, over 90% of single parents with children aged under 20 are single mothers. It is vital that levels of welfare payments to single mothers and their families remain intact in the current economic climate. Such families are already at a higher risk of poverty than other groups in society. Young single mothers have higher rates of unemployment than average and are more likely to be working part-time or in underpaid jobs. We must ensure that Member States protect this vulnerable group and devise national policies aimed at preventing a slide into poverty for single mothers and their families.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Single mothers are often overlooked in the development of public policy on benefits, to the detriment of the specific problems that they raise. From the mothers’ point of view, on the one hand, they often experience difficulties accessing employment or vocational training, while from their children’s point of view, on the other, what stands out is that they have less time in which to enjoy family life and, as a result, have less opportunity to continue studying. This is an area that deserves the attention of policy makers, and in which there is justification for starting an open dialogue to find solutions for alleviating the current precarious conditions. I therefore voted in favour.

  Frédérique Ries (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The adoption this afternoon of Ms Matera’s report on the situation of single mothers marks a step forward towards improving the status of single women faced with responsibilities usually shared by couples. Member States must pay special attention to single-parent families, who are more financially vulnerable, discriminated against on the job market and victims of social prejudice. Less flexible hours, a particular exposure to stress, social exclusion, a lack of flexible training, and so on: these are all obstacles that single mothers, who account for around 85% of single-parent families, have to overcome in addition to the existing inequalities between men and women. These families have specific needs. They need to be given practical solutions and Member States’ policies need to be adapted.

Tax credits, health care benefits, tax breaks, incentives to companies that provide day care and nursery facilities, flexible job opportunities, training courses accessible to single mothers, and so on: there are many measures that would help to smooth out the inequalities faced by these women. This is without mentioning better sex education for teenagers, which is essential in order to combat the rise in single-parent families.

  Robert Rochefort (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Europe is marked by the growth of single-parent families which, in the main, are composed of single mothers: 85% of single parents are women. These families frequently find themselves in difficult situations: 32% of these single parents are exposed to the risk of poverty, compared with 12% of couples with children. In this weakened state, these families must receive more attention from public authorities. That is what Barbara Matera calls for in her report, which I endorse. The report encourages Member States to adopt public policies, especially in relation to education, public health, employment, social security and housing, that meet the needs and recognise the realities of single-parent families. As for assistance with employment, the report lays special emphasis on the major role that the European Social Fund could play in offering scholarships to single mothers or keeping pregnant women in education. It also stresses that Member States and companies should do more to support work-life balance by introducing more family-friendly working conditions (flexible working hours, teleworking, the development of child facilities and so on).

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. Some of the interesting points are:

- Member States to ensure access to child care facilities: 50% of necessary care for 0-3 year-olds and 100% of care for 3-6 year-olds (Par. 16, AM by Franziska),

- Member States to give priority to work-life balance by introducing more family-friendly working conditions/flexible working hours and teleworking, nurseries, etc.),

- Member States to provide training courses and vocational training aimed at facilitating employment for single mothers by funding through the European Social Fund (partly AM Franziska),

- Member States to provide tax deductions and other financial incentives to companies that employ single parents or create or provide on-site child care facilities (Par. 18),

- Member States to ensure that single mothers benefit from housing support (Par. 22).

  Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD), in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of the report because it calls for more attention to be paid to the situation of single mothers, while encouraging the Member States to adopt public policies, including educational policies, care provision, health policies, employment policies and social security systems. For every 20 women in Europe, there is one single mother in need of support. Perhaps this will help to mitigate the tragic reality of abortions. The Member States do indeed need to adopt measures and take action so that single mothers are not at risk of poverty and social exclusion. Clearly, support for the traditional family is needed so that children can develop normally; however, we also need to ensure that the problems facing single-parent families are also addressed.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Single, divorced or widowed mothers aged 25 to 64 represent five per cent of all women in the EU, and come from all socio-professional categories. This particular group is often neglected by public policy in the Member States and socially stigmatised. The purpose of this report is for the Member States, together with the EU, to take concrete steps in the areas of education, health, employment, social security and housing, so as to reduce the associated risks of poverty, social exclusion, and difficulties reconciling work and family life. There is a need to adapt public policy to different models and family situations. According to 2006 data, 32% of single-parent households in the 25 EU Member States were at risk of poverty, as opposed to 12% of couples with children. This is linked to the interruption of studies and the acquisition of vocational skills, to the lack of school infrastructure for children at affordable prices and with timetables compatible with the working day, and to social stigmatisation in some European societies. I believe we must work together and identify best practices amongst the Member States as a matter of urgency, while creating specific support measures for this vulnerable group.

  Viktor Uspaskich (ALDE), in writing. – (LT) This is a very important report. According to Eurostat data, Lithuania is among those countries with the highest number of single mothers in the EU. In Lithuania, the rate is six per cent, whereas in Greece, Finland and Romania, it is two per cent. One of the things that causes most concern is the poverty of children brought up by single mothers. High unemployment among single mothers prevents us from protecting children from poverty. In Lithuania, the rate of child poverty is almost 22% which exceeds the EU average of 20.3%. Poverty poses a greater threat to children being brought up in single-parent families. According to Lithuanian national statistics, 44% of single-parent families are threatened by poverty. High child poverty in Lithuania is partly caused by low family benefits, which are much lower than the EU average. It is very difficult for single mothers in Lithuania to balance work and bringing up children. According to the European Commission, Lithuania is failing to fully implement one of the Barcelona objectives – child care services only cover nine per cent of children under three and 62% of children between three and school age. I welcome the rapporteur’s proposal to take advantage of the European Institute for Gender Equality, which was recently established in Vilnius.

  Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. – I fully support the measures outlined in this report to provide more direct support to single mothers. With the growing number of single mothers in the EU, I believe that this report is an important step in outlining objectives for the future. Tax breaks, educational assistance and housing support for single-parent households are called for by the resolution. Single mothers in the EU are, on the whole, less educated than married mothers and developing initiatives to help young pregnant women as they aim to continue their education during pregnancy and after giving birth is an important support mechanism and will provide much needed assistance, especially to those in deprived areas. These initiatives should also benefit single fathers. Unmarried, widowed or separated women should also be provided with access to training and scholarship opportunities through the European Social Fund, which provides essential financial support to European regions.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) Single mothers currently make up five per cent of the female population of Europe and the trend is growing. Therefore, it is time for us to deal with the obstacles and disadvantages that they face in day-to-day life and to ensure that their children have equal opportunities in education, training and the labour market. The European Institute for Gender Equality in Vilnius is the ideal organisation to carry out research into implementation measures and solutions. I have voted in favour of this report.

  Artur Zasada (PPE), in writing. – (PL) I fully share the commitment of the rapporteur to the problem of single mothers and I agree that the issues she has raised have an important effect on our ability to guarantee dignity to all Europeans and their children. Unfortunately, the statistics are worrying. Women still make up the majority of people most at risk of violations of fundamental rights and unequal and unfair treatment. Seventy per cent of the world’s poorest people are women. In view of the low birth rate in Europe, we are doubly obliged to help mothers in particular.

The scale of the problem is very wide – it is causing the destruction of society starting from the youngest generation and is affecting all the EU’s Member States. In many Member States, the measures in place to help single mothers are unsatisfactory. Therefore, it is worth supporting efforts whose objective is to create a comprehensive system which will be an effective tool against all forms of discrimination against women in general, and single mothers in particular.

Report: Sonia Alfano (A7-0333/2011)

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. – I fully support this proposal, which aims to tackle organised crime at EU level. Organised crime is a key threat to the internal security of the EU, polluting the legal economy, infringing human rights, subverting the rules of democracy and hindering implementation of the EU’s commitments to its citizens. The institutions must therefore make a concrete political effort to counter it.

Organised crime now has a transnational basis and it has to be fought using the same approach. The EU legislative framework in this regard must be improved and Member States must ensure effective ratification and/or transposition of all European and international legal instruments relating directly or indirectly to action to combat organised crime. Entrenched mafia-style organised crime in the EU must be eradicated, and the function of the European bodies involved in various ways in fighting organised crime must be strengthened. Of utmost importance is full compliance with the principle of the mutual recognition of criminal decisions, with a view to combating organised crime and to improving judicial cooperation between Member States and with third countries. It is stressed that measures countering organised crime must be consistent with respect for fundamental rights and proportionate to the objectives pursued.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Constituting, as it does, a threat to the internal security of the EU, organised crime must be beaten if we are to ensure that the democratic values promoted by the EU are respected and bring an end to the distortions it causes to the internal market by putting pressure on the legal economy. That is why I voted in favour of Sonia Alfano’s motion for a resolution.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Organised crime is taking advantage of globalisation, the abolition of borders in the EU and the legislative differences between the Member States to make increasingly substantial profits, whilst, at the same time, ensuring its impunity. Organised crime acts on a transnational, cross-border basis and has to be fought using the same approach. The Treaty of Lisbon has opened up new opportunities and provides new EU-level instruments, in terms both of judicial and police cooperation, and of authorities responsible for countering transnational organised crime, enabling the establishment of common rules to combat such crime more effectively. This report, for which I voted, tables proposals for improving the EU’s legislative framework and relations with other international institutions, such as the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and Interpol. It particularly emphasises fully applying the principle of mutual recognition of criminal decisions, with a view to combating this kind of organised crime, and to improving judicial cooperation both between Member States and with third countries.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Organised crime is a major challenge for the European Union. In 2010, mafia-type criminal organisations operating in Europe enjoyed a turnover that surpassed the EU’s total annual budget! The report by Sonia Alfano, which has been adopted by a very large majority, aims to propose concrete initiatives to develop a European strategy to combat organised crime and the Mafia. The EU is still far from being an integrated area of justice and freedom. Doubtless, new instruments are required, both in terms of legal and police cooperation and in terms of the practices of the European authorities that are already responsible for fighting transnational organised crime. With this report, we call on the European Commission to propose a directive aimed at making criminal association, be it the Mafia or any other criminal network, illegal in all Member States, and also to mobilise the appropriate resources, including financial, to support them in this fight.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because organised groups in the European Union are beginning to worm their way ever deeper into politics and there is an increase in drug trafficking, international arms trafficking, trafficking in and the exploitation of human beings, various financial crimes, counterfeiting, environmental crime, cybercrime, fraud and extortion and the diversion of public funds, and most of the proceeds from these criminal activities are laundered. According to reports, the Italian mafia alone is estimated to have revenues of around EUR 135 billion and, by cooperating with mafia representatives from other countries, they are receiving ever greater profits and economic benefits. Organised crime is taking place on a global scale, which is costing society very dear, and human rights are also being violated. This report sets some major objectives, such as developing appropriate proposals for combating criminals so as to create greater freedom and guarantee security and justice in the European Union and to fight crime.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Organised crime entails a substantial social cost in that it misappropriates and squanders resources, distorts the free common market, corrupts businesses and legal economic activities, promotes corruption, contaminates and destroys the environment, and violates human rights and the rules of democracy. The effects of this phenomenon have a strong impact on the European Union’s commitments towards its citizens. This is why the institutions must make a definite political effort to counter organised crime and produce significant, tangible results. Organised crime, especially mafia-style crime, is capitalising on globalisation, the abolition of borders in the EU, and the legislative differences among Member States, to make increasingly substantial profits, while ensuring, at the same time, that they go unpunished.

This has been made possible as organised crime has created an approval and support network, involving deep, extensive infiltration of the political world, civil service and legal economy. In Romania, a bill was recently adopted which makes loan sharking an offence punishable with a prison sentence of between six months and five years. At the same time, any money and goods obtained from this activity are confiscated. Loan sharking flourishes, particularly during an economic crisis, and destroys lives.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The creation of a real European area of freedom, security and justice requires balance between these three aspects, as the public can only enjoy their rights and freedoms in an area where they are guaranteed a high level of security, particularly through measures for the prevention and combating of crime, for coordination and cooperation between the police and the judicial authorities, and for the mutual recognition of criminal decisions. There is no doubt that organised crime acts on a transnational basis, with involvement in areas ranging from drug trafficking and human trafficking to corruption and money laundering, and it has to be fought using the same approach, which cannot be confined to cross-border barriers. I am voting for this report, as it represents a remarkable political effort to step up the fight against organised crime, establishing guidelines and proposals for action in order to improve the EU legislative framework; for example, by confiscating the proceeds of crime, by imposing transparency measures in the management of public funds, and by drafting a new directive on common investigative techniques. It is also crucial to strengthen and improve the functioning of the European structures involved in fighting organised crime in various ways, such as Europol and Eurojust, and to strengthen cooperation between these agencies and the Member States.

  Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this report aimed at combating organised crime across the EU. Organised crime entails not only trampling on the fundamental rights of the many, decent people, but also a substantial social cost in that it misappropriates and squanders resources (financial, labour and so on), distorts the free common market, corrupts businesses and legal economic activities, promotes corruption, contaminates and destroys the environment, and violates human rights and the rules of democracy. This report will enhance the EU legislative framework with some specific measures aimed at tackling the internationalisation of mafia-style criminal organisations. In this regard, improving the operation of the European structures entrusted with combating organised crime is of paramount importance, as well as relations with other international agencies, such as UNODC and Interpol.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this report because I think that organised crime poses one of the major threats to both the European Union’s internal security and citizens’ freedom and security. This kind of criminal activity disrupts free trade and the common market, slows down the economy and business, encourages corruption and violates fundamental human rights, all of which pose a serious threat to democracy.

I support the transnational and cross-border approach proposed by the rapporteur for combating this problem. I think that an effective joint response is required against the mafia presence in many EU Member States.

I believe that the proposals for improving the EU legislative framework are welcome, and the measures proposed for combating the internationalisation of criminal organisations may deliver positive results.

Last but not least, I believe that the European structures involved in combating organised crime, which need to be strengthened, are of paramount importance, and their relations with other international agencies, such as Interpol, need to be reinforced.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) As the report just voted on says, ‘organised crime, especially mafia-style crime, is taking advantage of globalisation, the abolition of borders in the EU and the legislative differences among the Member States to make increasingly substantial profits whilst, at the same time, ensuring they remain unpunished’. This is a serious state of affairs and would, on its own, oblige the EU to reflect seriously. We did not abolish our borders to facilitate organised crime. We did not establish a common area of freedom, security and justice so that organised crime would flourish. I am sure that the Commission will take into account Parliament’s proposals on combating organised crime and that it will soon table concrete measures to that end.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Organised crime is on the increase in the European Union, as a result of both the economic and financial crisis and the abolition of border controls. The trafficking in and exploitation of human beings, financial crime, international drugs and arms trafficking, money laundering and financial crimes, corruption and the misappropriation of public funds are some of the activities to which these mafias are dedicated. This report, drafted by Ms Alfano, concerns this practice, which is detrimental to the interests of the European public and the EU institutions, and it sets out guidelines which Parliament believes should be followed as part of a better EU legislative framework, with a view to stopping the internationalisation of mafia-style criminal organisations, particularly by strengthening and improving the functioning of European structures involved in this fight, such as the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and Interpol. Given that the EU must make every effort to ensure that its territory is an area of freedom, with freedom of movement for people and goods, but also an area of security, I fully agree with the measures tabled in this report and I hope they will be implemented by the Member States as swiftly as possible.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) It is obviously extremely important to combat organised crime. Tough measures need to be taken against all the different manifestations of crime, particularly in relation to money laundering. It is therefore important not to overlook or play down – or worse, whitewash – certain kinds of crime, especially those that take place in the economic sphere. The rise in crime is inextricably linked to the current socio-economic situation in the European Union, to the profound crisis of capitalism and its manifestations in Europe, and to the EU’s policies, both financial and social, which are marked by a deep disrespect for social and labour rights. At the same time that we are witnessing brutal violence against the peoples and workers, there is almost complete inertia in relation to the combating of organised crime, the promotion of get-rich-quick and illicit schemes, including drug trafficking, arms trafficking, and human trafficking.

The report ignores these issues. It is therefore important to stress the need to break with this policy, whose effects cut across and devastate all manner of areas, and which itself fosters conditions for the development of organised crime in its various guises.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) Obviously, we believe combating organised crime is extremely important. However, tough measures need to be taken against all the different manifestations of crime, particularly in relation to money laundering, which undoubtedly represents one of the most blatant instances of the blurred boundary between what is legal and what is illegal. We are therefore drawing attention to the whitewashing of certain kinds of crime, which are infiltrating a number of different areas, especially the economic sphere. The rise in crime is inextricably linked to the current socio-economic situation in the European Union and to its policies, both financial and social, which are marked by a deep disrespect for social and labour rights.

The very downgrading of the importance of work and workers, like all the other backward steps that civilisation is taking, is one of the motivations for crime. Therefore, at the same time that we are witnessing brutal violence against the peoples and workers, there is almost complete inertia in relation to the combating of organised crime, the promotion of get-rich-quick and illicit schemes, including drug trafficking, arms trafficking, and human trafficking. We would therefore like to stress the need to break with this policy, whose effects cut across and devastate all manner of areas, in spite of the fact that we voted for this report.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) Organised crime has a substantial social cost in that it misappropriates resources, distorts the free common market, pollutes businesses and the legal economy, promotes corruption, contaminates and destroys the environment, infringes human rights and suppresses the rules of democracy. It is essential for the institutions of the European Union to make a concrete political effort to counter organised crime and produce tangible and significant results. Organised criminals frequently take advantage of globalisation, the abolition of borders in the EU and the legislative differences among the Member States to make increasingly substantial profits whilst, at the same time, ensuring they remain unpunished, and this is extremely serious. Criminal groups have built up a network of followers and supporters, and have penetrated the political sphere as well as public administrations, as investigations have often confirmed. The Treaty of Lisbon opens up new opportunities and provides new instruments at EU level, in terms of both judicial and police cooperation, as well as authorities responsible for countering transnational organised crime and the establishment of common rules for combating such crime more effectively.

Of vital importance are both the strengthening and improved functioning of European structures that are involved in various ways in combating organised crime, and, last but not least, it is, in my opinion, necessary to apply the principle of mutual recognition of criminal decisions, and to improve judicial cooperation both between Member States and with third countries.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. – (FR) Contrary to the claims of the rapporteur, the explosion of organised crime and transnational crime in the European Union is one of the consequences of the disappearance of internal border controls without any serious reinforcement of controls at the external borders. It is true, as has been said in all of the long-winded meetings, trafficking – of drugs, people and arms – is a scourge and the imagination of the traffickers knows no bounds. Once again, though, we come together to attempt to manage, at a European level, problems that would never have existed or would have been far reduced had it not been for the existence of the European Union. Moreover, as regards crime, Member States have not waited for the EU before reacting. The Prüm Treaty illustrates this, even if its content was partially adopted at EU level, resulting, by the way, in its being less effective. However, the issue that particularly motivated our vote against is the intention to give competences in these areas to the planned European Public Prosecutor’s Office. We are opposed to the very principle of this Office and, therefore, in particular, we oppose the possibility of this supranational organisation initiating legal investigations and giving orders to our police services.

  Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) I voted resolutely in favour of Sonia Alfano’s report on the fight against organised crime in the European Union. Organised crime is, unfortunately, one of the main threats to the EU’s internal security and, faced with the magnitude of this global phenomenon, it is essential for Europe to arm itself with a European strategy, the legislative and operational instruments and the financial resources to combat this threat. In addition, we must work on adopting a common, global European approach to the way in which we respond to the looming threats and challenges to security, whilst building a safe Europe where together, we can attack the threats that go beyond our borders. I welcome, in particular, the provisions in this report on the importance of protecting the victims of organised crime and on the importance of providing them with appropriate protection. In addition, I hope that the texts on which we are currently working in connection with cross-border crime, internal security, terrorism and so on will allow us to progress to the creation of a true European Public Prosecutor’s Office whose competence must go far beyond merely protecting the European Union’s financial interests and cover all of these areas.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I have fully supported this report to send out a clear message on Europe’s determination, which is shared by a vast majority, to fight the broad impunity enjoyed by the mafias. To achieve this, we must especially arm ourselves with stricter rules to prevent mafia organisations from gaining access, in one way or another, to public funds, and from taking part in tendering procedures. Our efforts in this struggle to suffocate ‘the Mob’ also include the introduction of a special European Parliament commission which will have to propose measures to fight more effectively against criminal cross-border mafia activities. Finally, I especially support the introduction of measures to protect victims and their families, along with support measures to help them to recover after they have gone through terrible experiences.

  Jim Higgins (PPE), in writing. – I welcome this very necessary report. While overall crime rates have been steadily falling throughout Europe since 2002, according to Eurostat 2010 crime statistics, drug trafficking has generally risen. The sale of illegal drugs is a main revenue generator for organised criminals, feeding the underworld that also promotes human trafficking. This is the kind of serious crime that requires urgent attention.

We must not allow criminals to use the EU policy of free movement of people and goods to their illegal benefit: the 27 EU Member States must share information and cooperate in the fight against crime. We must be particularly vigilant and step up our efforts now – criminals often being the first to profit in tough economic times as they tend to use financial enticements or manipulation to recruit young and vulnerable people.

The Treaty of Lisbon provides for greater cooperation involving judicial systems, police forces and the authorities responsible for countering transnational organised crime (Europol, Eurojust, OLAF and the European Public Prosecutor). Through this report, Parliament has supported the strengthening of those structures involved in fighting organised crime, and of relations with other international institutions such as the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and Interpol. Vitally, the internationalisation of efforts to combat mafia-style criminal organisations is also prioritised.

  Brice Hortefeux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Organised crime is an alarming phenomenon that extends far beyond national borders. It therefore requires a European response. It has major social and economic consequences, whilst the threats it poses to internal security and human rights are increasingly worrying.

The adoption by a huge majority of Ms Alfano’s report is proof of the European Parliament’s determination to deal with this priority issue for justice and internal security. This is why I welcome the recommendations in this report which proposes a series of concrete measures, such as improving the effectiveness of European structures like Eurojust and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, as well as legal and police cooperation and specific actions to combat corruption in public procurement.

The fight against organised crime and the establishment of mafias is an issue for everyone. The Member States are determined to bring an end to this threat. By adopting this report, the European Parliament is demonstrating its commitment to supporting all proportionate measures that will allow us to stem this major phenomenon.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. – Serious organised crime has an increasingly international dimension and criminals involved in such activities as human trafficking and the drugs trade are able to operate across borders. The EU has an important role to play in combating organised crime and the Scottish Government is actively involved in the UK’s opting in to certain initiatives. The battle against crime must, however, be proportionate, and I believe this report finds a correct balance.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed this resolution because, as we know, the purpose of organised crime (corruption, extortion, drugs trafficking, money laundering, etc.) is to make an economic profit, and consequently, if action to prevent and combat the problem is to be effective, it must focus on identifying, freezing, seizing and confiscating the proceeds of crime. The legal framework which currently exists at EU level is not an adequate basis for serious action to tackle the problem, and there is a need for legislation which would, for example, allow so-called ‘extended confiscation’ and action targeting assets registered in the name of front persons and organisations. The Member States must strengthen their judicial authorities and police forces on the basis of the best current experience, also comparing the legislation and resources designed to support their activities, and assigning adequate human and financial resources for that purpose. We must adopt measures in order to address this acknowledged threat to the EU and its citizens, such as setting up a special committee on the dissemination of criminal organisations which operate across borders, including mafias, drafting an impact assessment on the added value of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, improving practical cooperation among police and judicial authorities, preventing companies linked to organised crime and mafias from taking part in public tenders and public procurement management, as well as similar measures.

  Sandra Kalniete (PPE), in writing. – I chose to support this motion because I believe that it sets out Parliament guidelines and proposals to counter organised crime at EU level; it will help strengthen and improve the functions of the various structures which are meant to fight organised crime and, as it is our duty to fulfil those commitments we have made to our citizens, I believe it is an important motion. Organised crime has substantial social costs; it infringes upon the EU’s commitments towards its citizens by misappropriating resources, distorting the free common market, promoting corruption, infringing on human rights, undermining the rule of democracy, and much more. Lately, organised crime has taken advantage of globalisation, the abolition of EU borders and the legislative differences among Member States.

As crime acts on a transnational basis, so must the organisations which strive to prevent it. That is why we must take advantage of the new opportunities and instruments at EU level which have come into being since the enactment of the Treaty of Lisbon, judicial and police cooperation and the organisations responsible for the prevention of transnational crimes, such as Europol, Eurojust, OLAF, and European Public Protectors.

  Timothy Kirkhope (ECR), in writing. – The ECR Group abstained on the Alfano report on organised crime in the European Union for the following reasons: – On the one hand, we are in favour of fighting organised crime at EU level. Therefore it is necessary to make sure that Member States, their crime-fighting agencies and EU institutions and agencies involved in fighting organised crime, such as Europol, Eurojust, the European Anti-Trafficking Coordinator, OLAF and Frontex, cooperate and coordinate their actions. – On the other hand, this report contains too many requests for further judicial integration and ‘Europeanisation’ of criminal law. We do not believe this is necessary or effective. For example, we do not believe there is a need for a European Public Prosecutor. We need to reinforce existing structures rather than propose new directives and other EU legislative instruments.

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE), in writing. – I voted in favour of the report on organised crime in the EU, which outlines the need for an EU strategy to fight organised crime, to include legislative and operational measures, allocation of funds, and a rigorous implementation timetable. The report also underlines the importance of promoting a culture of legality.

I tabled amendments in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs for (i) the consolidation of the legal and institutional framework regarding confiscation of assets (including civil confiscation), which result from organised crime, (ii) legislation on the re-use of crime proceeds for social purposes, (iii) proper protection of people agreeing to cooperate with the judiciary and of whistle blowers, (iv) transparency in the use of European funds, and (v) setting up the European Prosecutor’s Office with a robust mandate to investigate serious cross-border crimes, including organised crime and corruption.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I welcome this resolution which calls on the European institutions to send out a clear message at EU and international level with a view to curbing all forms of money laundering through the use of the financial markets, in particular, by: envisaging possible capital control measures, as recently suggested by the International Monetary Fund itself; encouraging a reduction of the pervasiveness of the financial markets in the context of short-term operations; imposing increased transparency on the use of public funds, first and foremost, on those to support private sector development, and carrying out an effective offensive against tax havens by imposing country-by-country financial reporting on all multinational economic operators; promoting a multilateral agreement on the exchange of tax-related information whilst revising the definition of ‘tax haven’ and the list of these secret jurisdictions. Parliament calls on the Commission to draw up clear guidelines on the traceability of money so as to make it easier to identify cases involving the laundering of money deriving from illegal activities; calls on the Commission, with a view to its legislative proposal, to update the Money Laundering Directive.

  Jiří Maštálka (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (CS) Organised criminal activity oversteps, by its nature, the borders of any one state. It is appropriate here to mention the need for effective international cooperation, and particularly collaboration between the authorities responsible for the fight against organised crime. For our part, we can contribute mainly by creating high-quality legislation, thereby helping these bodies in their activities. I would also like to say that control mechanisms should be set up preventing any form of malfeasance under the pretext of fighting against organised crime, and rules should be established for the greatest possible transparency.

  Marisa Matias (GUE/NGL), in writing. – This initiative report has the aim of setting out Parliament’s guidelines and proposals for countering organised crime at EU level. This is, of course, a very important aim and we can only support it. In the adopted text, concrete proposals are made for action to improve the EU legislative framework (including several specific measures to address the internationalisation of Mafia-type criminal organisations), and to strengthen and improve the functioning of European structures that are involved in various ways in fighting organised crime, as well as relations with other international institutions such as the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.

Although we noted that sometimes, the means suggested are either not clear enough from the legal point of view or, on the contrary, too detailed for EU level and for a non-legislative instrument, we very much support the fight against organised crime, as highlighted in the report, and for that reason, we supported the work of the rapporteur and voted in favour.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) There needs to be an effective improvement in the legislative framework on organised crime. International criminal networks are highly active and Member States need to urgently step up cooperation and coordination also to approximate their legislation. I voted in favour.

  Louis Michel (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Unfortunately, organised crime is a global phenomenon which reaches far beyond the borders of the Member States and the European Union. Along with terrorism, it currently represents one of the biggest threats to the security, economic stability and freedom of EU citizens. The fight against organised crime is one of the major challenges faced by the international community. It must have access to resources, including financial resources, and a strategy, at European level, that includes legislative and operational measures.

It is important for the Commission to develop effective tools and to take concrete initiatives. A global approach is essential in the fight against crime, as is strengthening international cooperation, in particular, between the judiciary and law enforcement bodies, and introducing joint investigation teams. Seizing and confiscating the proceeds of crime should be another tool used to prevent criminal activity. It is also important to provide appropriate protection for victims of organised crime.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – Since the report reaffirms the importance of an EU strategy for fighting transnational organised crime and mafias that pose a considerable threat to security and legality in the EU, I voted in favour.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) Organised crime remains a major problem. Only a small amount of progress has been made in combating mafia structures in particular. Globalisation and the abolition of internal borders are, unfortunately, exploited repeatedly by criminal gangs on a large scale. In recent years, trafficking, in particular, has become one of the most lucrative branches of organised crime. What gives particular cause for concern is the degree to which Italian mafia organisations and other European and non-European criminal organisations (for example, the Russian, Albanian, Turkish and Nigerian mafia), as well as drugs cartels, have created networks in almost all EU Member States. The EU instruments for combating organised crime are inadequate, particularly when they in fact go hand in hand with continual cuts in personnel in the police force and judicial system. I am therefore unable to vote in favour of the report, even though it contains some good proposals.

  Claudio Morganti (EFD), in writing. – (IT) It is undeniable that organised crime has become a global issue. Therefore, strong, coordinated measures are needed by all the EU Member States, in order to crush a phenomenon that has serious repercussions for the entire community. Criminal organisations do not only carry out more or less visible crimes; they can also attack the heart of the economy in a society and force honest people to suffer unfair competition that puts them out of the market. I have to say, with some pride, that at least in this area, Italy can provide an excellent example to be followed in Europe. Thanks to intensive work over the last three years by our Minister for the Interior, Mr Maroni, we have achieved excellent results. In the last year alone, over 9 000 members of the mafia have been arrested, 32 of whom had been on the run for a long time. In addition, over 4 000 assets with a total value of over EUR 4 billion were seized.

It may be true that Italy suffers from the problem of the mafia more than other countries, but it has put in place the necessary tools to try and combat it. This report reiterates and calls for the use of many measures that are already in place in our country, and for this reason, I decided to support it.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) We need to strengthen the response to organised crime both in the European Union and beyond, and to do this there needs to be joint action and better coordination between the relevant EU institutions and between the Member States. I voted in favour of the report because it sets out a whole range of specific proposals on how to increase the deterrent effect and make punitive measures more effective, without violating fundamental rights and freedoms. The report also takes into account the external dimension of organised crime. Corruption is deep-rooted in some third countries as a part of the culture of social relations. The EU should not only fully exploit existing instruments to promote the combating of corruption in third countries, but should also ensure that procedures in third countries for the distribution and use of assistance provided by the EU satisfy the high standards of transparency and publicity applied by the EU. It should be noted that as well as greater transparency of procedures and publicity of all information on public finances, public access to data on offences committed and the persons involved would also be an effective measure. Corruption is linked to organised crime, and Member States and the EU should therefore make additional efforts to reduce tolerance in society, even for low level corruption.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) The single market and discrepancies between national laws leave a great deal of leeway for organised crime. However, there is now an even more complex variable: the economic crisis, which is giving rise to other forms of organised crime which are exploiting uncertainty and insecurity, especially among private individuals. In Greece, for example, which has been hardest hit by the crisis, there has been a rapid increase in blackmail (as much as 50% within a year), in smuggling (up 84.29%) and in counterfeit coins in circulation (up 56.99%).

Organised crime therefore needs an organised response and organised policies on the part of the EU. This particular report, which I voted in favour of, understands the new challenges; however, in addition to existing legislative initiatives, the Commission should consider new, more effective legislative initiatives in this sector.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The consequences of organised crime have a profound impact on the commitments made by the EU to its citizens, so the institutions should make a real political effort to combat organised crime in order that it can achieve concrete and significant results. I agree with this premise, so I voted for this report, which details the policies that the EU can adopt with regard to key areas of organised criminal activity, in particular: the trafficking in and exploitation of human beings; international drug trafficking; arms trafficking; money laundering and financial crime; corruption; interpenetration and coexistence of organised crime, politics and the civil service, and misappropriation of public funds – in particular EU funds – by organised crime; ecomafias and environmental crimes; cybercrime; counterfeit products and related trafficking; and extortion and usury.

  Phil Prendergast (S&D), in writing. – I welcome this report by Ms Alfano on organised crime in Europe.

There are two elements on which I wish to comment. Firstly, the need for a directive with the specific aim of taking the proceeds of crime out of the hands of those who perpetrate it is increasingly patent. In Ireland, this step was taken by the establishment of the Criminal Assets Bureau in 1996. Since then, the Bureau has taken more than EUR 129 million out of the hands of criminals and criminal gangs. However, with improved implementation of the principle of free movement of workers and goods, it has become easier for criminal gangs to move money and assets around throughout the Union: hence, the need for a pan-European approach.

Secondly, I would point out that in every part of my home constituency, we face problems with criminal gangs dealing in drugs. As stated in the 2011 Cross-Border Crime Assessment, practically all illicit drugs in Ireland are imported – as opposed to being locally produced – mostly from mainland Europe. There is a need for a fully coordinated European approach which tackles this issue from the manufacturer right through to the pusher on the ground, leaving no link in the chain untouched.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) While the area of freedom is essentially at the service of the public, the fact is that it also offers a favourable environment for organised crime. Indeed, the EU enables unprecedented mobility, strengthening the power of these organisations. A common policy needs to be adopted in view of this. Just as this issue has only taken on the scale that we are seeing today with the advent of the single market, only joint action will be able to address it. I voted in favour because I believe efforts should be made towards such action.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – I voted in favour. Organised crime now takes place on a transnational, cross-border basis and has to be fought using the same approach. Moreover, as recognised by the Commission, the presence and firm establishment of Italian mafias (Ndrangheta, Camorra, Cosa Nostra, Sacra Corona Unita) in nearly all EU countries is, to all intents and purposes, a European problem of concern, as are the networks established between European and non-European criminal organisations such as the Russian, Chinese, Albanian and Nigerian mafias, Turkish and North African criminal organisations and the Colombian and Mexican drug cartels.

The Treaty of Lisbon opens up new opportunities and provides new instruments at EU level, in terms of both judicial and police cooperation and of authorities responsible for countering transnational organised crime (Europol, Eurojust, OLAF, European Public Prosecutor), not to mention the possibilities of establishing common rules to combat such crime more effectively.

  Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD), in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of this report on organised crime in the European Union because it is a fully legally substantiated proposal and we need very careful provisions to address this issue, given that it is different from terrorism. The European States need to be proactive in freezing the proceeds of organised crime, in order to condemn these practices and prevent a repetition of them in the future. Organised crime needs coordinated and cross-border action to combat it in the areas in Europe in which it is deeply rooted. The Committee on Foreign Affairs has a clear role to play.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Organised crime in the EU takes a heavy toll on the economic and social order in the European single market. It is therefore essential to make EU action in this area effective, in line with the strategic priorities and tasks set out in the various existing strategic documents: the Stockholm Programme, the internal security strategy, the European pact to combat international drug trafficking, the EU Action Plan on Drugs for 2009-2012, the Council Resolution on a reinforced strategy for customs cooperation and the Council’s conclusions on the contribution of the customs authorities to implementing the Stockholm Programme in the fight against cross-border organised crime. I am voting for Parliament’s proposal, but I support the position of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), to which I belong, in that I do not believe there needs to be a special parliamentary committee with powers in this area, especially with regard to the dissemination of criminal organisations.

  Viktor Uspaskich (ALDE), in writing. – (LT) According to the Europol Organised Crime Threat Assessment 2011 report, the sudden surge in organised crime in Lithuania is a serious problem. My country is mentioned 24 times in the report, compared to Latvia, which is only mentioned once, and Estonia, which is mentioned three times. Europol states that Lithuanian criminal groups’ wealth has increased their recruitment, infiltration and opportunities to invest. The report describes the important role played by Lithuanian groups in trafficking drugs (including amphetamines, methamphetamines and ecstasy) to EU Member States. They are also involved in the counterfeiting of euro banknotes and cigarette smuggling. As the European Parliament report states, organised crime is a billion euro business in Europe and it is growing. The expansion of trafficking and the opportunities provided by the global economic crisis have made organised crime even more dangerous. The rapporteur suggests several measures – including improving the European legislative framework – to help step up the fight against organised crime at EU level. We also need to combat political regimes which close their eyes to the problem and sometimes even support it indirectly.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) Organised crime results in huge social costs within the European Union while, at the same time, encouraging corruption and undermining human rights. This report contains guidelines for combating organised crime. It proposes a strategy based on the full implementation of the principle of mutual recognition of criminal judgments and on improving cooperation between the judicial systems and police forces in the different Member States and also in third countries. I have voted in favour.

Report: Cristian Dan Preda (A7-0313/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am in favour of this resolution as I believe that the fourth High-level forum on aid effectiveness should map out future commitments aimed at making development aid more effective, and should help develop a new international aid architecture in the run-up to the 2015 deadline for achieving the Millennium Development Goals and beyond. I would, however, like to highlight that previous high-level conferences have failed to produce the necessary political pressure or a legally binding framework, with the result that the implementation of the Paris Declaration has not led to the anticipated reduction in aid fragmentation, with too many operations still lacking transparency, for example, with regard to conditionalities. I, too, believe that all forms of development funding, including innovative financing mechanisms, such as the financial transaction tax and the global funds for health and education, should embody and put into practice the principles of the Paris Declaration. I would also point out that aid effectiveness requires poor countries to be able to mobilise their domestic revenue.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. – I voted in favour of the resolution on the High-level forum on aid effectiveness through which the European Parliament stresses the necessity for the EU to adopt a strong position in Busan in order to achieve global consensus on an effective and truly inclusive partnership for development and identify clear and measurable aims in order to increase aid effectiveness, supplemented by an effective follow-up mechanism. The report underlines that future success will depend on factors such as engaging stronger national parliaments in the monitoring of aid, as well as local authorities and civil society organisations; enhancing efforts towards political, administrative and fiscal decentralisation in partner countries and better coordination of activities between donor countries. We, as Members of the European Parliament, stated that aid effectiveness requires poor countries to be able to mobilise domestic revenues; therefore, we urge the EU to make the fight against tax havens and tax evasion its utmost priority, while promoting alternative sources of development finance. I am also in favour of the EU advocating, in Busan, the introduction of binding measures which will ensure that aid provision complies with human rights agreements, as all governments – donor and recipient – are bound by human rights obligations.

  Pino Arlacchi (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this text because it clearly stresses the need for the EU to adopt an ambitious position at the fourth High-level forum on aid effectiveness. The forum is a key moment and is expected to map out future commitments aimed at making development aid more successful and to help build up a new international aid architecture in order to achieve the Millennium Development Goals by 2015. Unfortunately, the previous high-level conferences failed to produce the necessary political pressure or a legally binding framework. For this reason, the EU must send to Busan its higher-level representatives. As we know, development aid is not, in itself, enough to eradicate poverty and should address its causes, rather than its symptoms. The report indeed calls on the EU to reaffirm that aid should be regarded as a temporary measure aimed at fostering self-sustainable growth in developing countries, rather than as a long-term solution.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Introduced in 2002, the High-level forum on aid effectiveness provides a forum where governmental and non-governmental representatives can meet to improve the use of development aid. In anticipation of the fourth forum, which takes place in Busan, in South Korea, in November, it is essential for the EU to defend a clear, ambitious position. In my concern to comply with the commitments made by the EU on this issue – consolidation of development policy consistency, allocation of 0.7% of GDP for official development assistance by 2015 and increased effectiveness of accountability on assistance – I voted for Christian Dan Preda’s report which places the accent on the participation of parliaments, local authorities and civil society, on ‘democratic ownership’ as a condition for aid allocation and, finally, on transparency.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The fourth High-level forum on aid effectiveness (HLF-4) must define the EU’s future commitments to more effective development aid. At a world level, the EU contributes more than half of official development assistance (ODA). That said, there remains much to be done to deal with the causes rather than the symptoms of poverty around the world. This is an extremely difficult issue. How can we create a development and, especially, a codevelopment policy that is both relevant and provides a way out of poverty for the least advanced countries? High-level conferences and declarations remain focused on the mechanisms for delivering aid when we need to think about drawing up effective development policies. Aid has reduced due to the financial crisis and also due to the noticeable reduction in the level of ODA which, for some fund providers, is lacking in short-term results. We cannot accept this short-term vision which does not match the deep and essentially long-term action which development assistance represents. HLF-4 can only succeed if it achieves a strong commitment from the EU in favour of effective aid, achieved via clear and measurable objectives.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because in it, the European Parliament gives its recommendations on the fourth High-level forum on aid effectiveness (HLF-4) which will take place this November in South Korea. The European Union and the Member States actually provide more than half of global official development assistance and therefore play an important role in the aid effectiveness programme. The document notes that recent monitoring studies and assessments have shown that recipient countries have done more than donor countries to implement commitments under development aid declarations and the Accra Agenda for Action adopted previously. In the forthcoming HLF-4, countries are therefore encouraged to debate how it would be possible to increase aid provision transparency and accountability and reduce the fragmentation of the aid provided. The document also expresses the belief that the EU must adopt an ambitious position at HLF-4 with a view to making a substantial contribution to deepening and fully implementing its aid effectiveness commitments.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report as I believe that Europe needs to show leadership and strong political commitment in Busan in order to make progress with the aid effectiveness agenda. The objectives of the fourth High-level forum on aid effectiveness, which will take place in Busan at the end of November, are to reaffirm, strengthen and reform international commitments, in order to ensure that aid is more effective, and that it functions better and promotes development. That is the only way in which the Millennium Development Goals can be achieved by 2015. I would stress the need for the EU to adopt a robust position in Busan, with the aim of reaching a global consensus for an effective and truly inclusive partnership on developing aid effectiveness.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The fourth High-level forum on aid effectiveness should map out future commitments aimed at making development aid more effective. I believe it is crucial that the EU adopt an ambitious position in Busan and make a serious commitment to achieving the commitments made in relation to aid effectiveness. Of the thirteen goals which the Paris Declaration was supposed to achieve, only one has been realised. It is vital that donor and recipient countries take immediate action to honour their commitments. I am bound to stress the importance of a differentiated approach to aid effectiveness, taking into account the level of development of the receiving countries and their specific needs. The involvement of local authorities and civil society organisations in development policy is therefore essential, along with better coordination and harmonisation of donor countries’ efforts, by streamlining procedures and working towards closer cooperation with private donors.

  Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this resolution on development aid effectiveness, given that transparency and accountability, both between the governments of donor and recipient countries and between state and society, are prerequisites for aid effectiveness. Donors and partner countries agreed in the Accra Agenda on Action to provide detailed information on aid flows in good time to enable developing countries to draw up their budgets and audit their accounts more accurately. Furthermore, it is of paramount importance that donor countries, and the EU in particular as a main global actor involved in development aid, support the strengthening of the institution of the national parliament and the involvement of local authorities and civil society organisations in linking development policy to the process of establishing democracy, at a time when numerous developing countries are facing a major deficit, not only economically and socially, but also in terms of the development and functioning of democratic institutions.

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The assessment of the effectiveness of public aid granted to developing countries should be periodically re-evaluated, as the development aid situation is constantly changing, particularly in this period in history, when so many Member States are faced with the issue of weighing up an acceptable level of budgetary allocation for this type of external aid against the need for effective development aid, which is absolutely necessary to so many countries and areas worldwide. This situation is compounded by the period of economic, financial and social instability that we are currently experiencing, and by the Millennium Development Goals, which require a new attitude on the part of the donor countries. I am voting for this report, as I believe the measures it proposes make the whole process of granting aid more rigorous. I would stress the measures for better coordination between donor countries, and also for the closer involvement of the national parliaments of recipient countries in the monitoring of aid, as this is essential to ensuring the success of the whole process.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Union is the largest donor in the world and is often reminded of this status when its institutions and Member States confront the failure of the development policies they have been supporting. Indeed, it has been acknowledged for a long time that it is not enough to transfer money and goods to the states that need it most, and that there is a need to monitor the way they are used, to hold the institutions and governments using them to account, to involve the civil society benefiting from the aid, and to prevent the diversion of funds and products for illicit purposes. For all these reasons, evaluation of the effectiveness of aid provided to developing countries is an extremely current issue, worthy of detailed and logical analysis.

I hope that the Union will continue to support developing countries and that they will show themselves capable of making the best possible use of the aid received. I also hope that civil societies and parliaments will becoming increasingly committed to monitoring how aid is used and to deciding how it is actually put at the service of their peoples.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report, drafted by Mr Preda, concerns the fourth High-level forum on aid effectiveness, which will take place from 29 November to 1 December in Busan, South Korea. As one of the major donors of funds to developing countries, the EU should play a role that matches its responsibilities. The proposed measures therefore include the introduction of a financial transaction tax, the need to put a stop to tax havens and the stepping up of the fight against tax evasion. The EU Code of Conduct on the Division of Labour in Development Policy should also be implemented, as this will enable a saving of EUR 6 million per year. This report identifies the areas where aid is most needed, and it has the backing of a significant majority of Members of this House. Expectations are high for this forum. I am therefore voting for this report, in the hope that the measures it proposes will allow a new framework to be mapped out, improving the quality of aid and contributing to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals by 2015.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report tackles the problem of the effectiveness of development aid, which is an issue related to the principles of the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness and the Accra Agenda for Action. Inevitably, it is also associated with the Millennium Development Goals, which are behind schedule, because of the clear contradictions between what politicians say and do. As the report itself says, aid is not enough to bring an end to poverty. Logically, then, development aid should tackle the causes of poverty and eliminate them, rather than just the symptoms. Although frankly insufficient and incomplete, the report includes positive aspects, such as the need to combat tax havens and tax evasion, as well as the reference to creating a financial transaction tax that could channel resources into development aid. We would also stress the observations regarding the cut in official development assistance (ODA), and that an increasing proportion of ODA comes from so-called emerging countries. We do not agree with other points in the report, such as the attempt to essentially hold the governments of developing countries responsible for reduced ‘ownership’ of development aid. Democratic ownership of development aid requires genuine, consistent and effective development aid that respects the needs of peoples, their sovereignty and their legitimate choices.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This problem of the effectiveness of development aid is an issue related to the principles of the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness and the Accra Agenda for Action. Inevitably, it is also associated with the Millennium Development Goals, which are behind schedule, because of the clear contradictions between what politicians say and do. As the report itself says, aid is not enough to bring an end to poverty. Logically, then, this development aid should tackle the causes of poverty and eliminate them, rather than the symptoms. Although frankly insufficient and incomplete, the report includes positive aspects, such as the need to combat tax havens and tax evasion, as well as the reference to creating a financial transaction tax that could channel resources into development aid.

We would also stress the observations regarding the cut in official development assistance (ODA), and that an increasing proportion of ODA comes from so-called emerging countries. We do not agree with other points in the report, such as the attempt to essentially hold the governments of developing countries responsible for reduced ‘ownership’ of development aid. Democratic ownership of development aid requires genuine, consistent and effective development aid that respects the needs of peoples, their sovereignty and their legitimate choices.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The European Union stands at the forefront in the fight for better living standards in developing countries. The need for general consensus in joint activities is always advocated in relation to achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. In the fight against poverty, it is vital to obtain as much development funding as possible from all available resources. The EU is not only one of the most important donors of official development aid (ODA), but also provides developing countries with an all-round set of measures to support sustainable development, particularly through cooperation with partner countries in creating a strategy for aid provision. Even though ODA is one of the best indicators of official donor commitments, it is not the only source of funding for development. An increasing proportion of total ODA comes from emerging countries which are not members of the OECD. Regardless of this fact, transparency and accountability – both between the governments of donor and recipient countries and between the state and society – are prerequisites for aid effectiveness.

The development aid landscape is constantly evolving, and aid effectiveness mechanisms should better reflect the emergence of new donors. In my opinion, it is right to continue to give consideration to the quality of aid, and to promote an international agenda which focuses on development.

  Catherine Grèze (Verts/ALE), in writing. – (FR) This future meeting is much more than just a forum on aid. The key challenge will be to turn the logic behind development policy on its head: democratic ownership is a key principle to be upheld so as to breathe life into the local development of poor countries. This resolution successfully underlines the importance of the principle of democratic ownership, of the principle of non-fragmentation of aid, of the need to prioritise local and regional public procurement, and of integrating cross-cutting issues, such as gender equality, social inclusion and climate change.

The Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance particularly welcomes the introduction of binding measures to ensure that aid provision complies with human rights agreements. It is regrettable, however, that the idea, recommended by a large number of NGOs, that the focus should be shifted from an aid effectiveness agenda to a development effectiveness agenda, thus highlighting the urgent need for genuinely consistent development policies, has not been adopted. It is also important to point out that the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) tried to weaken our proposal on the introduction of a tax on financial transactions as an alternative source of funding, but failed due to the Greens’ opposition.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed this document because the fourth High-level forum on aid effectiveness (HLF-4) will be a success if it results in a strong commitment to aid effectiveness, reflected in clear and measurable objectives with a precise timetable for their realisation, mindful of the implementation deficits of the Paris Declaration and Accra Agenda for Action. It underlines the importance of development ownership following a bottom-up approach, of non-fragmentation of aid and of setting up strong, effective and independent follow-up enforcement mechanisms, involving parliaments and civil society at both national and international level. Aid should serve as a lever for inclusive, sustainable growth because the allocation of aid takes into account the individual characteristics of each country, thus strengthening aid effectiveness in those countries whose need is greatest in order to reduce poverty and aid dependency, as well as foster job creation and self-sustainable growth in developing countries. I believe that development aid is not, in itself, enough to eradicate poverty and that it should address its causes, rather than its symptoms. There is a need for more effective aid as part of a development process which seeks to create, in recipient countries, strong, environmentally friendly economies in which access to basic social services is guaranteed for all citizens and, ultimately, to reduce dependence on aid in the future.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I welcome this resolution which points out that aid effectiveness requires poor countries to be able to mobilise domestic revenues. Parliament urges the EU once again, therefore, to make the fight against tax havens and tax evasion its utmost priority, while also promoting alternative sources of development finance, for example, through the introduction of a financial transaction tax; likewise, urges the EU to give developing countries more help with tax reforms, thereby supporting the establishment of effective, efficient, fair and sustainable tax systems, which should have the effect of reducing poverty and aid dependency.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the report by Mr Preda. I fully agree with the rapporteur’s insistence on the effectiveness of aid. Aid should be considered and evaluated in terms of its concrete contribution towards achieving development goals and not only in terms of inputs.

  Louis Michel (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The fourth forum to be held in Busan, South Korea, in late 2011, is a key moment in the aid effectiveness process, launched in 2002. Promises will have to be translated into tangible achievements. In Busan, the following needs to be done: 1. Remind donor countries of their commitment to devote seven per cent of their GNP to public development aid by 2015. 2. Make democratic ownership the guiding principle of aid and development effectiveness. Democratic ownership requires strong government institutions that are capable of guaranteeing participation and accountability, by paying particular attention to the involvement of parliamentarians, to local authorities, to civil society organisations (CSOs), to the existence of a free media and to the private sector. 3. Point out that budget support is the most appropriate instrument for achieving the objective of aid effectiveness. 4. Highlight the emergence of new stakeholders, emerging countries, foundations and so on. Besides Paris and Accra, there are other types of relations, other ways of doing things and taking action on which we must now draw. Faced with the fragmentation of aid, the complexity of the challenges that exist and the struggle to make progress in the aid effectiveness agenda, we must be less bureaucratic and dare to be politically inspired.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The fourth High-level forum on aid effectiveness is expected to map out future commitments aimed at making development aid more effective, and to help develop a new international aid architecture in the run-up to the 2015 deadline for achieving the Millennium Development Goals and beyond. I agree that one of the prerequisites in order to fulfil the ‘aid effectiveness agenda’ is to embrace fully the principle of ‘democratic ownership’, which means that development strategies must be driven by the countries themselves and reflect a commitment on the part of all national stakeholders. In favour.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. – A recent report published by the OECD shows that only one target out of 12 set by the Paris Declaration for 2010 has been met. Another study shows that more ambitious application of the principles of the Declaration could have saved the EU and its Member States billions. Against the background of the economic difficulties the EU and its Member States currently face, the real challenge lies not so much in reaching the quantitative target level of ODA, but in achieving the biggest impact with the money we spend. The procedures and practices to achieve this are there, the thing lacking is strong leadership and sustained political commitment to accelerate implementation. China, a signatory of the Paris Declaration as a recipient, has actively expanded its aid programme at a rate of around 30% per year for the past five years. Now is a good time to find ways to involve China in the aid architecture, as it seeks to enhance the impact of its policies and aid. Both donors and recipient countries have received a sobering signal, and the fourth High-level meeting in Busan is a forum to draw conclusions and look for a way forward to achieve MDGs.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of the report. However, we need to remember that a successful policy is not judged merely on targets, even if they are clearly quantified; it is also judged on the means applied to achieve them. By default, development aid cannot be provided without due regard for the specific economic, social and political characteristics of the country for which it is intended.

It does not make sense to provide aid where it often replaces a country’s domestic production, thereby basically eliminating any prospect of growth in local production, and where screening is often exceptionally poor and, as a result, aid is lost between corrupt governments and organised crime. The danger obviously lies in dispensing aid willy-nilly, purely and simply to salve the conscience of the developed world, not in supporting our fellow men in need, based on a proper, strategic plan, so that they can stand on their own feet and make progress in today’s globalised environment.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report on the fourth High-level forum on aid effectiveness sets out a series of proposals for the ongoing reorganisation of the aid effectiveness programme. Parliament should be involved in this issue and call for measures aimed at ensuring that the aid granted by the EU is more effective. Indeed, aid transparency is essential in order to ensure both ownership and effectiveness of the aid. I agree with the need to never lose sight of the goal of quality aid and to promote an international agenda focused on development.

  Phil Prendergast (S&D), in writing. – Development aid can have a positive impact beyond merely providing a buffer against hunger and deprivation in developing countries, as it contributes to curbing poverty and promoting human rights. Development aid is crucial for receiving countries in terms of reducing poverty. However, development aid should not be seen as enough to combat it on its own – it will take more than simply doling out money to change this. It is important to address the root causes of poverty, and to promote job creation and international trade as means of combating poverty. Development aid has a role to play in the EU’s foreign policy. Collectively, the EU and its Member States contribute more than half of global overseas development aid. My own Member State, Ireland, gave EUR 675.8 million of development aid in 2010. As such, development aid is an important instrument which the EU can use to shape issues such as human rights, social inclusion, gender equality, citizenship and climate change.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The fourth High-level forum on aid effectiveness (HLF-4) is primarily aimed at drawing up a strategy for the period in the run-up to the deadline for achieving the Millennium Development Goals. In view of this, it should be noted that the EU and its Member States contribute more than half of official development assistance every year, and therefore play an important role in this area. The EU should take this opportunity to take action at the HLF-4, whilst respecting its guiding principles. The most important of these are: efficiency, seeking to find ways to ensure the optimal use of resources allocated to developing countries, so that, instead of creating dependence situations, they are given instruments enabling them to act with autonomy before the aid comes to an end; advocating closer cooperation between people and encouraging South-South aid; and, above all, fostering respect for the rule of law, by advocating the establishment of democratic models backed up by human rights. I identify with this programme, so I am voting in favour.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. I would like to underline the following important point, among others: 5. Points out that aid effectiveness requires poor countries to be able to mobilise domestic revenues; urges the EU once again, therefore, to make the fight against tax havens and tax evasion its utmost priority, while also promoting alternative sources of development finance, for example, through the introduction of a financial transaction tax; likewise, urges the EU to give developing countries more help with tax reforms, thereby supporting the establishment of effective, efficient, fair and sustainable tax systems, which should have the effect of reducing poverty and aid dependency.

  Joanna Senyszyn (S&D), in writing. – (PL) I voted in favour of the report on the fourth High-level forum on aid effectiveness. The Eurobarometer survey conducted in September 2010 shows that Europeans strongly support assistance provided to developing countries (89% of respondents). As a member of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly, I am strongly inclined to agree with this opinion.

I am also pleased that the improvement of grant management as proposed by the Commission may help to save money while increasing the effectiveness of existing aid. We have only four years left to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. Time is running out, particularly given the economic crisis, during which countries are trying to manage their funds in a more economical way. We must remember, however, that the EU is the largest donor of development aid worldwide, and therefore we have an additional responsibility for its effective implementation. The fourth High-level forum on aid effectiveness is crucial to review the mechanism of providing assistance to third countries, so that at least the majority of the Millennium Goals can be achieved by 2015.

It is also necessary to improve the participation of third countries in the implementation of projects related to the MDGs. When preparing the development policy, particular attention should be given to the development of gender equality. Gender equality must be included in the action plan on aid effectiveness. It is a matter of priority because women are in a much worse economic situation than men.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Article 208 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union says that, in the area of aid, ‘Union development cooperation policy shall have as its primary objective the reduction and, in the long term, the eradication of poverty. The Union shall take account of the objectives of development cooperation in the policies that it implements which are likely to affect developing countries’. It is important to stress that the EU and its 27 Member States are the largest donors of official development assistance, so they have a vital role in strengthening the effectiveness of aid granted at international level. I am voting for this report, as I believe countries should step up cooperation at international level, harmonise their efforts and streamline their procedures. I also believe it is important to step up financial aid and involve the private sector in the aid to be given to the most disadvantaged countries, in order to build an economy that is not dependent on external aid, to ensure sustainable development, and to create wealth. Lastly, I believe that the fourth High-level forum on aid effectiveness should be able to develop a new international aid architecture in the run-up to the 2015 deadline for achieving the Millennium Development Goals.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) In the course of the fourth High-level forum, the aim is to establish future commitments which will make development aid more effective. It is essential that these commitments are put in place. The principles of the Paris Declaration alone are not sufficient. Donor and partner countries must provide each other with timely information about the flow of aid in accordance with the Accra Agenda for Action, to enable developing countries to exercise better control over their budgets. As the EU and its Member States provide more than half of public development aid, it should also play a leading role in the area of cooperation on development aid. It is important to revise the political strategies relating to the division of work to ensure that human rights, social integration, equality and climate change are given proper consideration. I have voted in favour of this report.

10. Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes

(The session was suspended at 14.05 and resumed at 15.00)

IN THE CHAIR: JERZY BUZEK
President

11. Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting: see Minutes

12. State of play of the negotiations of the European Council concerning the economic crisis (debate)

  President. – Dear colleagues, I have spoken to both Presidents, Van Rompuy and Barroso, today, telling them that I will inform them of the outcome of our debate in plenary. On Sunday, in the opening speech at the European Council, I argued that a decisive and comprehensive package needs to be defined to overcome the eurozone crisis, and that all EU institutions must come together. I reminded the European Council that we are also the Parliament of the eurozone.

This is why I welcome that today, between the European summit on Sunday and tomorrow’s meeting, we are taking the time to debate the short-, medium- and long-term solutions which are on the table.

My conclusion from attending the European Council is that there are three urgent topics left.

The first is lowering Greece’s debt burden, but we need to know how much, and in what way, private investors will be involved; certainly voluntary rescheduling.

The second point: recapitalisation of European banks. Crucial decisions were taken by the Ecofin for all 27 Member States, such as that capital adequacy requirements will go up to nine per cent. Details on how the money will be raised on the markets, through national budgets and through the EFSF, have still to be decided. I believe that Parliament should have a say on this.

Point number three, which is very urgent as well: the creation of a firewall around economies in difficulty. The European Council should decide tomorrow on strengthening the role of the EFSF by allowing it to leverage money through insurance mechanisms. There are two other proposals on how to strengthen the firewall: by creating a special purpose vehicle and by creating a trust fund with IMF involvement.

For the medium term, we need to give time for the strengthened Stability and Growth Pact or ‘six-pack’, the European Semester, the Euro Plus Pact, and all our incentives for growth to work. Some competences may be national competences, but most Member States agree that we need to coordinate much better at European level. The important question is: how do we move all these issues from an intergovernmental framework to the Community method? It is clear that short- and medium-term solutions should be anchored in the EU institutions.

For the longer term, there are discussions on a possible Treaty change. The question is: what kind of change do we expect? Are we ready to accept any changes?

In the long-term perspective, we need to draw conclusions from this crisis and reflect on the EU’s future. If we truly want a strong EU treated seriously by the global players, then this crisis gives us an opportunity to act quickly. The main conclusion is that we cannot afford the situation of a unity which is a kind of fragmentation in reality.

We know this in theory. In practice, we talk about the EU, but we build our politics mostly on national levels. The Union is like a dream, whereas the nation state is current business. This European dualism is perceived from outside as our weakness and it is used against our common strategic European interest. Europe needs to be strong in a modern and multipolar world. Europe is not only a common market but a coherent, political concept – maybe even a power – able not only to overcome crises, but to have an impact on the modern world.

(Applause)

  Corien Wortmann-Kool, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (NL) Mr President, do we really need a debate in this Chamber in Strasbourg at a time when the Heads of State or Government are doing everything in their power in Brussels, under the leadership of President Van Rompuy and the Commission, Commissioner Barroso, to take decisions tomorrow that are needed to pull Europe out of the crisis? A full radio silence has been agreed for this Sunday and the decisions will be announced only after tomorrow’s summit. What are we taking as the basis? Leaked draft documents, articles in the press?

However – and that is why we are participating in this debate – there is a lot of worry and a great sense of uncertainty amongst our citizens, because the crisis seems only to be deepening and the economic outlook worsening. Jobs for our citizens, our pensions, these important certainties are at risk. In this debate, I would therefore, on behalf of my group, encourage Heads of State or Government once again to take an ambitious approach. No partial decisions, but a comprehensive plan, a convincing approach, so that we can regain the trust of the financial markets and withstand attacks on our euro. We have got stuck for too long in political bickering and half-hearted solutions. That is why even the confidence that Europe is able to put things in order has been crumbling. We are now on the brink of ruin. There is no easy way out.

The origin of the debt crisis lies in Member States, but problems in some Member States are affecting us all. We share a common currency, from which we all benefit, year in year out. This also obliges us to work together in solidarity and to find solutions. Strengthening the EFSF and a European plan for capitalisation of the banks are essential for a lasting solution to the major problems in Greece and to restore peace to the financial markets.

The EFSF should have the firepower of a bazooka and the borrowing capacity should be much, much higher, but the independence of the European Central Bank must be properly safeguarded, because if the markets are bluffing about the euro, then we, too, must be able to bluff. We must stand up for our prosperity, our security and stability. The situation is so serious that we need to be able to support even banks and countries with major liquidity problems from this fund under strict conditions, because the risk of infection is around the corner. We must literally prevent banks from collapsing, because a stable financial system is vital for economic stability and that is about our jobs.

The banks and, where necessary, Member States are, first of all, responsible themselves for raising capital. The Emergency Fund should only be used when absolutely necessary. Likewise, recapitalisation should not constitute a reward for irresponsible policy. Instead, these two instruments must be properly linked to restructuring and a responsible remuneration policy, as also announced by the Commission. Banks need to be restored to lasting health, because for citizens, for our taxpayers, it is unacceptable that banks should be bailed out with taxpayers’ money again and again.

For that reason, we, too, in this House, need to speed up regulation for financial markets and the proposals before us – the deposit guarantee scheme, a balanced financial transaction tax – so that they can work. In addition, we should, before long, put forward proposals for a banking crisis mechanism, linked to a levy on banks.

The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) welcomes the conclusions of last Sunday’s summit to accelerate the introduction of the ‘six-pack’. Moreover, a number of government leaders should take the responsibility to rapidly put their own houses in order. We must continue our efforts, especially in the euro area. It is also essential that we take important steps to that end in Eurotop’s conclusions tomorrow. The Euro Plus Pact must be enforceable and the Commission’s proposals, which should be implementable in Member States’ budgets, must be swiftly put into action.

Lastly, we should also have a fundamental debate about continuing economic and fiscal integration in the euro area and Europe as a whole, about our internal market. That debate also needs to address the issue of a change to the Treaties, but it is important that we have this debate with our citizens because public support for the European project is crucial.

  Martin Schulz, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (DE) Mr President, we have taken note of your report, Mr President. I would like to say that the European Council meeting on Wednesday may have genuinely earned the designation ‘historic’. This term is overused, but it could be that what is being decided tomorrow in Brussels will really be of historic importance, because a decision may be made tomorrow on the question of where Europe is going.

I have frequently been critical of the fact that the European Union has disintegrated into three parts: the German-French decision makers, the rest of the euro area and the remainder of the European Union, with a special position for the United Kingdom. This approach, this breaking down of Europe into different decision-making structures, is, in itself, one of the greatest risks that we face. It will destroy the community method and will ultimately create a situation in which the individual players, in particular, those in the euro area, will become so dramatically dependent on the domestic political situation in their countries that every person sitting around the table will be focusing only on his or her own national position, instead of basing their actions on community spirit and common goals.

This is what has happened in Slovakia and it is now happening in Germany and in every other Member State, because the European Council and the council of 17 euro area countries are governed by the principle of unanimity. We are ultimately making one of the strongest currencies in the world dependent on the tactical domestic policy games of the Member States. We must put an end to this. Therefore, in future, we need community institutions which have the job of implementing community economic and monetary policy. We do not need any additional invented institutions.

We are on a dangerous path, because we are putting confidence at risk: the confidence of the markets in the sustainability of investments in Europe and the confidence of citizens in the ability of their governments to effectively manage the euro area and the European Union as a whole. This confidence has been put at risk over the last 18 months. The process in the European Council of Heads of State or Government is generally as follows: announced, not implemented, withdrawn, looked at from different perspectives, announced again, not implemented again. Last weekend, we had the meeting between Ms Merkel and Mr Sarkozy, but only now do we have the breakthrough. Now they have come to an agreement. In other words, they have announced something, but not implemented it.

On Sunday, in the middle of the debate, Ms Merkel and Mr Sarkozy held a press conference? What did it concern? The subjects that they had not agreed on. Yet it is obvious to everyone what all of this is about. We need to make this quite clear. It is about the size of the haircut, which depends on the extent to which the French banks will find themselves in the front line. They are the ones which are hardest hit and, therefore, the French state knows that when it comes to a haircut, these banks will have to be stabilised in one way or another. You have referred to this. The French state cannot do this from its national budget, because otherwise, it will put its rating at risk. Therefore, it is on the lookout for other forms of finance and aims to make use of the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF). There are two models: the German insurance model and the French banking model. They do not agree on this. How would it be if tomorrow, instead of constantly issuing unsettling interim reports, they were to sit down together, negotiate until white smoke could be seen and only then appear in public? They would be doing for the first time what needs to be done: winning back confidence in Europe, the confidence of the citizens and of the investors.

(Applause)

I would like to say something about possible amendments to the Treaty. I have read and heard that the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union is to be amended and that a working group has been set up involving Mr Van Rompuy, who, by the way, has missed a big opportunity here today. If he had come here, the attention of the whole of Europe would have been focused on him. All the Heads of Government are going to their parliaments and Mr Van Rompuy has missed his chance today. Other members of this working group include Mr Barroso and Mr Juncker, the president of the Eurogroup. Where does the European Parliament come in?

I would like to say at least on behalf of my group to those people who want to amend the Treaty that whatever sort of Treaty we have in Europe in future, even if it goes so far as to grant the right of intervention in national budgetary sovereignty, it will not happen without the European Parliament. We cannot allow the euro crisis to be used to continue the creeping deparliamentarisation of Europe.

(Applause)

My group will strongly oppose this. I hope that the decision that is made tomorrow is at last the decision that we need. Ultimately, it is no longer really about the content. It is about the Heads of State or Government demonstrating that they really are able to meet the challenge which is facing them.

  Guy Verhofstadt, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (FR) Mr President, I shall begin with the point raised by Mr Schulz. I can tell you that on Thursday, I will make a proposal at the Conference of Presidents to summon Mr Van Rompuy, Mr Barroso and Mr Juncker to talk about economic governance in the euro area.

They were appointed by the Council to make proposals for the December summit. I believe it is in all our interests to organise a debate with them, in Strasbourg, in November, on the content of their project. It should not be like last time, when we were convened at the end only to be confronted with a proposal that had already been decided on by the European Council without Parliament having been able to exercise any influence whatsoever.

I am telling you this now and I hope, I think, that we will, in any case, have the support of almost all the groups for this debate, in November, at the European Parliament. As for Wednesday’s summit, I get the feeling that after 20 months of hesitations, contradictions and half measures, the Heads of State or Government have realised that radical measures need to be taken. We need a global plan to truly restore stability in the euro area, as well as a kind of road map to achieve this.

As for the content of this plan, Mr President, I believe that it is very simple. Eight days ago, in this House, we approved a resolution by an overwhelming majority. This covers the principal seven steps that need to be taken in this plan to restore stability in the euro area. No new approach is needed. No discussions are needed. We have decided on a clear and unambiguous resolution on the seven major reforms to be carried out in the euro area.

I assume, Mr President, that you will go to Brussels on Wednesday to deliver your traditional introduction to the European summit, and I call on you to reiterate these seven points that the European Parliament is calling for to stabilise the euro area, in other words, to find a lasting solution for Greece. We need a European plan to recapitalise the banks, because it cannot be done with national measures. We must boost the bailout fund.

Let us be honest with each other: among the other items in our resolution, there is one that will be crucial in the days and weeks ahead. We can talk about anything and everything – economic governance, economic government, the fiscal and economic union that we need, recapitalising the banks – they are all very important and therefore need to be repeated on Wednesday to the Heads of State or Government. However, we all know what the bottom line is: we need to find a way of boosting the bailout fund. That is what Wednesday will be all about, nothing else. As for the rest, they are going to say: ‘We will make some progress ahead of the December summit’. The bottom line, however, is this: how are we going to boost the bailout fund?

Ms Wortmann-Kool spoke about a bazooka. Will the bazooka be there? When they talk about financial markets, they only mean light weapons. When we talk about financial markets, we are talking about heavy artillery. Well, let me tell you that the proposal that will be approved on Wednesday already exists. Talk of boosting the bailout fund is already being heard in the corridors, not of the European Parliament, but of the Reichstag! That is where word is being spread about the proposal to be approved on Wednesday. I have it here. It is entitled ‘Draft terms and conditions maximising the lending capacity of the EFSF’. There are three and a half pages outlining all the details for achieving this. We are not the ones in possession of this document. It is being discussed at national level, not at European level.

I have to say that it is a complicated system. You need to read this document at least three or four times before you understand it, and I have some doubts, Mr President, as to whether this system can work. In fact, it is a system whereby all debt securities issued by countries in difficulty will be underwritten by 20% – as already mentioned in the press. It does not matter whether those securities are issued by Spain, Italy or any other country; 20% will be underwritten. If the firepower of the bailout fund cannot be boosted, if the Member States do not reach an agreement on the European Central Bank’s involvement, and if a single bond market is not immediately introduced, what else can be done? We go back to national solutions. We are being told that the States must continue to issue bonds and that we Europeans will underwrite them by 20%.

Let me tell you that I have my doubts about the success of this system. 20%! We are going to grant Greece a 60% discount while, at the same time, hoping that a 20% guarantee will calm the markets. Once again, I hope that it will work, but I have my doubts, as I think that the only real solution for saving the euro that will work and which should be implemented as soon as possible is the creation of a single euro bond market, in the euro area.

  Jan Zahradil, on behalf of the ECR Group. – (CS) Mr President, we must agree on where we are now, apart from being in the middle of a crisis. I must say that, in recent days and weeks, it has seemed to me that we are in the Europe of the 19th century rather than the 21st century. I have the feeling that we are in the Europe of sometime around 1815, after the Congress of Vienna, when people talked of a ‘concert of the great powers’, because, despite all the talk about European unity, European solutions and a community method, and the fact that we need to promote supranational solutions above the level of national solutions, in the past 14 days, I have seen only two national leaders running the whole show and taking decisions here. One of these was a Chancellor and one a President, who even berated another premier. They recommended that he keep quiet. I am no federalist, and Mr Schuman and Mr Monet are not great favourites of mine, but I would say that this does not sound very European and both gentlemen are perhaps turning in their graves.

As for the crisis itself, it is still the same story, and it is simply a situation in which we are making taxpayers pick up the bill for irresponsible behaviour. The irresponsible behaviour of banks and financial institutions, which acted as if they were in a casino, the irresponsible behaviour of states that bought off voters by throwing around public money which, in reality, they did not have, and we are proposing to ‘Europeanise’ the resulting debts, transfer them to everyone, and redeem them in the name of saving the euro, but it makes no difference what we call it.

I have the feeling that no one here reads the papers, and no one reads the economic editorials, because no decision will be taken tomorrow. Tomorrow, the EU will only buy time for one year, for two years, perhaps for three years, but afterwards we will be in the same situation again. Let us be aware, let us admit – many of you here admit it in the corridors but lack the courage to say it openly – that the euro is not a project for all, that a situation will inevitably come about where not all of the current euro area members will be able to continue in the project, because they will have to undergo a controlled bankruptcy, and they will have to undergo devaluation. You know it and you talk about it in the corridors, but you are unfortunately afraid to say it aloud. So tomorrow we will just be buying time. This is the most traditional approach, perhaps the most comfortable, the most costly, and the least credible one for the markets, and it is not statesmanlike. A statesman can be distinguished from a politician by the fact that he has the courage to adopt non-traditional solutions and knows how to make people believe in them, and knows how to carry them through. Tomorrow, therefore, we will learn, among other things, whether there really is a statesman in Europe, or whether we have mere politicians here.

  Rebecca Harms, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, for me, the results of last weekend have clarified two main points. On the one hand, it became clear that everything that had been decided about Greece was incorrect and that everything which could have been done wrongly was done wrongly, and thanks to the report from the troika, this was also made clear to the Council. As long ago as July, the Council proposed a haircut for Greece which was criticised then for being too small. The funding for the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) was also too low in July. The unilateral insistence on austerity measures in Greece has ended in exactly the disaster that was predicted. The measures decided on in Brussels have exacerbated the crisis in Greece, both the Greek crisis and therefore the European crisis, from summit to summit.

The second insight which emerged from the weekend and from the repeated postponement is that it is not possible to manage a crisis in Europe by means of crisis summits. The very point which we have repeatedly reminded everyone about, in other words, that we need a different form of economic policy and stabilisation management, has once again been demonstrated by the way in which the Heads of State or Government went their separate ways after three days of intensive preparations.

My group is calling for different results from the new summit. Tomorrow night, we would like to see an end to the repeated pattern of crisis summits where too few decisions are made too slowly and too inconsistently. We believe that the Greek haircut should be well over 50%. In addition, we must ensure that the speculators who have consistently been speculating on the bankruptcy of Greece on the basis of what amounts to a state guarantee do not once again earn billions of euro in profit overnight.

However, we also want to see a different signal being sent to Greece. The Greek economy has once again crashed as a result of our measures. We need a convincing plan for the reconstruction of the Greek economy. In the opinion of the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, the clear focus should be on sustainability, in the light of the EU 2020 decisions. I know that we cannot decide on the details, but we need to start working on a credible plan.

The decision on the EFSF – I do not like the stupid term ‘bazooka’ – must be made in such a way that the funding can be increased. Anyone who talks about solidarity must once again ensure at this point that the financial engineering measures which we are planning to employ do not make the public budgets unmanageable or impose too heavy a burden on them. We need to find a happy medium in this case, too.

With regard to the recapitalisation of the banks, on the basis of our current knowledge, it is clear that this is once again happening too slowly. The process of nationalising responsibility for this guarantees that Dexia will not be a one-off case, but will be repeated.

Finally, we have seen how Europe cannot be led out of the crisis. I believe strongly that we should now discuss in detail amendments to the Treaty and that we should also establish a convention which allows the citizens of Europe to understand what types of amendments are being made. However, in the light of the increasing divide between the European economies and of the major and acute problems we are facing, I believe that we should now take another bold step. We must enhance the status of the Commissioner responsible for financial programming and budgets in the Commission in Brussels. We must empower him to promote sound, viable budgets based on the principle of solidarity and also to encourage economic policy development. Anyone who does not dare to do this is not brave enough to lead the EU out of the crisis.

I would like to express one final wish based on the example of Germany which relates to many Europeans. Anyone who is afraid of their voters cannot overcome the European crisis. We are having to remind Ms Merkel about Helmut Kohl and Helmut Schmidt and we are having to remind Mr Westerwelle about Joschka Fischer. Anyone who recognises that something is the right thing to do must take action and must justify their actions to their voters. Then they may be able to win elections, but without this courage they will lose at home and may also lose the European Union.

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

  Nikolaos Chountis, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (EL) Mr President, if I have understood correctly, the speaker referred at some point to the question of the ‘haircut’ of the Greek debt. That is indeed one of the issues. Various rumours of 50% to 60% are circulating. Ms Harms, I do not understand what your view is on this. I recognise your good intentions and may I therefore say that the Greek debt is EUR 360 billion and the 50% ‘haircut’ does not mean that it will fall by EUR 180 billion; it will fall by EUR 25 billion, which means that the greatest loss will be suffered by the Greek banks and insurance companies that sell at the lowest price. If this information which I have given you is true and not just smoke and mirrors, please tell me if your view still applies to this ‘haircut’?

  Rebecca Harms (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, I am convinced that it must be done in that way, when we look at the report from the troika. It is clear to me that we must also find a solution for the Greek banks, but I believe that this is a decision which cannot be made alone. The plan for the reconstruction of Greece with European help must also be decided on. That is the signal which I would like to see Europe sending to the Greeks. They know that they have to rebuild their country and that they must not simply defend the existing state of affairs. None of the crisis summits has so far sent this kind of signal of solidarity to the Greeks.

  Lothar Bisky, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the management of the crisis is becoming less and less transparent and more and more chaotic. The Council is starting to introduce pre-summits and main summits within the space of three days. Parliament is following the same rhythm and debating the results of the Council discussions twice during one part-session. It is already becoming clear that the big step forward that has been promised will not be happening on this occasion either. The only thing left to say is that the Council and the Commission are continuing to work on the principle of hope: hope that the new measures will generate sufficient confidence and that the investors on the international financial markets will be satisfied this time around.

Why should they stop betting on future state bankruptcies? Why should they not try to draw Spain and Italy into the maelstrom of speculation? Only radical measures to prevent profitable speculation can stop this from happening. Until we bring in measures of this kind, the carousel will continue to turn and the Council will continue to propose rescue packages based on taxpayers’ money.

The suggestion now is to use financial engineering tricks to leverage the agreed funding of EUR 87 billion for the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF). One German economist has referred in this context to a weapon of mass destruction, because the states which are showing signs of weakness require financing to the tune of EUR 4 trillion. The proposed haircut for Greece is inevitable. The only question is: who will bear the cost of it? Of course, it is right that the international banks should take on a greater share of up to 60%. However, it is important for us to prevent bankruptcies. This affects Greek banks in particular, whose very existence is under threat. After all the cuts in social security spending, do the Greek citizens now have to worry about the safety of their savings and bank deposits?

Instead of a rescue package for the banks, we need a rescue package for wages, salaries, pensions and citizens’ savings. We need a public bank in the European Union which provides states with the necessary loans at favourable interest rates and excludes the private banks. We need public investment programmes to create jobs and employment.

  Francesco Enrico Speroni, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the crisis – which I hope will be resolved – shows the total inadequacy of the Europe’s structure, from the Treaties to the euro. It also shows the growing gap between the voting citizens and the institutions – including the European Parliament – that are supposed to represent them and which, instead, often take decisions that are distant and not what people want.

One thing is crucial. We cannot and must not exploit the crisis to take away sovereignty and powers from Member States and their citizens and transfer them to the EU.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the effects of the crisis can still be felt everywhere and we do not yet have a solution. Munich Re, a leading German reinsurance company, has announced that it will allow Greece to write off a large proportion of its debt. In contrast, Europe’s Heads of State or Government once again failed last weekend to agree on concrete measures to bring an end to the ongoing crisis.

The actual problem in Europe is the lack of united and decisive political leadership. Why is the Council continuing to discuss the involvement of the private sector when the private sector is already starting to take independent action? This means primarily that the political leadership of Europe is lagging behind the real world. Following the reports from the troika on Greece last week, the question of whether a haircut will ultimately be enough is already being asked. This is another consequence of the delays in European policy making.

Therefore, I am calling urgently on all the stakeholders to take immediate, decisive and united action.

  President. – The debate is closed.

13. Surge in job dismissals in Europe as a result of the economic crisis in particular at Arcelor and Nokia (debate)

  President. – The next item is the Commission’s statement on the surge in job dismissals in Europe as a result of the economic crisis, in particular, at Arcelor and Nokia.

  László Andor, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, the Commission expresses its concern regarding the social and economic consequences that the closure of ArcelorMittal and Nokia will bring. Some 600 direct job losses, as well as indirect job losses at suppliers, are concerned. In the case of Nokia, at least 3 000 jobs may be affected.

A company’s decision to close down production plants is for the company itself to make. However, the European Union can play a role, and the company needs to follow specific rules. As a very minimum, the Commission expects ArcelorMittal and Nokia to observe strictly the EU directives on information and consultation, collective redundancies and European Works Councils. The Commission also expects ArcelorMittal to comply with the agreements it concluded and the commitments it entered into with employees and local authorities.

The EU can also provide specific support. The European Social Fund offers retraining of workers, including various forms of assistance such as counselling, help towards self-employment, and so on. If it is not possible to keep the jobs, and the workers are made redundant, Belgium or Romania, in this case, could apply for support from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) if the Fund’s criteria are met. First contacts between the Belgian and Romanian authorities and the EGF services of the Commission have already been made.

More generally, I would like to highlight the main challenges that we face. First, it is becoming increasingly clear that growth is at risk in the EU. Indeed, recent projections showed that growth in many countries across the globe – especially in developed countries – is strongly decelerating. The EU economy is no exception to this trend. The sovereign debt crisis is making things even worse for several euro area countries by pushing up interest rates and further affecting confidence.

Second, employment is a major concern. In the second quarter of 2011, employment growth measured over four quarters was a meagre 0.3%, and in August, the EU unemployment rate was still stuck at 9.5%, the same level as at the start of the year. In contrast to our assessment in the spring, when the prospect was one of job-loss recovery, we now have to fear an employment crisis in the EU with a number of negative features: high youth unemployment, which is twice as high as the average unemployment rates; high structural unemployment with high budgetary and human costs; long-term unemployment, which has already risen from its earlier level of under three per cent of the active population pre-crisis to just over four per cent in the middle of this year; and rising levels of precariousness. The recent recovery in employment stems mainly from an increase in temporary jobs, as the number of workers on a permanent contract has risen only moderately over the past four quarters.

Finally, there is increasing social unrest as a result of the deterioration in employment, the implementation of severe austerity measures and wage cuts in the context of persisting inequality. Indeed, there is an increasing perception among Europeans that the cost of the crisis is not equally shared, with the poor suffering the most – and, as we have seen, this is a potentially explosive situation.

In the short term, it is important that EU policy makers provide a clear, coherent and comprehensive response in order to calm financial markets and bring back confidence. This plan should address structural flaws in the Economic and Monetary Union and concerns about Greece and other countries, but should also revive the growth potential of the individual Member States.

The state of our public finances is very weak and we face lower growth expectations in the near future. This means that labour market recovery cannot rely on public stimulus measures and it cannot rely on GDP growth pulling the huge numbers of jobseekers back into the labour market. What we need to do is improve the functioning of Europe’s labour markets. Existing labour supply and labour demand will need to come together sooner; job matching should be more efficient; and existing jobs will need to last longer and be more productive.

With precisely this in mind, the Commission issued country-specific recommendations just before the summer break. These recommendations provide specific guidance on labour market functioning, tailored to each Member State’s situation and covering a wide range of labour market reforms including payroll taxes, child care, education systems, wage-setting mechanisms and retirement patterns.

Having said all this, of course, what matters is not just what we say in Brussels: at the end of the day, what matters is what the Member States do, what governments do and what firms do. In order to be successful in improving labour markets, we need to build, and to make use of, the right partnerships in Member States, with the social partners and the private sector.

The Commission has proposed a road map for stability and growth to resolve the current crisis. Furthermore, our next Annual Growth Survey will present further proposals focusing on how to promote a growth-enhancing agenda that helps to create and maintain jobs in Europe.

In spite of extremely adverse market and financial situations, companies and their workforces throughout Europe have, by and large, engaged creatively in restructuring processes that were constructive, effective and instrumental in limiting job losses. The Commission wants to encourage permanent business adaptation to swiftly changing economic circumstances while maintaining a high degree of employment and social protection. Measures supporting the reallocation of resources across firms and sectors are strongly needed. They include employment protection legislation and business practices related to corporate restructuring which do not hinder the reallocation of resources, across sectors, towards higher-value-added and faster-growth activities.

In recent years, the EU has put a substantial amount of energy and effort into promoting adaptation to change and restructuring. As announced in the Communication on ‘Industrial Policy’, in the Single Market Act and in the ‘New Skills and Jobs’ Flagship Initiative, the Commission wishes to put adaptation to change and restructuring on the agenda of public authorities, the social partners and other concerned stakeholders by means of a new consultation exercise.

Its objective will be to disseminate and apply the good practice across Europe in the field of anticipation, preparation and socially responsible management of restructuring. The Commission will be using the knowledge and experience acquired over the past few years, including through the Restructuring Forums, studies and seminars. However, we must recognise that this acquis is still largely unknown to economic and social players. Furthermore, the Commission considers that it needs to be reviewed in the light of the economic crisis.

The EGF currently works with two possible intervention criteria: an application can be made either on trade-related grounds or on the basis of the global financial and economic crisis. This second criterion is time limited and runs out for applications presented after the end of 2011.

As the unemployment situation in the EU is still far from recovering, the Commission has proposed – with the clear support of Parliament but without, so far, having achieved a qualified majority in the Council – an extension of this so-called ‘crisis’ derogation.

The Commission is doing all it can to ensure that the crisis remains an intervention criterion for the EGF after the end of the current year and until the end of 2013, when the new EGF Regulation, proposed as part of the Cohesion Package on 6 October 2011, should enter into effect.

  Anne Delvaux, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, I am not going to go back over the cynicism with which the ArcelorMittal group has announced the closure of some of its plants in Europe, and specifically in Belgium – in Liège – which will, in time, lead to hundreds of direct redundancies and put several thousand indirect jobs at risk. Being from Liège, I share the astonishment and dismay of the 581 workers made redundant and their families.

However, I am also thinking of the radical restructuring announced by the steel-making group in France, Germany and Luxembourg. The reasons given are always the same: a poor outlook for the steel market in Europe; strong competition with imports from China, Korea, Russia and Brazil; the downturn in the automotive market; and, lastly, the competitiveness gap, for example, between the Liège plant and the best plants in northern Europe.

Apart from that, and despite 2010 being a difficult year, the financial centre of the steel-making group ArcelorMittal Belgium made EUR 1.394 billion in profits. It paid zero euros in taxes, in other words, a tax rate of 0%. This is particularly shocking. The group’s management would appear to be driven primarily by financial considerations, with a stop-and-go policy practised over a number of sites. Furthermore, these managers believe that site closures are nothing more than an economic adjustment variable, where human issues are of little importance. We must not put up with this any more.

Commissioner, you mentioned rules. Is it not time that the Commission drew up a binding code of social responsibility for multinational companies? Six years have passed since our Parliament adopted a report on relocations, on a corporate code of conduct, on the repayment of subsidies, on obligatory consultation between companies, trade unions and public authorities. Since then, it is clear that little real progress has been made regarding these various proposals. What, then, does the Commission intend to do about this, and when?

While we do need to keep our companies competitive and make Europe an attractive destination for financial investment, we also need to adopt a robust European legislative framework to deal with relocations and restructuring and to ensure that full account is taken of another type of capital: human capital.

Lastly, in the case of the Liège plant, I hope that it will be eligible for European Globalisation Adjustment Fund assistance, to compensate those workers who have been made redundant.

  Alejandro Cercas, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, today we are talking about Lieja, Jucu, Arcelor, Nokia, and so on. Yesterday it was Renault and Vilvoorde; tomorrow it will be Gijón, Asturias, France, Luxembourg. Commissioner, how much longer are we going to sit doing nothing when the facts point clearly to the de-industrialisation of Europe, when companies seek to maximise profit oblivious to the needs of the people and the regions affected, amidst a crisis of confidence among workers, and a rage that is spreading throughout Europe when we see that those companies can do anything they like without even the most minimal restrictions on their activities?

For years – and not just now, Commissioner – we have been asking for this, as my colleague has said: it is six years since the Cottigny Report. Nothing has been done, Commissioner. Furthermore, in terms of the Globalisation Fund, to which you yourself have referred, we are seeing an attempt to divert it, to use it for other purposes, and even to put an end to the Globalisation Fund itself.

We need a new European strategy to confront these restructurings, Commissioner; we need to relaunch that consultation process that you put an end to, that you were engaging in and stopped as a result of pressure from industry and BusinessEurope. We need to put an end to these delays and to the feeling of resignation we see within the College of Commissioners. I am aware of your efforts, Commissioner, but you need to redouble them, because Europe cannot continue to sit and watch the destruction of its industrial fabric.

We cannot allow the market to be all-powerful while we do nothing. We need to have a common European legal framework that is comprehensive, that put needs first before and after restructurings, that listens to trade unions and workers, and, above all, Commissioner, we need a law of rationality, not the law of the jungle, which is what we Members of the European Parliament are observing impotently, as, I very much fear, you are too.

(Applause)

  Philippe De Backer, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (NL) Mr President, Commissioner, sixty years ago, our Union got off to a flying start with the European Coal and Steel Community. However, there is precious little left of either of these industries today. The most recent victim fell last month, or this month, at ArcelorMittal in Liège, where countless jobs have been lost.

First of all, this is particularly tragic for the workers who have lost their jobs. I hope that we, from Europe, will be able to provide the necessary support to help them find a new job and that we will support them with the opening of our labour market, resulting in more jobs, and by coupling this with growth.

In addition, we in Europe should also learn our lessons. Several Member States have actually gone too far with a pathetic industrial policy designed to try and protect industries and jobs against globalisation, while in fact, a different policy, namely modernisation, was necessary. It is therefore imperative that the Commission keeps an eye on how European State aid and State aid by Member States is allocated.

There is a second, very important point and it has to do with reconversion. We from Europe definitely need to focus on innovation, on modernising our economy. In my own region, we have a good example of that, precisely in the steel industry. Since Flanders is steel-friendly, many efforts are being put into high-tech innovation in the steel industry in order to create absolute added value and to be internationally competitive once more.

When guiding Member States in the implementation of the EU 2020 strategy, Europe and the Commission have to be unreservedly committed to enabling that innovative and high-tech reconversion. It is absolutely essential that we as Europe stop fighting globalisation and that we stop giving our citizens any false promises. It is important, just as you have mentioned, that we as the European Union adapt, that we link up reconversion with growth in order to make a modern economy possible. We must once again anticipate what globalisation will bring to us. We should no longer allow ourselves to be passive victims of it, but rather try to give it more direction from Europe.

  Oldřich Vlasák, on behalf of the ECR Group. – (CS) Mr President, European demand for steel is falling. The world’s largest steel producer, ArcelorMittal, is therefore closing one of its three blast furnaces in Poland. It has already closed furnaces in Belgium, Germany and Spain. Here, we immediately start talking about the need for European intervention, and about subsidies from the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund. We think up ways, European-style, of how to fix the market, which is logically pushing down steel prices with the falling demand.

In the meantime, it is clear that ArcelorMittal is capable of restructuring production itself and of looking after its employees very well. In 2004, ArcelorMittal made 1 700 employees redundant in the Czech Republic. In 2006, more than 1 000 were made redundant, and in the following years again, more than 1 000. Arcelor at that time applied a policy of voluntary redundancies. The people who went voluntarily received severance pay equal to their average monthly pay for between one year and two-and-a-half years. As a result of these steps, the company turned around its former losses of almost CZK 1 billion, and last year made a CZK 700 million profit.

I now therefore consider it a huge error and an injustice for EU money – our money – to fund the restructuring of blast furnaces in Belgium or other West European countries. The Czech experience shows unambiguously that there is no need for this.

IN THE CHAIR: ROBERTA ANGELILLI
Vice-President

  Isabelle Durant, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, listening to you, I thought I was dreaming. You read out some general considerations to us regarding employment, adapting to change, and growth. Today, however, ArcelorMittal, the world’s leading steel-making group, is making massive profits. Moreover, thanks to certain tax breaks euphemistically called ‘notional interest’ – which should, incidentally, be prohibited at European level – it has ended up making unbelievable profits at a time when it is announcing the closure of the hot phase in Liège.

So, Commissioner, today, the question ultimately is not whether the Globalisation Adjustment Fund should be implemented, which I obviously want. What I am asking of you, Commissioner, and of the entire Commission, including, moreover, the Council Presidency, the Polish Presidency, is something else entirely: it is actually, as has been said, to prevent the deindustrialisation of Europe. Steel is not dead; steel has a future, in Liège and elsewhere. Its production processes are becoming more diverse. We need steel and high-tech products. That is true. These are not outdated industries. These products are, on the contrary, extremely high-tech products.

Due to European inertia, 50% of steel production has gone elsewhere: to China, India, South Korea, to the East, to Japan. This exodus has placed entire industries under threat. Not just ArcelorMittal in Liège, today, but an entire industry inexorably linked to its clients: car manufacture; construction; the green industrial revolution, namely wind turbines; trains; trams; all buildings requiring simple, environmentally sustainable steel production, steel production that is fully integrated into the industrial fabric. We will need all of these. To get there, Commissioner, we will need more energy than you have described.

First of all, the banks are being recapitalised. That is all well and good, but what is stopping us from recapitalising the European steel industry too? The domino effect we are seeing today – between the hot phase and the cold phase, between maritime and continental steel industries, between the steel industry and all of its subcontractors – is unacceptable.

This needs to be stopped, Commissioner, and to stop it, I suggest that you do four things: firstly, launch a public takeover of the plant. You did so for Dexia. Why not do so for the steel industry? I am asking you to do so. The opportunity is there to replace this private sector failure and actually establish a Europe-wide steel industry. To ensure that this happens, I also call on the Presidency to convene a European Council of Ministers for the Economy to lay the groundwork for a proper European steel industry plan. Let us take the initiative, then. Thirdly, I believe that we need investment, and to that end, I suggest you use the project bonds that Mr Maystadt presented to us in the Committee on Budgets and which are an extremely interesting and valuable tool. Lastly, I believe that a consolidated tax base is needed to prevent relocations and competition.

So, yes, I believe that for all workers, for engineers, for the regional and national elected representatives of Europe, there is a future for the steel industry. European industry has a future and a chance to build that future. This chance starts in Liège, and I am waiting for you there.

(Applause)

  Jacky Hénin, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (FR) Madam President, one by one, ArcelorMittal is closing its plants across the European Union on the pretext of production overcapacity. This is resulting in the direct or indirect redundancies of thousands of employees. At the same time, ArcelorMittal, which, year after year, has been fed billions of euro in State aid and tax exemptions, is continuing on its breakneck quest for profit. For example, the Walloon Region has provided hundreds of millions of euro in aid to Mittal for CO2 quotas and over EUR 110 million in investment, when, at the same time, the group made a net profit of EUR 238 billion, for the sole benefit of its shareholders. State aid has merely served to fund Mittal’s devastating strategy: buying out a competitor at a low price to rob it of its know-how, then destroy it, so as to ultimately import at a lower cost. Mittal is definitely a predator, but national and European policy choices have allowed and funded its predatory actions. Yes, this is the result of your policies, and your institutions are bowing and scraping to Mittal to the bitter end, because even now that it is talking of job losses, you are still proposing to grant it State aid.

What can we do now, then? There are two possible answers to that question: the one offered by the majority of this Parliament, which entails whinging and relying on the sacred markets, at whose altar they pray, in giving even more State aid via the Globalisation Adjustment Fund, and in keeping citizens sweet until the next elections; or the one offered by progressive Europeans, who propose nationalising ArcelorMittal, given the billions in State aid that that group has already received. The aim: to create a public group in the form of a European economic interest group (EIG) for the steel industry, with the support of our universities’ high-tech laboratories.

Contrary to the immoral drivel that we hear, the steel industry is not an industry of the past; it makes high-value-added products; it is vital for a European metal industry. We still have the know-how, the means of production and a qualified workforce. Therefore, we must not allow Mittal or anyone else to destroy them! We must protect them and develop the European steel industry. Let us give Europe, at long last, the industrial policy that it will need in the future.

(Applause)

  John Bufton, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Madam President, the ongoing eurozone crisis is seeing companies quit the European market. European legislation has placed unforetold pressures on businesses and industries and makes it more viable for multinationals to shed European jobs or relocate to Asia. Meanwhile, with the help of EU funding, a number of large companies have relocated from Western Europe to Eastern Europe, in the opposite direction to labour migration flows.

The free movement of people was designed to alleviate labour shortages, not create overcrowding in the job market. Yet due to legislation coming with freedom of choice, migrants flock to certain countries to find there are not the employment opportunities they envisaged. Because they are entitled to welfare support, they stay, increasing unemployment and competing with domestic applicants for posts.

Perhaps the Commission should instruct companies to open up opportunities to other EU applicants only when there is not enough domestic competence to meet an industry’s needs. Twinned with reducing the burden of legislation, allowing Member States to compete in the employment market, labour could be targeted where needed, easing the congestion of unemployment in the worst-affected areas.

  Lena Kolarska-Bobinska (PPE). – (PL) Madam President, today, it is Belgium, France, Romania and Poland. The question is which countries are next. We may condemn one company, Arcelor, but it is obvious that it is also Nokia’s problem. The question is which companies will be next. I am very often told in conversations with various companies and large investors that, ‘We will have to pull our business out of Europe’.

We discussed this subject in the European Parliament five months ago: what can be done in order to prevent the relocation of our companies? Currently, it is becoming a reality. We are talking about this only in the context of the crisis and the drop in steel sales, but maybe we should also think about rising costs. We maintain a climate-oriented policy which is a burden on companies and which will be an even bigger burden if we tighten other criteria. This is exactly the context in which many enterprises declare that it might cost us further relocations. So the question is whether this is the big wave, the beginning, or is it just the end and a few cases, and also how big the loss of jobs will be that is still ahead of us in the future.

The worst thing is that we may lose our industry without achieving our climate goals, because outside Europe, these companies are free to develop their production, polluting the atmosphere and contributing to global warming, while here in Europe we are losing jobs. Moreover, in the future, when the crisis has passed, we will have to import steel and pay extra for transportation and pollute the environment by this transportation. Therefore, it seems to me that we need to take a very hard look at how we are going to achieve the objectives of industrial production while protecting the environment.

The Commission needs to enhance its efforts in order to achieve a global agreement on climate, because that will not promote relocations due to much lower costs than in Europe. At the same time, as has already been mentioned in the discussion, the same question is being asked again and again: what can we do to keep this industry in Europe. Therefore, we must balance the different objectives in order to curb rising unemployment rates in Europe, and this time we do not have to pay extra from the Globalisation Fund, because it is just another expense.

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

  Philippe Lamberts (Verts/ALE). – (FR) (The speaker began off-microphone)

You might as well say: ‘Do not be overly ambitious where the environment is concerned, because we are going to damage our industry’. You do realise that that is exactly what the US automotive industry said for decades to the federal government, with the result that, today, not only the US automotive industry, but also the US steel industry, are the most backward in the world, with the exception, perhaps, of those industries in Kazakhstan.

So, is that what you want for the future of European industry? For us to be the most backward in the world, for others to come up with the most environmentally efficient products, and for our industries ultimately to lag behind with products we no longer know what to do with? That is not really an ambition that we share with you.

  Lena Kolarska-Bobinska (PPE). – (PL) I understand that you do not really expect an answer to that question, because nobody wants Europe not to fulfil its climate objectives. The only point is that we should not take some objectives to the extreme, and thus harm the competitiveness of industry, because we see what is happening at the moment. In times of crisis, you must balance the different policies and objectives. Here you can save and there you have to pay extra, and unemployment is a social, economic and psychological expense.

  Frédéric Daerden (S&D). – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, I have listened to you, but let us be clear: as there is no genuine EU industrial policy, Europe now runs the risk, in a global economy, of gradually being drained of its industrial know-how, which was what made it prosperous in the first place. ArcelorMittal’s brutal decision is just another example of this in a traditional industry.

That decision – and this has already been said by others – was taken despite substantial profits, tax breaks and also the efforts made by our workers to improve competitiveness. It is the cause of considerable distress for hundreds of families, and it threatens the entire production chain, including the cold phase, the downstream industry and subcontractors. This represents thousands of jobs in a region that is already severely affected by unemployment. This decision to close, which stinks of pure speculation, and which is probably the first of many in Europe, comes with the owner’s refusal to sell the plant to any potential buyer in order to avoid competition. This is unacceptable.

Commissioner, how can we force this multinational to sell its production plant, thus ensuring competition by continuing activity and securing jobs? Trade union leaders advocate a transitional takeover by the public authorities. Do you think this is feasible from a European point of view, and how? Those two specific questions aside, Europe needs industry and industry needs Europe now more than ever, with the crisis. We must strive to ensure that the manufacturing industry and SMEs are once again at the centre of growth, even in traditional sectors, which are still innovative and can guarantee the industrial independence of Europe and the Union. This is one of the priorities of the Europe 2020 strategy.

Europe therefore needs to allocate adequate budgetary resources to kick-start a proactive industrial policy across the continent, a policy which does not play workers off against each other or promote social dumping, but which supports research, develops competitive clusters, maintains integrated processes and addresses the energy challenge. It is high time that Europe reacted and stopped acting powerless by putting up with others’ speculative strategies, which are impoverishing our citizens.

(Applause)

  Frédérique Ries (ALDE). – (FR) Madam President, the announcement made by ArcelorMittal on 11 October has hit the Liège region very hard. The steel giant is closing its liquid steel phase and thus laying off hundreds of workers. Two thousand people are going to be affected directly or indirectly. Naturally, our thoughts are with them and, as elected representatives of Europe, with all of the workers involved at Arcelor’s other sites and at Nokia’s sites, too.

It would appear that in Liège, in addition to the essential support measures and measures to redeploy the workers, in addition to the equally essential clean-up of the site – this is very important, in fact – all options are on the table at the moment. It is important to point out that promises should not be made to the workers if they cannot be kept, and I echo Mr Daerden’s question regarding the compatibility of some of the options envisaged (such as temporary regionalisation) with our European Treaty.

As the Commissioner pointed out, the directives on redundancies should be observed, but Europe must also learn from these social tragedies. Parliament must call on the Commission to strive for progress and a change in mentality. Now that we realise that our regions in Europe can no longer depend on a single sector of activity, more than ever it is time for diversification, for specialisation. In the immediate future, therefore, the Union must work with the regional authorities to facilitate the economic regeneration of the Liège basin. For example, there is an obvious need – and I agree with the strong sentiments expressed by Isabelle Durant and even – miracles do happen – by my communist colleague just a moment ago, although he has now left – to preserve the steel units, which have a high added value. It is also vital to invest today – and I am finishing here, Madam President – in jobs for tomorrow, in sectors as varied as biotechnology, agri-foodstuffs and biologistics.

Preparing for the future and ensuring alternative employment are, without doubt, the best responses we can offer our citizens today, in Liège and in the other regions of Europe alike.

  Martin Callanan (ECR). – Madam President, the global recession and the faltering economy hampered by the continuing problems of the eurozone are undoubtedly having a negative effect on European businesses and therefore on European jobs. However, it is not just economic troubles that are causing this painful rise in unemployment in all regions of Europe. Before we become too self-congratulatory, we should look at the policies of our own EU institutions, which are shouldering a large part of the blame.

Now I realise that this debate is primarily focused on Arcelor and on Nokia, but I also want to mention my very serious concerns about a large and important employer in my region of Northumberland. I am talking about Alcan, the aluminium smelter. Alcan is a smelter which, earlier this month, announced that it may have to close and it may have to close partly because it has effectively been strangled by EU legislation. The Emissions Trading Scheme and the Large Combustion Plants Directive have caused Alcan to face serious competitivity problems. Closure of the plant will mean the direct loss of around 750 jobs and many more indirectly in a part of Northumberland which is already afflicted by very high levels of unemployment.

I and many others warned about the knock-on effects of ill-thought-out legislation such as this, but our concerns were brushed aside by the Greens and over-zealous environmentalists whose fixation on reducing carbon emissions made them deaf to all of the arguments about economic and environmental damage. We warned of the risks to businesses, we warned of the risks to jobs, and we warned about the serious effect that it would have on the environment caused by carbon leakage.

Employers like Alcan and ArcelorMittal are at breaking point, and one by one they are going to relocate to other parts of the world where they are not choked by the same cumbersome environmental legislation that we have here in Europe. Of course we want to reduce carbon emissions, of course we want to avoid carbon leakage, but we do not do that by exporting jobs and by exporting companies to other parts of the world. We do nothing but export jobs and we export the emissions along with them.

  Philippe Lamberts (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, through you, my anger is directed at the entire Commission and at the Heads of State or Government in Europe. As happens every day in the financial sphere, today we find ourselves again confronted with industrial groups that are exploiting States, that are exploiting regions.

After demanding tax relief, financial aid for employment and research, and free CO2 emission allowances, yesterday they promised us investment only to today shut up shop without sparing a thought for the impact that this might have on the men and women whose skills and commitment were the group’s main asset. And all this for what? To satisfy the thirst for profit – which we refer to in French as ‘cupidité’, or greed – of the shareholder. In this case, I can speak in the singular because I am referring to Lakshmi Mittal, the owner of ArcelorMittal, who, not too long ago, was the fifth richest man in the world.

These decisions highlight the urgency of a European response because, if we want to regain our economic sovereignty, we have to act at European level. Indeed, although companies like ArcelorMittal, Nokia and BNP Paribas – and I could mention many others – may be able to exploit Member States and their regions, it is much more difficult for them to do so when they are confronted with a united Europe.

What does working together mean? It means an integrated tax policy, not just a common corporate tax base, but harmonised rates, ensuring that we can no longer compete against each other. The same applies to social and environmental standards. It also means establishing a common industrial policy rather than one that is fragmented among the Member States.

Of course, the European Union is not going to turn into a steel empire overnight, but by spending its budget in the right way, it can orientate its industrial development. It is high time that we stopped subsidising certain activities – we recently voted in favour of coal mining subsidies – that are, in fact, diverting resources that could be invested in the technologies of the future, including steel manufacturing.

European action must also prepare for when things go wrong. We need binding rules, a binding legislative framework that imposes a pan-European process on these multinational companies, inviting them to base their choices on objective facts and to take decisions in conjunction with all of the social partners. It is in this framework, too, that we must demand a return on all of the tax, social and environmental subsidies that these companies have been able to enjoy.

  Paul Murphy (GUE/NGL). – Madam President, from the speeches of some of the other Members, one would get the impression that ArcelorMittal is simply an isolated bad apple. Unfortunately, it is not: it is part of a tree of rotten apples; it is part of a trend of profitable corporations using the crisis as a cover to throw thousands, or tens of thousands, of workers onto the scrapheap in order to maximise already healthy profits and push them up even further.

This represents a failure of right-wing governments and their policies, and their fawning over these corporations: the creation of taxation policies to suit these corporations and the giving of subsidies to these corporations. Look at the massive tax breaks from which ArcelorMittal has benefited in Belgium. ArcelorMittal Belgium declared EUR 59 million in profits and paid EUR 42 000 in taxes. ArcelorMittal Upstream announced profits of EUR 35 million and paid a whopping EUR 936 in taxes, and ArcelorMittal Finance managed to declare profits of EUR 1.4 billion and not pay a single cent in taxes.

What is the thanks for this generosity on the part of the Belgian State, paid for by Belgian workers and by the impact on public services and so on? Almost 1 000 direct job losses, and many more jobs indirectly lost.

The same applies in Ireland where, despite our generous corporation tax rate, and despite increasing its European profits by 21% over the past year, the insurance company Aviva is still committed to laying off 1 000 workers. The response of the Commission reminds me of the response of the Irish Government, which is mere lip service – crocodile tears for the workers who have lost their jobs, but a continuation of the policies that got us here.

I support the demands of the workers in ArcelorMittal to nationalise that company to save the jobs, and I think the trade union movement across Europe must, in the context of unemployment and the context of the crisis, wage a campaign to have any major corporation threatening job losses taken into democratic public ownership and run under democratic workers’ control.

  Astrid Lulling (PPE). – (FR) Madam President, the economic and financial crisis unfortunately does not stop at the doors of our European industries nor, at the moment, at those of the ArcelorMittal factory in Schifflange, the commune where I was born, where my father and my three brothers worked from the First World War until after the Second World War, and where I was Mayor for 15 years. I therefore understand the economic and social tragedy facing us and, above all, facing the employees, my fellow citizens of the commune where I was born and where I still live.

I know that some people think that industry is taking advantage of the current delicate economic situation in order to relocate its plants to regions that are believed to be more favourable and more conducive to profit-making. However, I cannot help but express my regret, as others have already done here, at the lack of power and dynamism of our supposed European industrial policy. I also regret, in particular, the fact that we constantly impose new regulations on our industries, be it through energy prices, excessive environmental protection requirements or highly prejudicial tax arrangements. All of this undermines their competitiveness in relation to their third-country competitors.

All of the constraints that I have mentioned and the absence of a genuine industrial policy result in an unfavourable climate and limited development prospects for the industries still based in the European Union. The European Commission, with its often absurd proposals, and certain enlightened Members of this Parliament are the ones who are jointly responsible for the decisions that have harmed Europe’s heavy industry, including the steel sector, which is closing loss-making plants.

I am therefore calling here for a renewed industrial policy that is worthy of the name, based on innovation, with a view to ensuring greater coordination of sectoral policies and more realistic climate change and environmental policies. It is true that the industries leaving Europe are no longer creating pollution here, but we will eventually import for sale on our market products from third countries that use production methods that create much more pollution than our methods.

So that is our role here in the European Parliament. The national social partners and the national governments will be the ones responsible for managing the social and economic situations on the ground. I, personally, trust them to do so in my country.

  Corina Creţu (S&D). – (RO) Madam President, Nokia’s relocation from Romania will leave thousands of people without jobs and hit the domestic economy hard at a difficult time. Unfortunately, after experiencing three years of Nokia in our country, the company’s slogan could become ‘Disconnecting People’, as was suggested by a newspaper in Finland. This was obviously a specific developing country-type investment, similar to the attempt that is also currently being made in the case of Roşia Montană to launch gold mining using cyanide technologies. The dishonest pursuit of profit only serves to exacerbate the precarious situation of the majority of people, national chauvinism and scepticism.

Nokia took full advantage of the facilities generously offered by the Romanian authorities, benefiting from the handouts without meeting their obligations. Now they have decided, in an unprecedented cynical manner, to shut down. While trade unionists from Bochum in Germany have received compensation amounting to 60 minimum salaries, Romanian employees are only being offered three salaries in compensation, and their chances of reintegration into the labour market are virtually non-existent in the current economic climate. This is why I am calling for the European Commission to get involved without delay so as to ensure that the staff made redundant are treated decently, with the aim of supporting their professional retraining.

In addition, the sharp fall in transactions on the steel market and in the price of steel is about to cause new restructuring in the steel industry. There is the risk that 10 years after privatisation, the almost 9 000 Romanian employees at the ArcelorMittal plant in Galaţi will be affected. A common strategy is needed for all the decision-making phases in order to maintain production capacity and ensure genuine protection for the workers’ interests.

Faced with the prospect of a rise in unemployment, I think that the European Commission’s priority must be, first and foremost, to preserve jobs rather than checks on electricity tariffs, which will help preserve the production units.

We need a fair order of priorities, and jobs must take precedence over other considerations relating to energy market agreements.

  Charles Goerens (ALDE). – (FR) Madam President, the European Union does not have, or no longer has, an economic programme as such. Therefore, when faced with mass redundancies in a company, it cannot intervene effectively and deal with the social issues of mass unemployment.

The disappointment of the victims is understandable. We need to break the vicious circle that exists: firstly, there is the announcement that no profit is being made; secondly, production overcapacity continues; and finally, when there is no other alternative, those directly affected are drip fed the idea that their company will be closed temporarily or permanently. That is what is happening in both Liège and Luxembourg.

We have seen this before. We have heard it done before. It is too hasty a reaction. What we need to do is provide prospects in good time and explore alternative options if jobs cannot be maintained in the same sector. What we need is firm dialogue among partners and a proactive approach that offers long-term prospects, as long as they are offered in good time, of course.

Even if this social dialogue results in other industrial projects in other sectors, that is still better than nothing. It is still better than the worst possible solution: unemployment. Workers whose jobs are under threat need to be offered prospects rather than becoming resigned to the fact that, little by little, they will suffer a tragic fate.

Finally, if this debate has one merit, it is that it is highlighting the need for a genuine industrial policy at European level. We should add that in order to achieve this, the European Union will require real resources, rather than the purely symbolic ones it currently has, particularly when it comes to the budget.

  Tomasz Piotr Poręba (ECR). – (PL) Madam President, we are talking today about the impact of the financial crisis on the surge in job dismissals in Europe, especially in large companies such as Nokia and Arcelor. Indeed, the former intends to make approximately 3 500 workers redundant in Romania, Denmark, Finland and Great Britain before the end of the year 2012, and the latter plans to get rid of 1 000 workers in Belgium, as well as to cut back production at its Spanish plant. The decision about the fate of 200 employees of the company in Kraków and the maintenance of some of the production in Nowa Huta and Dąbrowa Górnicza in Poland has not been made yet. However, together with the deterioration in the global economic situation, other large corporations such as Opel and Motorola are faced with an even more difficult situation.

We must find a way to mitigate the impact of the economic crisis, because it will affect ordinary people primarily – workers of these and many other companies, including small and medium-sized ones, and, above all, remember that they should not be the first ones to pay the price of the economic crisis in Europe and worldwide.

  Karima Delli (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the wave of redundancies that is affecting workers across Europe must lead us to reflect on the role that we, as political representatives, must play in the face of multinational firms that are acting without any social ethics, proceeding with shareholder-driven redundancies and relocating their operations in order to cut costs, increase their shareholders’ profits and please the rating agencies, with no regard whatsoever for social and environmental standards.

In its resolution of 29 September on the future of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF), Parliament clearly expressed its desire to support, first and foremost, the workers adversely affected by restructuring. We called on the Commission to ensure consistency between EGF interventions and the European Union’s industrial policy, notably through the use of the structural funds. We also called for improvements in the future EGF Regulation to ensure that the fund does not generate moral hazard effects for multinational companies, as demonstrated today by the ArcelorMittal and Nokia cases.

Commissioner, we can no longer continue to look separately at the structural funds and the Globalisation Adjustment Fund without taking into account the restructuring strategies of companies that benefit from them and without examining the cost-benefit ratio of a policy – and I shall say it again clearly – that benefits European workers.

  Traian Ungureanu (PPE). – Madam President, the so-called Nokia incident is no accident. It tells us two very instructive things.

First, helped by Nokia, we have found out how we Europeans lost our competitive edge. For too long, producers chose to relocate in order to reduce production costs. That was fine from a cost-reduction perspective, but it was not a guarantee of increased quality in a very competitive market. Cheap is not enough. That is what companies like Nokia found in Romania. Nokia closed up shop in Romania because it was severely hit by its own lack of mobility in terms of innovation.

So costs are important, but knowledge and innovation are vital. From this point of view, Nokia only has itself to blame. What about the 2 000 or so Romanians made instantly unemployed by Nokia? Should they blame the smart phones that defeated Nokia? That would not be very smart.

The problem for Romanian workers is that a unified European market allows Nokia to operate successfully or unsuccessfully in Romania, while Romanians face a restricted labour market. In other words, Romanians won the right to be made unemployed by Nokia, only to then be denied a job anywhere else in Europe. That is the second lesson that we can learn from the Nokia fiasco in Romania.

Of course, assistance from the Globalisation Adjustment Fund could alleviate the problem, but only an unrestricted European labour market will solve it.

  Jutta Steinruck (S&D). – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Nokia was exempted from paying tax in Romania for 30 years and only three years later is moving to Asia. Nokia received massive financial support for the construction of its plant in Bochum in Germany and then for its plant in Cluj in Romania. At the same time, the redundancies and the safeguards put in place for the employees were financed from public funds.

I believe that it is dishonest to cite the crisis and production costs that are allegedly too high or, as has been mentioned today, environmental legislation as a justification for mass redundancies. Every employee at the plant in Cluj generates turnover of EUR 1 million each year and costs less than EUR 10 000 per year. We can no longer stand by and watch companies unscrupulously pocketing European money and then simply moving on like a plague of locusts. All the small agencies working on European projects have to sign contracts concerning the sustainability of their projects. Why does the same rule not apply to large companies? It is high time for us to introduce clear, tough regulations in this area. A voluntary approach and calls for compliance are completely useless.

As long as companies like this exist, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, which is vitally important for workers in Europe, must not be called into question. We must help the people who are suffering.

  Diana Wallis (ALDE). – Madam President, I wanted to bring to the Commissioner’s attention another example of job dismissals which might help this debate – perhaps a case that might be suitable for the Global Adjustment Fund. There is a small town where I live, and within the region I represent, called Brough. It contains a large airfield where pilots trained in Spitfires for the Battle of Britain. People have now started to talk of the ‘Battle for Brough’, as BAE Systems threatens to shed 900 jobs, leaving a workforce of only 400. It will have a huge impact on a community of 7 000 inhabitants.

What can we do? Of course we can check that all the rules the Commissioner referred to are being adhered to, but we also know that in this same locality, we have the huge development of offshore wind and carbon capture and storage, and I was much impressed by what Isabelle Durant said.

How can we use restructuring and the funds that might be available to move into new technologies where we have an amazingly highly-skilled technical workforce that is otherwise going to be at a loss, greatly to the detriment of that local community? I know that my national government is not a huge fan of the fund, but if it can be used in an appropriate and progressive manner, it should be considered.

  Claude Turmes (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Madam President, Europe needs a modern steel industry and, in order for us to achieve this, there must, above all, be a demand for high-quality steel. For this reason, we in the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance believe that we must put in place an investment policy alongside the austerity policy in Europe. Steel is needed for renovating buildings and for increasing the proportion of renewable energy. If we want to make environmentally friendly cars, we need lightweight, high-quality steel.

We must also invest in modernising the steel works in Europe and must move away from run-of-the-mill products and towards high-quality steel. This is something that is particularly lacking in the ArcelorMittal group. Yesterday was the meeting of the European works council of Mittal. The trade unions have found out that ArcelorMittal writes off more money than it invests in all the countries where it has a presence and that it benefits significantly from tax breaks. This is why I am calling on Mr Mittal to behave less like a hedge fund manager and more like a captain of industry.

I would like to ask the Commission to work together with the relevant governments to investigate where ArcelorMittal actually pays tax on its profits. You need to find out whether it is true that ArcelorMittal has received the full number of CO2 certificates promised to it for its works in Schifflange and Rodange which were temporarily closed and has added to those further CO2 certificates that it had stockpiled, amounting to EUR 1 billion. Please ensure that in future, EU research funding is made available to companies which still pay taxes somewhere.

  Véronique De Keyser (S&D). – (FR) Madam President, Mr Andor, this is not just about the ‘Renault Directive’, nor is it simply a matter of possible redundancies of workers in the steel industry; it is, in fact, Europe’s entire economic and industrial policy that is being called into question by various people, including me.

I am well acquainted with Liège’s steel industry. I worked in research there for 20 years. The sector does have a future. Cutting-edge research is being carried out into all aspects of galvanising and vacuum coating. That side of the steel industry has a future. What Arcelor wants to do is carve up the company, in other words, carry on with cold rolled steel production, for the moment, but stop hot rolled steel production, while keeping its research centres. It will carve it up and then it will see if it survives. That is not how an industrial policy works. We cannot leave Europe’s economic policy in the hands of financiers. They have destroyed the Liège operation. Tomorrow, the cold rolled steel division will probably close, and who knows what will become of the research centre.

Therefore, either Mr Mittal will agree to sell and there will be a buyer, or the region will be redeveloped. However, Mr Mittal cannot say today, after the gifts he has received, after the CO2 allowances, after all the aid, that he is going to carve up our steel sector and then see what happens. That would be shameful. However, it is equally shameful of Europe to believe that the ‘Renault Directive’, the Adjustment Fund and all of the other aid will solve the problems with our economic and industrial policy.

  Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Madam President, I would like to say more about the Nokia case. Nokia demonstrates that the limits of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund are clearly identifiable and highlights the free-rider effects for companies, which are much larger than we would like.

As has already been mentioned, Nokia built a plant in the 1990s in Bochum with EU funding and, in 2008, closed production there from one day to the next. It then moved to Romania because the cost of setting up a plant there was lower. It has been said that as much as EUR 22 million was provided from the European Structural Funds. In Bochum, 1 300 workers were made redundant overnight and EUR 10 million of public money was invested to ensure that they could find new jobs. EUR 5 million of this came from the European Union. Now the same thing is happening in Romania. Nokia is closing its plant again, 2 200 employees are being made redundant and another request has been submitted for European money.

Nokia must be put on a blacklist for subsidy shopping and must not be given any more support. At this point, we really need to consider how we can prevent free-rider effects of this kind and how we can put a stop to this. This should not happen at the expense of the workers. However, we need to change the way in which our subsidies are structured and Nokia must pay back the money from the structural funds which it has received in Romania.

  Catherine Trautmann (S&D). – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission needs to prove today that the industrial policy it stands for is not an empty promise. As has already been said, we cannot accept that economically viable sites equipped with high-performance tools and skilled employees may be shut down because of a cynical calculation of profits.

As far as the Florange site is concerned, I call on the Commission to speed up its selection process for the NER 300 programme, because we must examine all the other options for maintaining activity on European soil. Indeed, this site brings together, under the Ultra-Low Carbon dioxide (CO2) Steelmaking (ULCOS) programme, all the elements needed to set up a pilot project in the field of CO2 capture and storage, thereby striking a difficult balance between heavy industry and environmental protection.

The fact is, the more blast furnaces are shut down for the long term, the more it will cost to start them back up again, and the greater the risk of this project failing, which would be catastrophic not only for the Lorraine steelmaking area but also, on a wider scale, for all the regions in Europe that are interested in reproducing this kind of equipment.

The European Union was born out of steel and steelmaking. We cannot let it disintegrate and perish because of a financial crisis and because of the demise of steelmaking, for the sake of our jobs, our regions and our workers.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI). – (FR) Madam President, the ArcelorMittal case is symptomatic of the consequences of your policies; not only the Commission’s policies, but policies that have been encouraged by the majority of this House.

Today, we are hearing a kind of chorus of cries from the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament. However, ladies and gentlemen, you voted for all the texts that have given rise to the current situation, you approved these policies, you approved widespread free trade, you approved the agreements reached at the World Trade Organisation, which is leaving European industry, bound hand and foot, to the mercy of a number of foreign speculators.

Today, extraordinarily naive as you are – your naivety is a credit to your innocence, to your guilelessness – you have discovered, for example, that the nationality of investors may ultimately influence their policy decisions. You have also discovered that capitalism obeys its own financial interests rather than employment interests or the interests of industry. It is quite astounding to witness this.

The Commission does indeed have a responsibility to bear. Under the pretext of maintaining free competition, it systematically opposed the creation of large European industrial companies, and recently, for example, it opposed Alcan’s acquisition of Pechiney, for the sake of competition. It opposed the ATR merger with de Havilland, as it was terrified at the prospect of a European company dominating the global market.

Today, because of you, ArcelorMittal is dominating the steelmaking industry; it is controlling and destroying what is left of this industry in Europe. This is your responsibility and no one else’s.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Madam President, Nokia’s relocation from Romania has definitely had an adverse impact at local and regional level. As has been emphasised throughout the debate, having access to the EGF may help mitigate the social impact on those left without a job as a consequence of this decision. The Romanian authorities are currently in discussions with companies which could take over the industrial park in Jucu. Measures are required locally to deal with a considerable number of unemployed, and alternative sources of revenue need to be found to the budget.

At the same time, our own natural resources need to be used. Romania has large deposits of gold, silver and copper, the mining of which can create new jobs, particularly in Roşia Montană, Certez and Băiţa-Crăciuneşti.

However, the short-term solutions are not enough. Measures need to be taken to make Romania much more attractive to investors.

  Danuta Jazłowiecka (PPE). – (PL) Madam President, there is no doubt that while seeking profit, large companies cut down on employment, by reducing jobs generally by the hundred or thousand. Large companies should certainly be supported, but only those whose decisions to downsize are really justified, and who need help for their laid-off workers. Please do remember, however, that the five million jobs that Europe has lost during the crisis were lost, to a large extent, in the small and medium-sized enterprises sector. When helping the large, let us not forget that schemes should also be introduced to help SMEs to create new jobs. They are the ones who can respond to the difficult situation in the labour market in a timely and effective fashion. The elimination of administrative, tax and investment barriers for small and medium-sized enterprises is absolutely essential in order to create new employment opportunities as soon as possible for the five million who have lost their jobs. SMEs are the ones that can accomplish this task most quickly and efficiently and with most long-lasting effects. While discussing the large ones, let us not forget the small ones either.

  Iosif Matula (PPE). – (RO) Madam President, three years ago, Nokia announced that it was discontinuing mobile phone production at its factory in Bochum and heading for more cost-competitive regions. This decision affected 2 300 employees at that time.

The relocation of production to Romania cost Nokia more than EUR 82 million. However, we now have, a month ago, the management of the Finnish manufacturer announcing the closure of its factory in Cluj, with 2 200 workers being made redundant. What concerns me is that, on this occasion, Nokia is leaving one of the most favourable convergence regions in the EU in terms of cheap, accessible labour and is possibly leaving the EU, opting perhaps for the more attractive Asian markets in terms of production and consumption.

I would like to ask the Commission what urgent measures can be taken in the areas of employment, research and innovation to win back the relocations from the EU to third countries, the full brunt of which we are feeling.

  Csaba Sógor (PPE). – (HU) Madam President, first of all, allow me to explain that I have two Nokia mobile phones and I will continue to buy Nokia telephones in the future. However, we must decide whether we want to safeguard the interests of banks and large companies or those of citizens, whether we want to protect profits or jobs. Nokia, too, will go to Asia and then, using the ‘human rights worldwide’ slogan, we can protest against Asians having to work for minimum or starvation wages. When a company has received subsidies, the least they can do is repay them.

My question is the same as that of my colleague, Mr Matula: what measures can the Commission adopt to stop this unfortunate state of affairs that we are witnessing in Eastern Europe, and not only in Nokia’s case, because there are several other large companies, but in their case, we did not make such a fuss.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D). – (RO) Madam President, company relocations from European Union countries are not only a consequence of the economic crisis, but also of the wrong policies pursued by some Member States. Take Romania as an example, where, although the government has invested in infrastructure and provided facilities to ensure the best possible operating conditions, Nokia has decided to close its factory. Several thousand people have lost their job in the wake of this decision.

In the European Union, Romanian citizens in particular are in an ever-worsening situation as there are ever fewer jobs in Romania and, unfortunately, the European labour market, too, is increasingly restrictive for them. I am referring by this to the measure adopted by Spain to restrict access to their labour market in a discriminatory manner for Romanian citizens only. I submitted a written question on this matter to the Commission quite a while ago and have not yet received any reply, even though the situation is serious.

If I can no longer have any kind of expectations of the government in Bucharest, I do expect some response from the Commission in this area.

  Antonio Masip Hidalgo (S&D). – (ES) Madam President, ArcelorMittal’s strategy and tactics have to be overcome. I have always been against allowing this predatory and relocation businessman, Mr Mittal, into Europe. Commissioner, do not allow the social barbarity of Mr Mittal and his directors, who have already made huge profits through the Arcelor stock options. Take a stand, Commissioner, in the name of Europe, its workers and its people; take a stand against Mr Mittal, once and for all.

(Applause)

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D). – (RO) Madam President, the EU 2020 strategy includes two important objectives: research and job creation. However, there is the risk that we cannot meet them in the way the European Union wants, as long as actions take place like those taken by Nokia and ArcelorMittal, namely, shutting down factories and relocating their high-profile activities outside Europe. We debated and approved in the European Parliament proposals aimed at making Europe’s industrial sector become more competitive. However, we failed to take into account such actions that have a major impact on the national and local budgets of Member States, which are forced to intervene with social measures.

I think that the European Union needs to impose a set of terms on private companies wishing to relocate their activities, especially if they have announced considerable benefits in the period leading up to closing some sites and have received substantial incentives to create jobs, as happened in Romania.

  Sergio Gaetano Cofferati (S&D). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the issue we are discussing exemplifies the situation that has arisen in Europe over the last few months. These two companies include a company in a primary industry, the steel industry, and a high-tech company which now focuses on manufacturing for the communications industry.

I believe that this is an important issue that needs to be tackled with determination, but that cannot just focus on the necessary, indispensable and fundamental help for the people involved in these restructuring processes. The real issue is how to safeguard production, in manufacturing and more innovative industries, with Europe in crisis.

We therefore need to focus our attention on research and innovation. There are some sectors considered to be mature, and therefore lost, taken over by other parts of the world that are competitive once again simply because they made timely and decisive investments in innovation.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE). – (ES) Madam President, the closure of Arcelor affects 400 workers in Sestao (Vizcaya) in the Basque Country, my own part of the world. They will be unemployed for two months, because of the downturn in construction and the steel market, and strong competition from south-east Asia.

I hope they can use the European Social Fund and the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, as these are committed workers, true professionals, who need a future, as otherwise there will be significant consequences for the Basque Country and its 2 200 000 people.

Commissioner, this resolve needs to go hand in hand with an industrial strategy for Europe, a firm commitment to innovation, training for the new jobs and the management of existing knowledge, because otherwise we run the risk of losing a strategic sector, and making Europe a poorer place for its citizens.

For that reason, Commissioner, I ask you all to show firm commitment and leadership in the intelligent management of European funds, and to set out some bold strategies so that we can build the future.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Madam President, this wave of companies going out of business and multinationals relocating – for example, Arcelor and Nokia – is scandalous. These are the consequence of the capitalist policies of free competition, of deregulation of the labour market, of flexibility and of flexicurity. It is because of these policies that large companies are going out of business after receiving high levels of EU funding, condemning thousands of workers to unemployment, even when their profits are as high as those of ArcelorMittal. Such scandals are on the rise in various Member States, including in Portugal.

It is time for the European Commission to table initiatives that prevent multinationals from behaving in this way, and defend European industry. It is time to intervene with public policy, including the nationalisation of sectors fundamental to production and employment. It is time to return to regulation and to recognition of the rights of those who work. It is time for politicians to take control of the economy and to put a stop to large companies and financial institutions guiding EU policy.

IN THE CHAIR: ANNI PODIMATA
Vice-President

  Maria Damanaki, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, I can understand that there is a heated discussion here and that there are a lot of concerns among Members of this Parliament. I would like to underline that the Commission shares your concerns, and I can understand that it is not only about Nokia or Arcelor. There were some references to other cases, and I think that we have to realise that this will not be an unusual case at times of crisis.

The crisis is here; it is not a conspiracy or an alibi, as somebody has suggested. It is a reality, and we all have to face this reality together. By ‘all’, I mean the Commission, the national governments, Parliament: everybody, because otherwise we will not find a real solution.

So we need to change, and we need to change because in an open world, we have to face the problem of competitiveness. We really need to help our industry to cope with all these difficulties, so we will have another debate on new skills, innovation and research. There have been a lot of good references here. We have to help, but in the meantime, we also have to help all these people you have mentioned who have lost their jobs.

What can we do about this? It is obvious that there are a lot of different opinions here, but I can concentrate on some points that Commissioner Andor has already raised and I would like to consider again.

What can the Commission do? First, we can ensure that the law is implemented and enforced and that these companies have done what they have done according to the law. Secondly, we can use the funding we have available in the best way we can. With regard to the funds and the Globalisation Fund, I would like to reassure all the Members of this Parliament that in the coming financial perspectives, this Globalisation Fund will be increased, because there is a need for more workers to benefit. That is why the Commission is negotiating with the governments of Belgium and Romania in order to find the proper way to use this Globalisation Fund.

This is a first reaction about compensation. Another thing we can do to go forward is to use all the other appropriate funding in order to help. This leads to our next debate about a new initiative from the Commission concerning skills, innovation, social business and social economy. These are new ideas we are going to promote.

Referring to certain points the Member States have raised, both Ms Delvaux and Mr Cercas recalled the idea that we need a new framework for restructuring our companies. Yes, we agree, and as you might be aware, the Commission is embarking on a consultation procedure focused on this idea; all proposals are welcome. Ms Durant also came up with some proposals, which were also supported by other Members. We and our services are here to receive proposals, and we will involve all the stakeholders in order to find the best way to go about restructuring our companies.

I would like to say that the Commission is already facilitating some cases – this is in answer to Mrs Wallis. For example, we have intervened in an Irish case, the TalkTalk case, and we are also willing to facilitate other cases if they are mentioned to us.

There was also a lot of criticism about Europe lacking a common industrialised policy. Yes, this is true: we do not have a common policy; we are trying to get the best result in order to harmonise the different policies of the Member States. This is something that brings us to a more general political approach to the future of Europe.

I would like to reiterate what President Barroso has already proposed. We have here a proposal about getting out of the crisis – the stability growth and deployment proposal – and I can see that the majority of this House supports it. But we need to do more in order to persuade the Council and Parliament.

We have to work together towards this. There were many references to the lack of a common base, referring to a common corporate tax. Yes, this is true; but it is also true that the Commission has come up with a proposal. Parliament has not yet voted for it and the Council is lagging behind. So please, let us work together.

To finish, Madam President, I would like to underline that it is not the time for everybody here to seek national or separatist solutions. We have to work together if we are to find a way out of this crisis, and that means that we have to enhance all the procedures of cooperation between the Commission, Parliament and the Council – all the procedures in order to have a harmonised approach to very difficult issues such as financial policy, taxation, restructuring of our industry, innovation and research. We are doing all we can, and I hope that this House will help the Commission and the Council in this task.

  President. – The debate is closed.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) The workers at the ArcelorMittal factory in Liège are facing a particularly tragic situation, following the announcement that the hot-phase division is to close. We are talking here about the loss of hundreds of direct jobs, which will have an impact on the whole production sector and on the economic situation of a region that has already been hit hard by unemployment.

We can be proud of our industrial past, which has opened the door to strong growth. Today, at a time when this sector is facing severe difficulties, we must do everything we can to keep it going in the face of a business rationale that is focused exclusively on profit and which is preventing potential buyers from acquiring the operation so as to avoid competition.

If the Union does not take a stand against these practices now, there will be many more situations of this kind throughout Europe; this will result in thousands of redundancies and will make us more dependent on other countries.

  Iuliu Winkler (PPE), in writing. – (RO) With the pressure of the economic crisis, political dithering and unfinished projects, the EU is at risk of becoming the big loser in the global competitive environment. We look in frustration at the emerging economies and become indignant when multinational companies like Nokia or Arcelor decide to move their businesses from Europe. However, Europe expects robust measures and not moaning. In fact, we Europeans have the power in our hands to change what seems at the moment to be our inevitable destiny. One of the right responses is to go back to our own resources. We must complete one of the most important projects, namely, the single European market. We have extraordinary potential available to us which we do not utilise because we do not have common legislation recognised by all Member States, and we do not have common regulations in as many of the areas as possible deriving from the common market. We have instead numerous barriers. This is the very moment when it is the European Commission’s duty to offer the same solution to the redundancies undertaken by Nokia in Jucu in Romania as it did in the case of those redundancies in Bochum in Germany. However, these solutions are only a gesture. Without a functioning single market, the EU will merely remain a bystander watching their competitors advance.

14. Agenda for new skills and jobs (debate)

  President. – The next item is the report by Regina Bastos, on behalf of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, on the Agenda for New Skills and Jobs (2011/2067(INI)) (A7-0320/2011).

  Regina Bastos, rapporteur. – (PT) Madam President, I should like to thank all my shadow rapporteur colleagues, with whom I worked fruitfully, and I should also like to thank the rapporteurs for the opinions of the four committees involved: their opinions made a valuable contribution to this report. We received 400 amendments and drafted 47 compromises, all of which were adopted. This demonstrates the importance of this issue of new skills and jobs, and the interest it has generated. In the end, this is about preparing Europe’s human resources, and anticipating the needs of the labour market over the next decade. The key strategy when drafting the report has been to reformulate common ideas, so as to avoid repetition and ensure its coherence. I think we have achieved this goal.

We all know that the crisis currently affecting us has demonstrated the weakness of the European economic and social model, and has wiped out several elements of the progress made in the past. Since the first effects of the crisis started to be felt in the labour market in 2008, Europe has already lost more than 5 million jobs. There are almost 23 million people unemployed today. Youth unemployment is even more shocking: the rate of youth unemployment is around 21%, which is more than double the overall unemployment rate.

On the other hand, unemployment rates vary according to levels of qualification in all the Member States. This means that people with better qualifications find work more easily. We also know that, in the near future, needs in terms of aptitudes, skills and qualifications will increase in all types and levels of profession. As such, Europe is facing four challenges: firstly, job creation; secondly, the need to be involved and stay competitive; thirdly, the sustainability of social security systems; and, finally, the difficulty of finding people with adequate skills to fill job offers.

Therefore, this report essentially has two objectives: firstly, to stress the need to act fast to fill Europe’s skill gaps; and, secondly, for us to anticipate the skill needs of the labour market. Several measures are important in order to achieve this. Firstly, in order to ensure that qualified workers are available, we need to improve basic skills, as well as skills in the sciences, in innovation, in information and communication technologies, and in foreign languages. As I have already mentioned, skill needs must be identified early, at least 10 years in advance. We know today the potential for a new, sustainable, green economy, and that environmentally friendly investment is needed. Next, participation in lifelong learning and retraining, and in reducing the school drop-out rate, needs to be increased.

Another important area is mutual recognition of diplomas and professional qualifications and the urgent need to make progress with this recognition. Fourthly, we would draw attention to the link that should exist between educational establishments and the needs of the labour market. Internships should be high quality and supervised by tutors so that they lead to a job, so as to put a stop to potential abuses of the intern’s situation. Particular stress is also given to the role of social partnerships and social dialogue. The report also proposes measures to promote job seeking and creation. We have the future before us and we must create jobs. Small and medium-sized enterprises play a decisive role in achieving this goal.

There is also a need to strengthen the internal market, so as to facilitate the free movement of workers, which results in the need to coordinate social security systems in order that the rights that workers have won might be guaranteed, in particular, the portability of pensions.

Finally, the issue of labour market flexibility: in order for the labour market to work better, we must adapt the rules of flexicurity to the socio-economic context of each Member State.

  Maria Damanaki, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, I would like to thank Ms Bastos for this report and all Members of Parliament for their proposals to strengthen the actions set out in the Agenda for New Skills and Jobs.

Today, we have to recognise that we face a challenge. It is a challenge for the European Union as a whole, and for many other regions in the world: how best to support growth and the jobs which are so desperately needed in a climate of stringent fiscal consolidation. That is the challenge, and there is no easy answer to it. A lot depends on political leadership and decisions on the financial and economic crisis, but let us try to do what we can do, in the light of our roles.

In order to step up the impact and visibility of the Commission’s contribution to the Europe 2020 goals and to meet the deadline – we are at about 75% of the target employment rate – we have undertaken to present a set of employment initiatives in early 2012. Let me now inform you about those concrete actions.

First, the Commission will duly reopen the debate on flexicurity policy as a means of tackling labour market segmentation, so that everyone in Europe, whatever their background or sector and wherever they live, can have a quality job. The conference on flexicurity on 14 November will provide an opportunity for all stakeholders to present their views on this key issue.

Secondly, in the present economic situation, there is unlikely to be net job creation in the Union unless the Member States step up their policy to stimulate labour demand. That is something we have to realise. There is nothing automatic about creating new jobs. The Commission will therefore present principles for generating conditions that foster job creation for the benefit of all key players, including the public authorities and the social partners.

Thirdly, geographical and occupational mobility is a crucial way of tackling imbalances between sectors and regions where there is high unemployment and where there are labour shortages. The Commission will therefore outline the way EURES, our tool for mobility, can be modernised and turned into a powerful tool. We also intend to open a debate on how the Union can face the situation of the mobile workforce, and particularly of migrants.

We also need to see how employment policy might address the long-term challenges facing us so that we will be able to make the most of employment opportunities in the future. In particular, the restructuring of the economy and of businesses, as we discussed previously, and the transition to a low carbon economy, should be managed and anticipated better.

Lastly, the Commission will bring forward proposals on developing a more strategic and integrated skills governance model. Indeed, initiatives at national and EU level currently suffer from a lack of coordination and of mechanisms for exchanging information on the anticipation and analysis of skills.

The most pressing challenge for our societies today is the high rate of unemployment among young people. That is the real problem. To tackle it, the Member States committed themselves in June this year to implementing a comprehensive set of measures under the Europe 2020 flagship initiative Youth on the Move. One particular concern is that 7.5 million young people aged between 15 and 24 are neither in employment, nor in education or in training. Just imagine that. We are talking about 7.5 million young people. Unless something is done, they will become a generation of wasted talent.

There is a wider and economic social cost such as tax revenue loss, the extra cost of health and medical services, the price to pay for crime and mainly social exclusion – we are talking about real social exclusion now. The Young Opportunities Initiative announced by President Barroso in his State of the Union speech in this House will focus on many issues, including getting young people who have left school or training without any vocational qualification back into school or training and, secondly, providing opportunities for work experience to those who have a qualification but have not found work. The initiative will give the Member States and all the actors involved the necessary support for delivering on the measures.

As the report rightly points out, it is vital not to forget society’s most vulnerable and disadvantaged groups in this time of economic difficulty. Here we have the European Platform Against Poverty and Social Exclusion, and a commitment to lift out of poverty at least 20 million people by 2020. Last week, the first annual convention of the European Platform Against Poverty took place in Kraków, with very good results.

Let me finish by saying something about the EU’s future spending plans. On 6 October, the Commission brought forward a proposal on cohesion policy legislation for 2014-2020, and on the role of the European Social Fund. We propose that after 2013, that fund should increase by at least 7.5% and thus account for at least 25% of cohesion spending, or at least EUR 84 billion for the seven-year period up to 2020. The Social Fund will contribute to three of the five EU headline targets: employment, education and reducing poverty and social exclusion.

Our proposal for a regulation on the European Social Fund in the future involves allocating at least 25% of that fund to promoting social inclusion and combating poverty. That is a substantial increase on the current EUR 10 billion. I hope that the Member States and Parliament will support this very significant increase for the most vulnerable groups. I welcome the fact that we can share views on how the Agenda should be implemented, and look forward to working with Parliament on this in the future.

  Niki Tzavela, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy. – (EL) Madam President, I should like to take my turn in congratulating Ms Bastos on her excellent report on a very important issue.

Commissioner, I think that developments in our economy have now overtaken us. We heard earlier about the shake-up on the job market in connection with Nokia and Arcelor. In my country, in Greece, it has been decided that a large number of civil servants will leave their posts and be placed in a transitional ‘reserve’ scheme, while in the public and private sectors in general, large numbers of workers are being made redundant.

The Social Fund has a great deal of experience in reintegrating the workforce and in retraining the workforce. I should like to ask you this: have you any major, tailor-made workforce retraining programmes in mind for Greece at this time of serious recession? The Social Fund has both the expertise and the money.

  Monika Smolková, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Regional Development. – (SK) Madam President, the Agenda for New Skills and Jobs is one of the most important agendas in terms of fulfilling the aims of the 2020 strategy and overcoming the crisis more rapidly. The agenda talks about a qualified workforce, about the groups at risk in terms of employment, such as young people, women, older people and people living in remote and poorer regions, who are often highly-qualified experts.

As rapporteur for this agenda in the Committee on Regional Development (REGI), I would urge a more effective use of funding to develop new skills and the greater participation of national governments in supporting new job creation. Emphasis is given to the importance of synergies between the individual European funds, and a decentralised approach in using the resources from these funds, with the aim of meeting the requirements of the labour market. There is much talk currently about the future of the cohesion policy. I am therefore delighted that strengthening the impact of cohesion policy instruments – including the European Social Fund – has been included in the motion for a resolution, with a focus on concentrating the funding on a smaller number of priorities, strengthening the partnership principle and emphasising clear and measurable objectives.

In addition to this, the resolution talks about improving the functioning of the labour market, supporting inclusive labour markets, and improving the quality of jobs and working conditions, and we therefore support the motion for a resolution.

  Katarína Neveďalová, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Culture and Education. – (SK) Madam President, I speak today on behalf of the Committee on Culture and Education. As a committee, we support the new skills and jobs initiative very much, of course, and we believe it is exactly what is needed to make a difference at this time in the crisis on the naturally fluctuating labour market, by reassessing the needs of the market. Our committee also made a planning proposal, of course, which was passed by consensus, and which calls for cooperation between labour and education ministries in setting limits that will specify what kind of education we will need for employment over the next 10 years at least. Naturally, when talking about education, which is the primary aim of this initiative, we must not forget what comes first, in other words, excellent preparation. We discovered that some of the professions we are training people for are not competitive, and that the humanities, for example, are in decline. The main thing from our perspective is the very important emphasis on vocational training, manual work, technical subjects (IT), technology and languages. We believe that investment in education and the cooperation of multiple programmes at EU level can reduce the alarmingly high level of youth unemployment. We would also be delighted to continue giving financial support to existing programmes operating in the EU, such as the Leonardo da Vinci programme, for example, which helps with vocational training. In our opinion, it is also very important to recognise diplomas and qualifications and, of course, to equip young people with the skills they will need. I hope this report will ultimately go down well, since we, as the Committee on Culture and Education, have various reservations about it, as does my political group, but I am currently talking on behalf of the Committee.

  Joanna Katarzyna Skrzydlewska, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality. – (PL) Madam President, Ms Bastos has presented in her report a comprehensive analysis of the European labour market against the background of the difficult economic situation and in relation to the demographic changes that we should not overlook. In this context, I would like to remind you of the needs of women and the important role they have in our effort to increase the rate of employment.

The Member States and the European Commission must integrate their actions to be taken in order to increase women’s participation in the labour market. These actions should relate to the creation of appropriate numbers of child care and elderly care centres, and to the introduction of new and flexible forms of employment. Thanks to these facilities, women will be able to harmonise professional and family life. In addition, the as yet untapped potential of women must be exploited, particularly in those areas of employment where women constitute a noticeable minority as a result of unequal treatment and social stereotyping rather than their own choice.

While creating new jobs, in existing sectors such as health care and social services, as well as in recently emerging sectors such as the ecological sector or sustainable jobs, we should apply appropriate solutions to prevent the new jobs from being the source of the old and commonly practised gender-based discrimination. Good practices should be implemented from the very beginning.

In conclusion, I would like to stress that all these activities must be brought down to a common denominator. The governments of the Member States must revise the implementation and enforcement of anti-discrimination laws, because often we have a good law, but the lack of proper implementation or effective protection measures mean the continued existence of gender inequality in employment.

  Csaba Őry, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (HU) Madam President, Commissioner, first of all, I would like to welcome the report by my colleague, Ms Regina Bastos. The debate on these important documents is very important and comes at an opportune time. One feels that when there is trouble – and these days we often hear about how great this trouble is – we tend to learn faster.

Recently, when we started the debate on the 2020 strategy, we came to the conclusion that closer and deeper cooperation was needed both in terms of financial and economic processes. Social policies and employment policy, which are deemed social rights in the EU system, are also hit by a deep crisis these days, and we have realised or must realise that we need much closer cooperation, a common way of thinking, and joint efforts in order to change and improve the alarming data that many have quoted recently.

Naturally, we all support the Commission’s initiative regarding new skills and new jobs, just like the rapporteur. We agree that we need to reform the European labour market to make it more flexible and more efficient. We also agree that one of the major weaknesses of our European labour market is that it is characterised by structural tensions. While we are facing severe and painful unemployment, there are many people in and around the labour market with inadequate knowledge and skills. Furthermore, demand changes very rapidly. Even current skills and knowledge can become outdated very quickly.

The Commission, therefore, has the right inventory of actions which we, as a Community, can take, from labour exchange to a skills catalogue. There are many useful initiatives pointing in this direction. However, we need to stress – and our colleague very rightly does so – that while attempting to tackle the financial crisis, the second wave of the economic crisis, we should bear in mind that it is wrong to reduce and cut back training and education costs, because we risk losing future opportunities.

I would like to highlight two elements which I consider important. It seems that compared with the Commission’s proposal, the report probably shifts emphasis where support for small and medium-sized enterprises is concerned. It also puts forward more subtle and detailed proposals on ‘flexicurity’, regarding which we are ready to cooperate with the Commission in the future, because we believe that atypical work is one of the options of the future.

  Rovana Plumb, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Madam President, first of all, I would like to thank Regina Bastos for her cooperation on this report and also all of my colleagues who tabled amendments to this report. As shadow rapporteur on behalf of the S&D group, I would like to mention that the achievement of sustainable growth has to be based on an inclusive labour market. Therefore, we underline the necessity of reducing labour market segmentation. We know that sectoral collective agreements normally establish minimum conditions which can be improved by collective bargaining at company level, and that these minimum conditions are essential to protect workers from being exploited.

The Commission proposal on the decentralisation of collective bargaining is not in favour of social partners having the autonomy to decide what the appropriate level for collective agreement is. We call on the Commission to respect and promote this right. We should link the segmentation of the labour market to the simultaneous achievement of a high and adequate level of protection for workers under all forms of contracts, including those on typical temporary agency contracts and workers in economically dependent situations. However, the single open-ended contract proposed by the Commission does not support the principle of equal treatment and, in our opinion, promotes discrimination in the workplace and is not in line with the directive on equal treatment in the workplace.

It is stated in the Treaty and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights that the European institutions have to respect and promote the rights recognised in the Charter. Therefore, I call on the Commission to take into consideration these aspects, and I call on the Members of the European Parliament to support the amendments tabled by the S&D group. Please, Commissioner, take into account what I have said about the single open-ended contract with regard to the rate of youth unemployment.

  Nadja Hirsch, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, a good education policy is the best kind of employment policy. It is true that many highly qualified people are currently unemployed, but despite this, the people who have no education or few qualifications are also the ones who have little or no chance of finding a job, even when the economy recovers and the labour market takes off again. Therefore, it is precisely these people that we should be concerned about. It is our responsibility to ensure that these people have the chance of a new life.

I would like to point out that 14.4% of pupils in the EU leave school early and this is an average, which means that in some places, the figure is much higher. What is happening to all these young people? They will have no opportunity in the foreseeable future, regardless of whether or not the economy is growing, to live an independent life or get a well-paid job. For this reason, we must invest in this area. I believe that, while it is a good thing for the European Parliament to call for this to happen, it is primarily the responsibility of the Member States. It is up to us to demonstrate which projects are already running successfully. At the moment, there is a model pilot project which involves looking after early school leavers and providing a youth guarantee. The project is attracting attention to this subject and giving it a high priority. This is a key issue on which we need to take action.

In addition, there are, of course, all the people who already have a job. We must not forget that in many countries, the talk is of people retiring much later. My generation will probably retire at 70, if at all. This also means that it is not enough to train once for a job. We must invest in further education and make flexible and attractive training available within the European Union, so that people can continue their education alongside their family life. These are all factors that we need to take into account and I am confident that we will be successful and will take a step in the right direction.

  Emma McClarkin, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Madam President, I, too, welcome Ms Bastos’s report, which addresses some key issues in the European labour market, such as the difficulty recent graduates face in finding employment, the need to reduce red tape for SMEs and the need to encourage digital literacy amongst all age brackets.

We need to encourage reform in Europe’s labour markets, but the best way to achieve this is through encouraging flexibility and creating the right conditions for businesses to grow. In terms of education, we need to ensure that alternatives to traditional teaching are available, such as apprenticeships and vocational training. Most importantly, education needs to be tailored to the needs of the labour market and this can only be achieved at a national level.

This is why I especially welcome the mention of the University-Business Dialogue, which has the potential to be a very useful tool in harnessing the particular needs of business with the teaching of higher education and making sure that we plug the skills gap and deliver prospects of employment and real jobs for graduates.

In order to encourage these reforms, we need to ensure that there are provisions in place to allow simple, effective mobility for professionals and graduates. In doing so, we will be providing opportunities for engineers, teachers, doctors and others to move to another country and practise their profession and encourage cross-border trade.

Nonetheless, I do find some aspects of this report particularly concerning and, whilst the goal of supplying every EU citizen with employment is very noble, it is simply unrealistic to ask Member States to meet arbitrary employment targets. Moreover, asking Member States to review the critical austerity measures they have been forced to take as part of their financial crisis could be seen as hypocritical given the fact that the EU itself consistently asks for increased budgets year on year.

The report talks about better working conditions for employees and touches on the social security systems in Member States. I do not believe that this will do anything to increase job creation; it would do quite the opposite. More rights for workers, especially in a society which already has the best workers’ rights in the world, will mean jobs are lost, as employers will find recruitment more and more expensive and burdensome.

To summarise, the focus on job creation, the promotion of inclusive labour markets, the need for more mobility, innovation and research, are all necessary proposals, but let us not eliminate the real possibility of job creation by adding excessive burdens.

  Elisabeth Schroedter, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, ‘new skills and new jobs’ sounds innovative. It sounds like a green process for modernising the European economy. However, if you take a look at the report, you will find that this is entirely wrong. Unfortunately, the Commission is not playing a leading role in exploiting the employment potential of a green economy. Sadly, this is not the case. The Commission is focusing on making fundamental employees’ rights more flexible, which is the wrong approach.

In order to modernise the European economy, we need well-trained, skilled workers and companies can only retain these workers if they offer good working conditions. I have experience of this in the region where I come from. It is a major centre for the solar industry in Europe, but because the pay there is poor, in other words, worse than elsewhere, there is a lack of skilled workers.

The Bastos report corrects the Commission’s approach and rightly so. It demonstrates that a well-functioning labour market must be inclusive, as a previous speaker has confirmed. Most importantly, good jobs must be combined with investment in training. This is the only key to the success of an industrial society and the only opportunity for Europe to become a leading industrial society, by means of green modernisation. This will create enormous potential for green jobs.

I am curious to find out when the Commission will finally submit its communication on green jobs, so that we can begin to deal with the issues highlighted in the Bastos report and with the parliamentary initiative launched by my report. This will give us the opportunity to create real jobs in Europe and to combat poverty and unemployment.

  Ilda Figueiredo, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (PT) Madam President, I shall start this speech by attempting to bring into this debate all the outrage and indignation being experienced in many of our countries.

There are revolts of workers with precarious and poorly paid jobs; of millions of women and young people to whom a job with rights and a decent salary is being denied, and whose future is being mortgaged by increasingly neoliberal policies that intend nothing more than greater gains and greater profits for the usual suspects.

Unfortunately, this report does not get to the crux of these problems: it does not analyse the causes of high unemployment, or the real reasons for the loss of 3.5 million jobs over the last two years and the forecast of the loss of 2.5 million more jobs over the next few years. It limits itself to blaming the crisis, neglecting to mention that the policies of the Stability and Growth Pact, free competition, liberalisations and privatisations, and workforce flexibility contributed to creating and exacerbating the crisis. As such, while there are positive points here and there, the majority are mere palliatives; simple aspirin for the cancer of the capitalist, anti-worker and anti-social policies that are spreading in the European Union.

There are now thousands of highly qualified people who are out of work. That means the most urgent thing is to bring an end to the procession of companies going out of business, to the relocation of multinationals, to the destruction of industrial and agricultural sectors, and to the attacks on public services and small and medium-sized enterprises. That means the most urgent thing is to call a halt to the so-called austerity policies; to the programmes of aggression against the workers and peoples, such as in Greece and Portugal. If we do not do this, we will have no kind of agenda for new skills and new jobs.

  Derek Roland Clark, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Madam President, we have been here before. Remember the Lisbon Agenda – the most competitive knowledge-based economy in the world leading to more and better jobs, a 10-year programme which started in 2000? Where is it? It failed, of course: simply because you keep on thinking you can solve a problem by central decree. Sorry, it does not work that way. Such programmes need a written plan, and then rules and regulations, and there we go: straight into the red tape jungle. If you could only understand that: cut the red tape and all the restrictive regulations, and let people get on with what they do best – making things and selling them.

Once again, I must remind you that big business can cope with red tape and can afford compliance officers and well-paid lawyers to bail them out if they make a mistake. SMEs, which employ half the workforce, do not have those resources, so when they get into trouble, they fold. Another one or two jobs go, and fewer youngsters are taken on to learn a trade. Take this morning’s farce in the vote on tyres for motor vehicles and trailers – not really a farce: it is another headache for the motor trade. For how many small garages will this be the last straw before they go under?

This whole agenda is another one-size-fits-all idea, or rather, one-size-that-fits-no one. The euro is one of those: now falling apart before your eyes, and all you can think of is to try more of the same. The first casualties of that disaster are, of course, the SMEs – and more jobs are lost.

  Franz Obermayr (NI). – (DE) Madam President, since the first impact of the crisis was felt in the labour markets in 2008, around 5.6 million jobs have been lost in Europe. All the statistics show that the likelihood of being unemployed increases exponentially, the worse a person’s level of education is. This is about every level of education. In schools, it is important to ensure that every pupil can understand the teaching being given in the language of the respective Member State. We must not allow the standard of living of future generations to suffer as a result of poor integration policy.

Ultimately, we need to offer incentives for lifelong learning to people of all ages. More IT courses should be available for older people in particular so that they are not faced with unnecessary obstacles. Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) play a central role in providing education and training, both in highly specialised and innovative sectors and in basic manual skills. For this reason, the EU should provide financial support for internships in SMEs.

My final point is that, as we all know, the economic prospects for 2012 are not good at all and there is talk of an imminent recession. The EU must draw the necessary conclusions from this fact and place restrictions on economic migration. Given the number of people who are currently unemployed and who will be in future, it makes no sense to allow more unqualified workers into Europe.

  Veronica Lope Fontagné (PPE). – (ES) Madam President, Commissioner, at a time when Europe is experiencing an unprecedented economic crisis, with unemployment at 9.5%, I think it is very positive to discuss the Agenda for New Skills and Jobs today, and I want to congratulate Ms Bastos on the quality of her report, which forms part of the Europe 2020 strategy and will make a key contribution towards achieving the ambitious target of a 75% employment rate within the European Union.

The 23 million unemployed Europeans demand that institutions and governments take the necessary measures and adopt the reforms that guarantee competitiveness in the job market and the creation of jobs. This agenda is on the right track, and we will only achieve this aim by working together within a strengthened single market.

I want to make a specific reference to one of the sectors that create most jobs within the Union, and which is suffering the most at present: small and medium-sized enterprises. The importance of SMEs in the European Union is clear if we bear in mind that they generate 84% of jobs. In my country, Spain, that figure is even higher.

This means we have to focus our efforts on the flexibility of the job market, the removal of cumbersome processes that slow down company creation, and to provide incentives for the self-employed and SMEs.

Job flexibility and security will be key for understanding future legislation, job mobility and the productive collaboration between training institutions and companies.

  Pervenche Berès (S&D). – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, with this report – and I should like to congratulate our rapporteur, Ms Bastos – we wanted to initiate dialogue with the European Commission. Your colleague, Ms Damanaki, reiterated on your behalf the proposals that you are making regarding the use of the European Social Fund (ESF), to ensure that 25% is dedicated to training and to the use of the ESF in every project. However, we are concerned about the idea that, at this time of crisis, which we have been debating all day long, we might penalise countries that are finding it difficult to meet the Stability and Growth Pact criteria by reducing the structural funds, particularly the European Social Fund.

Europe will not have the means to rise to the challenge it faces, namely, overcoming the crisis and implementing the Europe 2020 strategy – for which the objectives of job creation and combating social exclusion are absolutely paramount – in this way. If we wish to successfully rise to this challenge, the issue of training, as Ms Bastos has suggested to us, is vital.

That being the case, we also need to ensure that the creation of new types of jobs does not make us lose sight of one of the pillars of European democracy, namely, the functioning of social dialogue. We do not believe that it is necessary to depart from this idea of collective agreements, which have ensured the success of social democracy in Europe.

Moreover, through your colleague, Commissioner, you also pointed out that the European Job Mobility Portal, EURES, is a precious asset when it comes to the free movement of persons throughout Europe. I believe that together, we need to take a fresh look at this matter so as to ensure the effective operation of this tool. I have heard it said, here and there, that we might be able to improve its functioning, and I would like it if we could work towards this together with the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs.

  Ramona Nicole Mănescu (ALDE). – (RO) Madam President, I would like to begin by congratulating the rapporteur. Now more than ever, we need a competitive and flexible European education and vocational training system. This is precisely why I think that significant increases need to be made in investments in education, research and innovation, taking into account the possibility of allocating investments from the structural funds to this area, so as to be able to create the conditions for smart, sustainable economic growth. Vocational education and training make an important contribution to acquiring skills and expertise that are adapted to the requirements of the labour market. This is why I think that this system must be encouraged to become much more attractive and capable of addressing the current economic realities.

In addition to this, apart from supporting SMEs, which are the driving force of the economy, I think that an entrepreneurial spirit and skills must be encouraged throughout the whole period spent in education.

The Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe has always advocated the importance of small and medium-sized enterprises and thinks that a much closer link needs to be established between the business sector and educational institutions.

Last but not least, I would like to emphasise the key role that Member States play in implementing effectively all the European requirements and recommendations in the areas of education, research, innovation and employment. Governments must make much greater efforts to be able to ensure future economic growth and, by extension, the creation of new jobs.

  Oldřich Vlasák (ECR). - (CS) Madam President, it is beyond dispute that so-called flexicurity policies, which symbolise the modernisation of labour markets, played a positive role in limiting the impact of the crisis on the labour market. The crisis has shown, however, that there is a need to continue with labour market reforms and to focus on supporting the transfer of workers and reducing the segmentation of the work sectors.

I take a positive view of the discussed flagship initiative of the European Commission, which sets the target of contributing to the greater competitiveness of Member State economies, reducing the transaction costs of doing business in the EU and generally creating a better business environment, strengthening and improving the tertiary education system and the modernisation and greater flexibility of the labour market.

It is nonetheless necessary to emphasise that the newly launched employment policy activities should not be too prescriptive, and that the flexicurity policy must be based on the conditions, priorities and needs of individual Member States. It is not possible to determine a specific mix of policies for the whole of the EU: individual approaches are needed. It is a case of a single contract, for example, where I may agree with the general aim of reducing differences in protection between fixed-term and non-fixed term obligations, but I nonetheless firmly believe that the specific form of implementation for this aim must be adapted to the conditions, needs and traditions of the Member States.

I would therefore like to call for a sober and realistic approach to the implementation of this flagship initiative. Job creation through the reduction of administrative and legislative obstacles deserves our particular support. A reduction in the non-wage costs of labour, and facilitation of the transfer from informal or undeclared work to proper employment, also deserve our support. Fiscal intervention that distorts the market, the enthusiastic drawing up of tables and excessive regulation definitely do not deserve our support.

  Malika Benarab-Attou (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank the rapporteur, Ms Bastos, for her work and fruitful working relationship with the members of the Committee on Culture and Education, of which I am one. We agree with the Commission’s observation as regards the need to raise the qualification levels of young Europeans as well as the need to redefine certain skills that students might need today. We must not limit our proposals to satisfying the needs of labour market areas; we must also guarantee fair and universal access to quality public education and lifelong learning, so as to promote the intellectual and social development of every citizen, and particularly of young people, given the unacceptably high rate of unemployment among that age group.

In order to achieve this, I believe there are two crucial aspects: firstly, digital literacy, which is becoming increasingly important for our evolving knowledge-based society. Emphasis must be placed, first and foremost, on literacy-based initiatives, and on refreshing and updating key skills in the field of communication and information technology, so as to reduce, or indeed eliminate, the digital divide. The next step for the Member States, therefore, is to integrate digital culture into teaching and training systems, while teaching a critical approach to modern forms of communication and media content.

Secondly, and more generally, education and training have a place in the Green New Deal that we environmentalists wish to implement in the European Union. Indeed, we need to start by speeding up the transition towards a sustainable economy and developing the huge potential for green jobs that exists throughout Europe, with a view to protecting and restoring environmental quality and the quality of life of our fellow citizens across a wide range of sectors, such as transport, energy supply and even public services …

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Gabriele Zimmer (GUE/NGL). – (DE) Madam President, the Bastos report is Parliament’s response to one of the flagship initiatives of the European Commission and the European Union. I agree with the previous speaker that we must guarantee that everyone has access to high-quality education and qualifications. This must be one of the basic tasks of the European Union. However, especially in times of crisis, it becomes clear how solid the foundations of a united Europe are. I am concerned that parts of these foundations are starting to shake and crumble.

We have spoken about the European Social Fund (ESF) and also about the question of social dialogue. In contrast to Mr Vlasák, I do not believe that flexicurity will give us solid foundations. We do not need the flexicurity approach. Workers are effectively being forced to take poorly paid jobs which generally offer poor social protection. This will not give them the motivation to acquire new qualifications and to attend training courses.

  Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD). – (EL) Madam President, I, too, should like to take my turn in congratulating the rapporteur, Ms Bastos, on her detailed report on one of the most sensitive issues for the future of Greece.

I think that, from both a technical and a theoretical point of view, the priorities laid down in the report are along the right lines and the action proposed for the benefit of the younger generations is the right action.

However, I am trying to find the generation of young people who will enjoy the fair and ambitions proposals made in the Agenda. I cannot find that generation. On the contrary, I find a Ninja generation, a generation of no income, no job and no assets. That is what we are trying to fix now. I have been a lawyer for 40 years and a lot of people in my country think that I am a good lawyer. I should like to inform you that, for the last two years, I have had to go back to school in order to learn about labour legislation.

In the name of the crisis, we are laying everything to waste. I have this to say, because I do not want to run over the little time I have: we all need to understand that work is not just a means of earning a livelihood; it is a means of earning self-respect. We need to give the young people of Europe self-respect.

  Diane Dodds (NI). – Madam President, I welcome the debate on the Agenda for New Skills and Jobs across the European Union. If the EU is to get out of its current economic difficulties, this Agenda will be a defining part of that. The Member States have set the ambitious objective of a 75% employment rate for the 20 to 64 age group by 2020. In my own constituency of Northern Ireland, the September figures show an employment rate estimated at 67.3% for 16 to 64 year olds, which is an increase of one per cent during the course of the year. However, Northern Ireland still has the second highest unemployment rate among the twelve regions of the United Kingdom, with the figure currently 7.3% – still significantly lower than the EU average of 9.5%.

Some of that rise in unemployment in Northern Ireland can be attributed to the collapse of the construction sector, which was seriously affected by the collapse of that industry in the Republic of Ireland. Trade in both goods and services between the two economies, as well as the job market, have all been detrimentally affected by the economic difficulties of our neighbours in the Irish Republic. These are difficult and trying times for all of us throughout the United Kingdom and the European Union as a whole.

Much has been said by Prime Minister Cameron about the chilling effect the euro crisis is having on UK recovery and growth. It is essential that we also recognise the chilling effect of the EU on business as a result of the restrictive, costly and time-consuming red tape and directives handed down by Europe. The UK Parliament last night debated, in the House of Commons, a motion for a referendum on relations with Europe. While I believe in the sovereignty of the nation state, it is interference from Europe that will drive the agenda in a referendum campaign.

  Heinz K. Becker (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, hardly any other report would complement the current situation of the labour market and of the economy as perfectly as Ms Bastos’ report does. As a member of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and of the Committee on Culture and Education, I would like to focus on the area which is most important for the future of young people. Ms Hirsch has also mentioned that youth unemployment in Europe is very high. It is growing twice as fast as average unemployment across the entire working population. In some Member States, it has reached levels of up to 50%. This is why the Bastos report is so important, because it will allow us to give younger people a real chance in the labour market. We must take the measures called for in the report immediately. The younger generation must not be allowed to lose its hope in the future.

We have a number of factors which are used in Europe for benchmarking. There are apprenticeships: a successful model based on the partnership between management and unions. There is the initiative for lifelong learning, which is an essential parallel measure to help reduce early school leaving rates. There is competence in communication technology, as computers and the Internet are the third essential skill after reading and writing.

I would like to congratulate Ms Bastos and everyone involved on this important report. Finally, I would like to make one more point. There are some jobs which are particularly important for both young and old. This includes the field of care, support and assistance, where there will be huge demand and significant employment potential as indicated by the demographic forecasts. Young and older people must join together to encourage the Commission to take action. In addition, we must all make our own contribution in this respect.

  Maria Badia i Cutchet (S&D). – (ES) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would also like to congratulate Ms Bastos for this report. On the issue we are discussing today, new skills for new jobs, I would like to stress three training-related elements that I believe are of fundamental importance, primarily for combating youth unemployment.

The first of these is to promote training in disciplines that help to develop cross-cutting skills, such as digital skills in using new ICTs, creativity and the spirit of initiative, the ability to work in a team and language learning, all in an environment that encourages mobility.

The second element is to ensure mutual recognition of degrees and qualifications obtained through any kind of learning, be it professional training, informal lifelong learning, volunteering, etc.

Lastly, I would like to stress that, although these skills are primarily the responsibility of the Member States, the European Union should continue to provide resources for education and training programmes in order to provide good-quality education that is accessible to all.

That is why I am delighted that the Commission has planned to increase the budget for 2012 for these programmes by approximately eight per cent. This is the right direction.

  Hannu Takkula (ALDE). – (FI) Madam President, this report by Ms Bastos on new skills and jobs is very important. We know that at present in Europe, there are great difficulties associated with employment and training. It should not be that way, because Europe in 2010 was supposed to be the world’s leading knowledge-based economy.

We failed with the Lisbon strategy, however, and now the worldwide economic crisis that has held sway since 2008 is also affecting Europe. Over what has been at least a two-year period, Europe has lost 5.6 million jobs. Furthermore, the cycle only seems to be continuing. At present, the unemployment rate among the working population is 9.5%, which means that we have 23 million people unemployed in the European Union. The target should be full employment, which is what it is in the Commission and the European Union. The Europe 2020 strategy is based on the notion that the employment rate will rise to 75% among those between 20 and 64 years of age. In my view, however, we cannot accept a 25% unemployment rate.

How can we respond to a situation where the world has changed and the so-called China phenomenon is having a very powerful effect on us? We can only respond with training and investment in innovation, new research and product development. In these economically difficult times, we need to invest heavily and put money specifically into innovation, new research and product development. Only in that way can we make a new start, achieve new growth and provide jobs which can generate European added value, and which will help us to succeed in global markets.

  Tomasz Piotr Poręba (ECR). – (PL) Madam President, the rapidly changing economic reality confronts the peoples of Europe with greater and greater demands when it comes to the labour market. Skills that just 20 years ago were mastered by only a handful of specialists in the field of computer literacy, for instance, are a fundamental requirement for most jobs today. The European Union should encourage as many of its citizens as possible to embrace the idea of lifelong learning so that they can effectively meet the new challenges they are faced with in the labour market.

The European Union must also pay ever more attention to the demands the European labour market will present in the future, especially when it comes to specialist skills. Taking appropriate action in order to adapt Europeans to an increasingly demanding labour market is particularly important today in the context of the economic crisis which is haunting the Union. We need economic growth on a massive scale to get out of this crisis. This growth cannot be achieved without significantly increasing the level of employment. We should therefore ensure that the citizens of the Union are prepared in the best possible manner for the future challenges of the labour market.

  Jaroslav Paška (EFD). – (SK) Madam President, the continuing economic, financial and social crisis now reveals to us more starkly the serious shortcomings of the European economic and social model. The fact that almost 6 million jobs have been lost in the EU recently confirms the need to make fundamental changes to current economic and social regulations. Despite the fact that the unemployment rate is approaching 10% of the active European population, there is still a shortage of qualified workers in many areas, such as IT, health care and research and development, for example. Employers from industry confirm the lack of specialists in many professions on the labour market. Therefore, we should now provide operational support, in particular, for requalification and training in those professions where employers still have vacancies, despite the continuing economic crisis. We should also involve employers more closely in the processes of preparing study courses, training methods and the assessment of qualifications, as well as material encouragement for those employers who undertake to train their workers themselves.

  Danuta Jazłowiecka (PPE). – (PL) Madam President, the report on the table confirms that the global economic crisis has clearly revealed the weaknesses of the European model of social and economic development. One has to agree with this statement; at the same time, it is to be stressed that in reality, no other model has proven more workable. Both Europe and America are not only engulfed in enormous unemployment, but they are also full of people who are not able to get out of poverty despite having a job. More importantly, this problem mainly affects young people, as exemplified by the current social movements of the so-called Outraged or the 99% Movement.

It seems that this situation stems from two important sources. On the one hand, the educational system is not able to respond to the needs of the rapidly changing economy and, at the end of the day, we have to admit openly that we are not able to predict accurately what skills will be needed, not even in the coming decade. Thirdly, the so-called junk job contracts give rise to a feeling of insecurity among workers, and thus destabilise the consumer market. A person who is unsure about his future will never make a good consumer.

What lies before the European Union and its Member States is not an easy task. On the one hand, it is necessary to create educational systems that will prepare young people for the rapidly and unpredictably changing labour market, and will support them through practical programmes. The Stage Project, which was mentioned by the rapporteur Ms Regina Bastos, and which prepares graduates for finding jobs, is a good example. On the other hand, it is necessary to apply skilfully the principles of flexicurity, which allows the flexibility of the employment relationship to be combined with social guarantees that help employees to achieve appropriate living standards, so that they can develop their career and work out their pension schemes with some stability. Additional action is needed to promote entrepreneurship and to create small and medium-sized enterprise-friendly and investor-friendly conditions. All these measures require immediate implementation, and therefore they must be designed properly so that their implementation is possible under the conditions of the still ongoing economic and financial crisis. Savings in the Member States are necessary to ensure the stability of public finances. However, they should not adversely affect the creation of new jobs that will bring Europe the much-needed sustainable economic growth. Finally, I would like to thank Ms Bastos for the excellent cooperation in drawing up this report.

  Jutta Steinruck (S&D). – (DE) Madam President, ‘new skills and new jobs’ takes the form of guidelines for the Europe 2020 strategy and represents an important step towards increasing employment and growth. However, this must not mean that the labour markets are made more flexible unilaterally, without the involvement of unions and management, and, at the same time, that workers have little or no social protection.

Flexicurity, a combination of security and flexibility, has so far only been used by the Member States as a magic word which will allow them to gradually increase flexibility and also to make working conditions more precarious. We do not want flexicurity under these circumstances. A cheap approach will not create jobs. We have established this during the discussion on the previous item. Therefore, I would like to emphasise once again that we are strongly opposed to the single open-ended contracts proposed by the Commission. From our perspective, offering contracts which will result in a lowering of social standards to young people who are starting work will not create one single job. Instead, it will play the different generations on the labour market off against one another.

Labour market reforms must be negotiated with unions and management and must provide robust pension systems, training, employee rights and social security. We are very much opposed to interventions in the national systems for wage negotiations involving management and unions. I would like to thank everyone involved. I hope that tomorrow, we will adopt this positive report which would be further improved by the two amendments from the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament.

  Tadeusz Cymański (ECR). – (PL) Madam President, I would like to offer my sincere thanks to the rapporteur for mentioning a number of issues relevant during the current economic crisis. A year has elapsed since the European Commission's proposal concerning the agenda for new skills and employment, yet unemployment in Europe is still growing. One can say that European strategies are ineffective and do not keep up with reality. More and more people are excluded from the labour market. Member States are forced to reduce public spending, which has very serious social consequences.

In this context, it is essential to release the initiatives as soon as possible and to launch a number of European hardship funds. Without doubt, the most pressing issue is the problem of employment of young people – graduates of universities and vocational schools. They are often forced to take jobs in very difficult conditions and for very low pay. I support the idea of creating incentives for entrepreneurs in order to develop work experience programmes that allow young people the earliest possible contact with the labour market. This will help reduce the scale of social exclusion of people entering their adult life.

  Alajos Mészáros (PPE). – (HU) Madam President, I would like to congratulate Ms Regina Bastos on her excellent report. The global crisis led to a rise in unemployment, including in the rate of young unemployed people, which reaches 40% in some Member States. Unfortunately, in many cases, even employed young people have to take on jobs below their level of skills or qualifications, and their knowledge and talents remain untapped.

The new socio-economic environment requires better employment, educational and organisational strategies. I agree that it is indispensable to improve qualification levels in a targeted manner and by adjusting them to demands in order to help people acquire new skills. For this, we need to inform young people continuously about foreseeable demands for various qualification levels. Thus, they can focus on improving skills that are truly in demand.

Forecasts project a serious shortage of IT, health care and research professionals by 2015, which means that we should focus on these fields. Regrettably, most education and training systems are still not adjusted to labour market demands, which hinders young people’s transition from education into work.

Unfortunately, at the time of the crisis, Member States tend to cut back on their education and training budget, even though this is the area that is in great need of reform programmes in order to adapt to the rapidly changing labour market. Our response to challenges must be flexible and almost up-to-date. One solution to this could be the adequate supply of training and retraining options, which would enable us to keep up with labour market demands.

It is clear that economic ‘know-how’ and technical and vocational training must be overhauled, which requires major investments. We need more investment in education and innovation.

I agree with and support the fact that in the upcoming legislative proposal on professional qualifications, we should reinforce the mutual recognition of diplomas and professional qualifications.

  Edite Estrela (S&D). – (PT) Madam President, I, too, should like to start by congratulating the rapporteur on the work she has done.

The creation of more and better jobs should be a priority for the European Union: 23 million unemployed is a shocking figure. The high rate of unemployment has economic and social consequences, and threatens the sustainability of social security systems. There is, therefore, a need to improve skills in the areas of science, education and new technology, amongst young people above all. In this way, we will put Europe on the path to progress.

Women are in a peculiar situation: they comprise 60% of new graduates, but very few of them choose the areas of science and technology. Part-time work is dominated by women. This means that part of women’s potential is not being utilised, and this threatens their economic independence in the medium and long term.

The EU should support specific programmes promoting the recruitment of women for technical professions, following the good practices of some countries. I should also like to stress the important role of microcredit, which is an important tool in increasing women’s employability and constitutes one of the most effective means for women to become economically independent.

  Erminia Mazzoni (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that job creation is one of the main actions to be taken in response to the need to re-launch the EU economy. The negative figures from the 27 Member States, as quoted by the rapporteur, along with the uncertain financial prospects and large numbers of people suffering poverty mentioned in Ms Damanaki’s speech, make it an uphill struggle.

I believe that the target of 75% employment for the 20-64 age group by the end of 2020 is over-ambitious. The commitment should perhaps be revised and made more realistic given the dramatic evidence of the financial crisis. In fact, I believe that if we set exaggerated targets, it is easy to fail when identifying the tools necessary for achieving them, and the conclusions drawn at the 2010 Lisbon Summit should make us ponder this fact.

Bearing this in mind, I share the rapporteur’s conviction that the Commission’s commitments, which were announced in a communication last November, are to be supported and can, in any case, be improved with everyone’s help. More specifically I believe that the creation of a flexible and secure market is a priority.

On this point, it is essential to step up efforts to define flexible contractual provisions able to cater for social and geographical variations and, above all, to safeguard workers against insecurity; to introduce new tools to promote active labour market policies, with measures increasing the accountability of intermediaries; to modernise education and training in order to bring qualifications into line with market demand; and to revise safety systems to make them more efficient without impacting on costs, especially with regard to small and medium-sized enterprises.

Finally, measures should be adopted to make the market inclusive, in order to guarantee access by women, young people and disadvantaged groups, and the return to work of people who have left the labour market.

  Sergio Gutiérrez Prieto (S&D). – (ES) Madam President, what this report seeks to do is to redefine our labour market, to bring it more into line with our employment niches, and from this point of view, it is positive and meets expectations.

However, I must also say that I am perplexed by what the Commission says in its report and also by what it fails to mention. For example, it highlights the fact that in the coming years, 85% of the jobs created will require a high-level qualification. This is a warning to the next generation that, if they want to find a job in coming years, they must be trained and that this training must also be continuous. We are asking them for more qualifications, and yet we are offering them less security. Does this not seem contradictory to you? Does it not at least strike you as lamentable that our response to harder work is fewer rights?

The maxim of ‘the more the temporary employment, the higher the employability’, has failed. We have created employment with growth and we are destroying it in times of recession. Meanwhile, we have not at any time managed to solve the underlying problem, which is that, regardless of whatever cycle we are in, the youth unemployment rate is always twice as high as the general unemployment rate. Young people have fewer rights than a decade ago, but still have the same unemployment rates.

This means that, if we do not criticise the single contract that the Commission proposes in this report, if we do not stop the attacks on collective bargaining, if we do not call for an end to rising insecurity as the only possible way forward, if we do not say that the problem with new jobs is not the social costs of the workers, we will be falling once again into the mistakes of the past and will consequently also be complicit, once again, in the problems of the future.

  Elisabeth Morin-Chartier (PPE). – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, Ms Basto’s excellent report is part of a commitment that we made together to the Europe 2020 strategy. We undertook to raise the employment rate among people aged between 20 and 64 to 75% over the course of the next few years. The fact is, unemployment is in full swing. It has destroyed jobs and has hit young people particularly hard. As Ms Bastos has said, there are two forecasts prompting us to change our course of action.

Firstly, a significant change in the type of jobs that will be created, on the one hand, thanks to the end of the crisis and, on the other, because many age groups will have retired. This change in jobs will require workers to adapt to new conditions and to a new level of corporate competitiveness.

Secondly, it will result in higher qualification levels. Almost 15% of low skilled jobs will disappear, and 15% of highly skilled jobs will appear. Hence, workers as a whole will have to be moved. This is already happening in companies.

The European Social Fund (ESF) is there to support this process. These are dynamic appropriations, Commissioner, and that is why I urge you to ensure that the ESF is not penalised twice for reasons associated with Member States’ good governance. You can imagine this association with Member States’ governance of land management funds, but not of the ESF; this is because the latter is used to support workers and to support the competitiveness of businesses. That is the only way Europe will be able to overcome the crisis.

  Sergio Gaetano Cofferati (S&D). – (IT) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, over recent years, an idea has grown that, to my mind, is not only wrong, but also extremely dangerous. This is that in order to create new jobs and boost growth and development, it is essential to remove social safeguards and reduce the rights of people who are working and who will be joining the labour market.

Unfortunately, traces of this idea are present in the Commission’s communication, because decentralising collective bargaining, which would nullify national collective bargaining, not only objectively harms weaker people, who would not have the same protection as before, but also introduces a form of social dumping between those who have one condition and those who have another, and alters the competitive mechanisms of the companies themselves. The same is true when considering encouraging the creation of a contract that would be stable, but based on very basic conditions, which once again affects people’s rights.

I believe that this cannot be the point of reference, but instead this should be what Europe wrote in Lisbon as long ago as the year 2000, and that is that belief in know-how, in the growth of knowledge and the ability to innovate, in terms of both the product and the process, and working men and women, is one of the main, fundamental values of any concept of business now and in the future.

IN THE CHAIR: DIANA WALLIS
Vice-President

  Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE). – (NL) Madam President, first of all, I would like to thank Regina Bastos for managing to achieve clarity in this report despite the large number of amendments. As Mr Cofferati has just said, we have addressed here an important point, a matter which is definitely part of the EU 2020 strategy, in our discussion about new skills that should also create new jobs.

It is really very difficult to determine at the present moment what the jobs are that will be needed over the next ten years, in order for us to subsequently determine the quota for training people. That will not work. What does work is a continuous system whereby people can receive retraining or further training and, with such retraining and further training, we have to ensure that we can prepare ourselves rapidly for any job market.

Young people need special attention. Special attention also needs to be given to older people who are unemployed. We have said that we want more hands in the labour market. We believe that we should have continued guarantees for our pensions. That will only be possible if we get more people into work. I therefore say: let us have young hands, but let us also have the older hands. We really should create programmes aimed at retraining them or providing them with further training. We must not spend the next twenty years talking about it, but really get on with the job. We must ensure that we get a better labour market, which will also allow us to resolve many more problems.

  Antigoni Papadopoulou (S&D). – (EL) Madam President, Europe has lost 5.6 million jobs on the labour market since the beginning of the financial crisis. The recession and unemployment rates are spiralling, especially among young people. Work is being deregulated. The EU 2020 strategy and its seven flagship initiatives are being promoted in order to address the crisis.

The aim is to increase the employment rate among men and women to 75%. The Agenda for New Skills and Jobs is being promoted with the objective of immediately reforming the labour market to make it more flexible and more secure, investing in training, constantly improving qualifications and the mobility of workers, and encouraging employment by reducing the administrative burden.

This is all well and good and we are in absolute agreement. However, the Commission’s proposed agenda should adopt more measures on investment in state education and to support pension systems and green jobs, more measures to reconcile family and professional obligations and, more importantly, to strengthen social protection.

What is needed, first and foremost, is a proper plan and effective employment, education and training policies, so that workers’ skills and qualifications can really adapt to the needs of today’s labour market, not tomorrow’s. The future has started. It has arrived.

  Sylvana Rapti (S&D). – (EL) Madam President, when we talk about the new skills, new jobs agenda, the opposite agenda instantly springs to mind: old skills, no jobs. That, too, is important.

Ms Bastos is my friend, I love her dearly and she has prepared an excellent report. It was a difficult report because, when we prepare a report in the European Parliament, we do not prepare it in vitro, in a test tube. We prepare our reports in vivo, in life, and life is proving rather difficult at the moment. We are in an economic crisis and we are in recession. Ms Bastos has to take account of this very difficult situation and to produce a very specific report that speaks about the future and that sees into the future.

She is being called upon to be ‘politically short-sighted’ but not to be ‘long-sighted’. How will she manage? We socialists shall help her, because we want flexibility, but we want it alongside security. If there is no security, that means that we are politically both ‘short-sighted and long-sighted’ at the same time, which will rob Europe of its future.

That is why we need to bear in mind that workers’ rights are sacred. That is precisely why the European Union and the European institutions cannot ask the Member States which are currently hard hit, such as Greece, to abolish collective agreements.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D). - (SK) Madam President, the continuing global crisis is having a hard impact on the economy, the financial system, and particularly the social situation in the EU. The numbers speak for themselves. Since the crisis erupted in 2008, it has cost the Union more than 5.5 million jobs. This represents millions of our fellow citizens from EU Member States who are unemployed. However, the report on this programme unfortunately includes a number of very problematic points. It is a pity that the right are exploiting the crisis to promote the idea of the kind of labour market flexibility they want to introduce, without simultaneously adopting and strengthening the social protection systems negotiated with the social partners in the tripartite dialogue. The programme tries to weaken tripartite relations and advocates reforms and forms of employment law relationships that are not covered by rights. There are also shortcomings in the programme in the area of active measures, Commissioner. Reductions in unemployment benefits, the privatisation of pension systems, the lack of investment in public education systems and also the lack of green investments are all problems which make the programme hard to swallow in such a form. I therefore hope that we will be able to find a compromise that will ensure the resolution of a critical situation in such a way that the employment position in the EU will improve without cutting the social standards we have achieved in Europe over recent decades.

  Kinga Göncz (S&D). – (HU) Madam President, these days, Member States must consolidate their budgets and simultaneously invest in education, training, research and development, and the creation of jobs, while at EU level, they must make the most of the single market, including by making progress in the mutual recognition of diplomas and adopting the Services Directive effectively.

We need new skills and continuous training to ensure that if and when the economy picks up, it should not do so without the creation of new jobs. Very often, training and development should start at a very young age, in order to avoid the preservation of initial, start-up inequalities.

According to OECD research, investment in education and training has a very high yield, because highly trained people pay more taxes, public revenues exceed expenditures, and the rate of employment is also higher among people with higher qualifications. However, we must pay particular attention to people who are the furthest from the labour market, whether due to their disabilities, ethnic background, family circumstances, age or other reasons. They, too, should not be forced out of the labour market, because sustainable development should also be based on inclusion where the labour market is concerned.

Unemployment is particularly dangerous for young people because it can impact their entire future career. The regulations concerning utilisation of the European Social Fund should be set up in such a way as to reach the target groups of the flagship initiatives: the poor, the young and the Roma. This will be our most important tool in the next budgetary period.

  Evelyn Regner (S&D). – (DE) Madam President, first of all, I would like to thank you in advance, Commissioner, and all the Members who are listening to what I have to say after hearing so many speeches.

I have followed Ms Damanaki’s explanation carefully. She said that there is no automatic mechanism for creating jobs. The Commission can only provide the instruments. For this reason, I would like to look at the instruments proposed by the Commission and I would like to debunk one myth. It does not pay to be as flexible as possible, either financially or in other ways, when first starting work or later in life. The more flexible employment relationships are, the less people earn and the worse their social protection is. One very important point is that the increase in flexible, precarious jobs and in endless internships does not give people the incentive to acquire the necessary innovative knowledge, qualifications and skills for the future, which we need just as much as our daily bread. If I have to run round to find a bread roll every day, as we say in Vienna, in other words, if I have to constantly search for an internship or worry about whether I will get the next short-term contract, I will expend most of my brainpower and energy on these activities, which would be much better spent on acquiring suitable qualifications.

A study by the European Youth Forum carried out in 2011, in other words, quite recently, shows that three-quarters of the 4 000 people surveyed, most of whom were under 25, were not being paid at all or were receiving inadequate pay. This means that most interns need financial support from their parents. Therefore, I am making a clear call for the establishment of a charter for the rights of interns.

  Proinsias De Rossa (S&D). – Madam President, I would first like to thank Regina Bastos for the report. I hope that by tomorrow, we can have agreement on a number of improvements, which will enable the Socialists and Democrats Group to fully support this report.

Employment growth is the most urgent need in Europe and must be built into our response to the banking and economic crisis. There seems to be a disconnection between the economic and social policies in Europe. On the one hand, we have the skills and jobs agenda and, on the other, austerity programmes which insist that Member States cut social support to the unemployed on the spurious grounds that the unemployed are being disincentivised to take up work.

However, studies in Ireland have shown that the unemployed are better off financially if they can find even a minimum-wage job. The problem is that even low paid jobs are not available. The Troika reports that Ireland’s programme is on target, and I am often asked why there are no riots in Ireland. I could advance many reasons for this, but one of the most fundamental reasons is that the government has negotiated with the trade unions the reforms in the labour market and in the public services that are required.

I would urge that we have some common sense. Flexicurity without security is a contradiction in terms and, if it is imposed, it will result only in deeper alienation. It will result in a deeply stagnant economy and higher levels of poverty. I believe we must ensure that, when we move forward, we do so on the basis of a broad consensus of labour and capital.

  Silvia Costa (S&D). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that three issues are important in the transition from training to work: the relationship between theory and practice in teaching and learning; the integration of the humanities with technical and scientific subjects; and the structure of higher education and technical training, including non-academic training and continuous development.

This is the direction that should be taken in teacher training, the promotion of training partnerships between companies, training centres and research centres and the promotion of high-level training. Today, we have a two-speed market for young people, and the situation is getting worse. We also have a flexibility that has not been matched by welfare provisions, but the new welfare is continuous development and opportunities to return to work and for mentoring. I think this should be presented more as a new social right.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). – (SK) Madam President, the economic crisis and structural changes to European economies have increased uncertainty over jobs. Almost 23 million unemployed people in the EU are anxiously waiting for adequate and rapid solutions from political players at European and national level. Political representatives must focus their attention on establishing preventive measures for avoiding unemployment by boosting the skills of the workforce and, at the same time, raising awareness of the current medium and long term outlook for employment on the labour market. I would like to emphasise the need to integrate disabled citizens into working and social life by creating adequate jobs with the support of the European Structural Funds. I strongly believe that the EU, together with the Member States, will be capable of implementing its ambitious target of securing 75% employment for the 20 to 64 age group by 2020.

  Janusz Władysław Zemke (S&D). – (PL) Madam President, I would like to draw attention to the fact that in Europe, we have two opposite processes. The first process is the continuous and unceasing increase in the rate of unemployment. One could say that every year, there are two million more people who cannot find work. Yet in Europe, we also have a second process, that of mounting shortages in certain areas. This applies, in particular, to technicians and IT professionals, but also to many specialisms in the wider area of health care.

My proposal is the following: we should extend much greater support to areas where there is a shortage of workforce, and eliminate existing barriers. Many people gain qualifications in their respective countries and are not able to take up work in other countries because those countries do not recognise their skills.

  Jan Kozłowski (PPE). – (PL) Madam President, Commissioner, first of all, I would like to congratulate Ms Regina Bastos on her comprehensive report.

The rapporteur rightly points out that the national reform programmes do not sufficiently address the challenges for growth in employment and for combating poverty. In the recently published draft regulations, the European Commission stressed that future operational programmes would be based on national reform programmes. Thus, it is necessary to improve them in order to utilise effectively the instruments of the cohesion policy. Participation of the regional and local levels in their preparation, implementation and evaluation, as well as in the implementation of the main initiative discussed today, is crucial.

I hope that this initiative will contribute to a fuller exploitation of the potential of people whose access to the labour market today is difficult, such as young parents, people with disabilities and those caring for dependents. Moreover, I hope that this initiative will provide the impetus for closer cooperation between educational institutions and businesses.

  Mitro Repo (S&D). – (FI) Madam President, the programme for new skills and jobs is also very important for the functioning of the internal market. The report by Ms Bastos contains some good suggestions, but, as we all know, the deployment of measures to change the administrative practices of Member States, for example, will, unfortunately, take years. The problems connected with unemployment and exclusion among the young do not allow us to wait around even for a moment. Without adequate action, those problems will get worse from one year to the next, with active young people keen to find work and able to do it gradually becoming passive and unwilling to work.

In Finland, it has been estimated that every excluded young person – just one – costs society EUR 1.2 million. Although that figure varies from one Member State to the next, we are talking about huge sums of money. We must take this matter seriously.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – Madam President, this morning, I was at a meeting with Jeff Immelt, the CEO of General Electric, one of the top CEOs in the world, and chairman of President Obama’s Jobs Council. When he spoke about the challenges facing the US, he could have been speaking about Europe as well: to invest in new infrastructure, create new SMEs, increase FDI and simplify regulations. But he also said that they had identified certain areas where they needed, in particular, to have more graduates. For instance, he said they needed 10 000 new engineers per year and that they were putting in place a strategy to ensure that is delivered.

I think we need to do the same here in Europe and, in particular, to ensure that we have identified the areas where we need new graduates and that we have the institutions, the ITs and universities to deliver them, because if we do not get it right at that level, then it is going to have a ripple effect down the line.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D). – (LT) Madam President, firstly, I would like to thank the rapporteur for preparing a really excellent report. In the 2020 strategy, we outlined the very ambitious goal of achieving a 75% employment rate. First and foremost, this means that we must not forget any social group or potential worker. By this, I mean, above all, young people, women, older people, people approaching retirement and people with disabilities. All of these groups are united by one common goal – these people must obtain the required qualifications, education and retraining in a timely manner and must have appropriate skills so that they really are suited to the job. I would also like to draw attention to the fact that employers really should be involved in the preparation of professional training programmes and various other training programmes, because this would mean that they have to specify the sort of qualified people we need now and the sort that we will need in the future.

  Giancarlo Scottà (EFD). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to congratulate my fellow Member on choosing the issues tackled. Why new skills? Changes in the labour market undoubtedly make it necessary to change and acquire new skills. However, what should we do with the skills that represent our heritage and our traditions?

Ms Bastos highlights the need to maintain the craft tradition and its associated skills. However, we need to do more. What about the trades that were once pivotal to the economy in certain areas? These areas, for example, in the mountains and foothills, no longer exist, having been abandoned in favour of the cities. One solution which could help create jobs and therefore help with employment might be precisely to rehabilitate certain trades and traditions, which would also help disadvantaged areas.

In order to ensure certain jobs continue, we need to invest in the young and give them a leading role in projects, traditions and trades that have fallen into disuse in the areas in question. Training aimed at finding young people jobs in small companies in these areas would have a two-fold benefit, helping to rehabilitate abandoned areas and increasing youth employment.

  László Andor, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, first of all, I should also congratulate the rapporteur, Ms Bastos, on this excellent report and the excellent discussion which it helped to kick off. Much of the discussion, and most of those who contributed, stressed the importance of education and training as a key element of employment policies. I fully agree with this, but I would like to avoid reducing employment policy to just education and training, which is the key component of the supply side of the employment policy, and a key component that can help investment in human resources. We should not forget that there is also a demand side on which we have to work, and there are labour market institutions where we have to work on better functioning and greater improvement and development within the Member States, but especially at European level.

Another important theme has been, and continues to be, the concept of flexicurity and, especially, how we should judge flexibility within the labour market. Again, what I would like to highlight is that flexicurity has four components: not only the flexible arrangement, but also, for example, lifelong learning, which was referred to in a very positive manner in the discussion. We will actually revisit the concept of flexicurity in a consultation conference on 14 November, especially on the understanding that because of our experience of the crisis, we need to take a fresh look at this concept, or its four components, and the capacity of flexicurity to contribute to job creation in the coming period.

I believe this conference, with the involvement of the social partners, will help us in going forward, and pave the way for our package of employment policy initiatives next Spring. Flexicurity will be the backbone of this package, but within the same package, we will also put forward a ‘green jobs’ initiative, as President Barroso also announced in his letter to the President of the European Parliament.

But, as the President highlighted in his State of the Union message, the most burning issue in the whole area of employment policy is the question of youth in the European Union. This is not simply because the average youth unemployment rate in the EU is very high – 21% – but also because this average covers up huge differences within the EU. Especially in the Southern European countries, but also in the Baltic states, Ireland and Slovakia, the youth unemployment rate is unacceptably high.

We have some good experience. The better-performing countries should not be overlooked; we should appreciate that some Member States manage to maintain youth unemployment at a relatively low level, and we should learn from their experience. That is why we have been advocating the ‘Youth Guarantee’ that Austria used, for example. We are putting forward new proposals for apprenticeships and traineeships. As Ms Berès pointed out, we are preparing to give a boost to the EURES network, which is a very important and effective tool at EU level. In fact, EURES is the most frequently visited website of the European Commission, and helps a huge number of people to find appropriate vacancies.

We also have to work on quality. I fully agree with those who said that it is not only the quantity of the jobs which is important, although, of course, this is the key question now. But without ensuring that, for example, in the case of traineeships, the quality improves, I do not think that we can be satisfied. That is why I am also preparing an important initiative in the context of the employment package in this area.

In the long run, there will be a different balance, a different emphasis on other issues and other challenges. For example, the question of active ageing will be very relevant, with a strong employment dimension. I believe that next year, in the context of the European Year for Active Ageing and Solidarity between Generations, we will have opportunities not just to discuss this but also to look for concrete proposals and solutions.

I am grateful to those, like Ms Berès and Ms Morin-Chartier, who pointed to the capacity of the European Social Fund and its importance in supporting employment policies in the Member States. This can support our skills agenda by improving and modernising education and training, including vocational training and lifelong learning, providing targeted support for specific groups where the employment rate is relatively low and the challenges are the greatest for job creation, such as young people, older workers, people with disabilities, women coming back to the labour market after childbirth, and ethnic minorities, where we have new commitments, for example, in the form of the Roma inclusion strategies. We must not only talk the talk; we also have to walk the walk, and the ESF will have to help in that.

The ESF can support tailor-made policies (there was a question about Greece). In the context of the crisis, we have demonstrated that there is flexibility, adaptation and a reaction to the changing circumstances – just like in the case of Ireland, where the positive experience was cited by Mr De Rossa. Indeed, the jobs initiative, however small, points in the right direction and can be supported by the ESF, and this can be a model for other countries as well. This is why I am also working closely with the Task Force and its Head, Mr Reichenbach, to ensure that, within the room for manoeuvre that exists in Greece (and hopefully from tomorrow there will be more), we can do more for jobs there too.

Finally, one very important point about the social dialogue. I believe it should not, and cannot, be doubted. The social dialogue is an essential pillar not just of the European social model, but also of our economic model. It is an economic asset, and it is no coincidence that those countries that performed best in the last few years from the point of view of economic growth and job creation, protecting jobs but also improving quality, are the countries where the social dialogue is the strongest and best institutionalised.

I think we have to rely more on the cooperation of the social partners in all different ways, from legislation to skills planning and adaptation. Of course, the crisis, and especially financial stabilisation, is always a test, a difficult period for social dialogue. But the commitment of the Commission to developing the social dialogue further and boosting its quality at European level, as the President stated in the State of the Union message, should not be a matter of any doubt.

  Regina Bastos, rapporteur. – (PT) Madam President, I would like to begin by thanking all my fellow Members who have spoken in this lively debate. Everyone made very useful speeches and contributed to a very constructive discussion on an ambitious agenda at a time when we are experiencing a serious crisis. In fact, this debate is taking place on the very eve of a European Council meeting that will show whether or not there is the political will to overcome the problems that we are experiencing, whether there is the political will to deepen our economic coordination, and whether there is truly a harmonised and unitary will to move ahead with the ambition of this agenda. This ambition is to have new jobs in the next decade; new jobs that give the young people who are unemployed today and those who are training hope in the labour market; new jobs that give them hope in an inclusive labour market and respond to their ambition of achieving dignity through work; new jobs that are also capable of being a new and permanent driving force to meet the challenges of a globalised economy, which has a dynamic without parallel in recent generations.

This means that our ambition is really for jobs to be created and for the economy to grow. This is in response, not just to those who are unemployed following the crisis, but also to those who are going to enter the labour market. It is also in response to the great challenges involved in the green economy, in health and related services, to transport services, to housing: all of these require a different vision, a smart vision and an inclusive vision of the labour market. Many thanks to all of you.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow (Wednesday, 26 October 2011).

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) The economic, financial and social crisis currently affecting Europe has demonstrated the weaknesses of the European economic and social model, and has wiped out several of the achievements of the past. This situation has grave consequences for the EU’s growth and social security systems. Equally disturbing are the difficulties encountered by some employers in recruiting staff, especially for highly skilled posts. Reinforcing human capital and employability by means of updating skills will mean putting Europe on the path to recovery. The Agenda for New Skills and Jobs is aimed at devising effective policies for employment, education and training, and facilitating individuals’ career choices. It is therefore necessary to improve the ability of the Member States and the Union to forecast and anticipate the nature of future skills and ensure that they are in line with labour market needs, which requires greater investment in research and development, in order to create added value.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The new Agenda for New Skills and Jobs marks an important step towards achieving the objectives which the EU has set for itself as part of the Europe 2020 strategy. Member States are responsible for achieving these objectives, which is why they must respond effectively to the current challenges. I think that significant investments are required in education, as well as in research and development. The necessary incentives also need to be offered to citizens to help them update their skills and allow them to adapt to the new requirements of the labour market. Furthermore, measures need to be adopted to reduce the school dropout rate, and Member States must offer pupils alternative forms of training and apprenticeships. The integration of young people into the labour market must be supported while they are still studying. Efforts need to be stepped up with the aim of recognising diplomas and professional qualifications of citizens, both across the EU and in third countries. Last but not least, I think that we need measures to guarantee conditions conducive to creating jobs on the labour market, especially by reducing the administrative burdens and labour-related taxes, in order to facilitate economic recovery and protect the EU’s competitiveness.

  Vladko Todorov Panayotov (ALDE), in writing. – I welcome the efforts of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs in addressing the need for further education and skills training as well as job creation in order to combat rising unemployment rates. Education, beginning at a young age, should be a priority for ensuring future employment. Education increases human capital and will provide for the rising need for skilled, as opposed to unskilled, workers. Member States should learn from one another in order to best provide citizens with proper education. I also propose that skills training programmes should be increased in order to give currently unskilled labourers the chance to move into the skilled labour fields, particularly in areas related to the IT and health fields, which currently demand more labour. Furthermore, I stress the importance of working towards job creation in sustainable fields. Parliament should work to increase human capital, via education and skills training, and towards creating jobs to enable the EU to stay in line with the 2020 target of 75% employment. The current economic situation should not stop the EU from meeting its current goals and striving towards sustainable growth.

15. State of play of the Maternity Leave Directive (debate)

  President. – The next item is the debate on the oral question to the Council on state of play regarding the Maternity Leave Directive by Edite Estrela, on behalf of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality (O-000184/2011 – B7-0623/2011).

  Edite Estrela, author. – (PT) Madam President, the process of revising the Maternity Leave Directive began in 2008, when the Commission tabled its proposal. The European Parliament adopted my report a year ago, by a large majority. After all this time, what response does the Council have to give to European women and families? This initiative is part of what is known as the conciliation package. Of this package’s three proposals, only the revision of the Maternity Leave Directive is still awaiting the Council’s position: the other two were adopted in 2010.

It is therefore hard to understand the repeated postponement of the most comprehensive proposal defending the health and safety of women in the workplace, promoting gender equality and the reconciliation of professional and family life, and helping to stem the demographic decline of recent decades. One hundred years ago, the European population made up 15% of the world population: in 2050, it is not likely to comprise more than five per cent. The ageing of the population and the resulting reduction in its size are threatening the sustainability of social security systems, and of economic growth itself. Maternity should therefore not be viewed as a burden on the economy, but rather as a service provided to society.

Moreover, the costs of my proposal – adopted by Parliament – are not as high as many claim. The financial impact study on the proposals adopted by the European Parliament concluded that the costs of the proposal will be completely covered if it contributes to an increase of only one per cent in the participation of women in the labour market. According to the Europe 2020 strategy targets, the rate of employment of men and women should reach 75%. Full-salary payments are fair because families should not be financially penalised for having the children that they want and that Europe needs. Contrary to the claims of certain Member States, the European Parliament’s proposals are balanced and workable, in line with the recommendations of the International Labour Organisation and the World Health Organisation.

I should like to thank the Polish Presidency – you in particular, Mr Mleczko – for the interest and diligence it has demonstrated with regard to clearing obstacles in this area. Despite the efforts of the current Presidency and the flexibility demonstrated by the European Parliament, the excuse of the financial crisis and austerity has taken precedence over everything else. That includes the defence of human rights, because that is what we are talking about when we discuss maternity leave and paternity leave: human rights.

There seems to be money for everything except meeting the public’s expectations. According to Eurobarometer, eight out of 10 Europeans are in favour of extending maternity leave to 20 weeks at full pay: in other words, they are in favour of the European Parliament’s proposal.

For all these reasons, I am asking the Council how can it continue to disrespect the position of the European Parliament, founded on an unprecedented debate and voted for by a significant majority from all political groups? How can the Council refuse to debate the adopted amendments with the European Parliament and negotiate their phasing in? How can the Council continue to ignore the will of the majority of the European public?

Europe is mired in a profound crisis, and more serious than the financial economic crisis is the leadership crisis. Difficult times such as these are when the lack of the great leaders of the past is most keenly felt: leaders with strategic vision and the ability to make decisions; courageous and visionary leaders; leaders able to differentiate between the essential and the incidental; leaders worthy of the public’s confidence. The crisis is not affecting everyone in the same way: we know that the crisis has been serving as an excuse for cutting state benefits, and we know that the European Council is quicker to help out banks than Member States in difficulty. For how long will the public accept this situation?

I shall conclude by saying what I said in another debate on this subject: times are hard, but this is when societies have the greatest need for daring decision makers, because, as the Roman poet, Horace, noted thousands of years ago, he who is afraid of turmoil ends up crawling.

  Radosław Mleczko, President-in-Office of the Council. – (PL) Madam President, discussion of the possible revision of the Maternity Leave Directive naturally entails the search for a balance between the provisions of European law, national traditions, cultural values, economic realities, social trends and finally, the demographic challenges to which Ms Estrela made reference. So we must not be surprised that the search is not an easy one. Mutual respect is needed as a condition for reaching agreement. The European Commission has its reasons in the proposal it has submitted, the European Parliament has its reasons, and the Council, too, has its reasons when it advances the arguments to which I would like to return in this speech.

The impression may be that although each of these three institutions has the same objective in mind, it seems as if they are all looking in different directions. The question we asked ourselves at the beginning of the Polish Presidency was, in fact, one about this shared horizon and this shared objective – will it be possible to find this shared horizon and move in the same direction? We want parent-friendly legal regulations which promote a good work-life balance, which engender a sense of security and both encourage and make it possible for those parents who want to invest and who can invest in their career development not to have to worry about the quality of care given to their children.

I think we are agreed as to this statement of the goal of our work, but the dispute concerns the choice to be made as to how to achieve that goal. We are, in fact, talking about which route to take in pursuit of this goal, and not about the goal itself, which appears to be a shared one. It is therefore a dispute about methods, not objectives. The question is: is it possible to reach agreement, and if it is not possible now, then what can we do to achieve this shared goal and this shared vision?

Honourable Members, when we were beginning the work of the Polish Presidency, we knew that negotiations on the Maternity Leave Directive had come to a standstill. Parliament had tabled numerous amendments to the Commission’s proposal, and the Council had not adopted a common position. It still has not taken one today. Furthermore, many of the Member States have questioned the possibility of further work on the directive. When I say this, I wonder if the situation really is so bad and if we can say that the work we have all been doing – the work which the Polish Presidency, too, has done and which we are going to continue to do – has been wasted. There are many reasons why I hope this is not the case. I think that the mechanism for adopting European legislation, which gives powers to the European institutions and defines their mutual relations, has – paradoxically – been effective here. I say paradoxically, because it is thanks to the stalemate in which we have found ourselves and which we are trying to resolve that we have the time to carry out additional analyses which also take account of the dynamically changing situation in Europe and the question of selecting the best solution in the light of these conditions.

Perhaps, if it were not for this mechanism, rashly-taken decisions would have had the opposite effect to the one intended. We have gained time. How will we use it? It is the time we need to make the best possible decision, tailored to the current situation, because this is something we also have to remember. In this European dialogue – I am sorry, because I nearly said ‘dispute’ – in which we are involved, perhaps there will be neither winners nor losers, and may this indeed be the case. So I would like to express my thanks, principally to the Commissioner, Ms Reding, to the rapporteur, Ms Estrela, and to the ministers in the Council who are responsible for the Maternity Leave Directive, for their inspiration, motivation, assessments and analyses which have been, and are, the basis of all that has been done by the Presidency. We have had dozens of discussions and meetings for the specific purpose of working together to weigh up all the arguments and ensure that we do not make the wrong decisions. So I would like to thank everyone who has helped and is helping the Polish Presidency.

Last week, Ms Reding and I held a meeting in Kraków with the ministers responsible for the Maternity Leave Directive. We invited the ministers to join us several days before today’s sitting of Parliament and our debate because we wanted to hear their opinions again; we wanted to ask them to present their arguments and think about the future of possible changes to the directive. In a moment, I will move to the conclusions which came from that meeting. I would like, now, to thank the European Parliament again for its questions. We gave them to the ministers responsible for the directive at the informal meeting in Kraków and beforehand. In the opinion of the Presidency, those questions are the best proof of how concerned you are, honourable Members, for the future of Europe.

Honourable Members, we have watched the directive grow; it has grown up, it is now nearly 20 years old and over those years, it has proved its merits. By using the directive as a basis, or by making use of its provisions, the Member States have introduced legislation to protect working mothers. For the Polish Presidency, the search for answers to demographic challenges, including the promotion of solutions to help people achieve a work-life balance, is and will be a priority. This is why we have not assumed that there is nothing which can now be done in the debate on parental rights. At the informal meeting of ministers, which was held last Friday, we talked about issues relating to maternity leave in the broadest possible context. For it seems that a correct diagnosis of the legal, historical and cultural context may – and I do not doubt this – point the way to possible decisions about how to achieve equal participation in the labour market and how to help people balance their working lives with the rest of their time.

I would like to share with you – and this seems to me to be extremely important – some detailed questions and doubts which have been expressed directly by the ministers of the Member States. Is maternity leave and the level of allowance paid during maternity leave guaranteed by law? Can this question be considered in isolation from the length of other types of leave to which parents are entitled or in isolation from the levels of other allowances to which they are entitled in relation to having children in their care? How does the system of care for young children work? Its influence on people’s ability to reconcile their working and personal life is obvious. Will paying an allowance equivalent to full pay, as Parliament has proposed, serve a better purpose than paying an allowance which is proportionally lower but which is paid for a longer period and not just during the period of maternity leave? Another very important question: in view of the increasingly common tendency for both parents to care for young children and in view of the legal measures already in place in many Member States allowing both parents to benefit from maternity or paternity leave, is it not the case that the changes concerning the extension of maternity leave will hamper those Member States in achieving their objectives? These are, of course, only a selection of the issues discussed by the ministers at our meeting last Friday. It is also indirect testimony to how many different measures are already in place in the European Union. I would like, here, to express my thanks to my fellow ministers that they agreed to this further debate at the request of the Polish Presidency and put forward arguments in justification of their critical stance towards the position of the European Parliament.

Honourable Members, the lack of a common position in the Council is not the result of laziness, neglect or whim. Neither is it – and I would like to stress this – only or even principally the consequence of evaluating the financial effects which adoption of amendments to the directive would entail for many of the Member States, particularly in the form proposed by the European Parliament. The Member States – as we very well know – allocate huge amounts in their budgets to allowances related to the birth and care of children. What is important is that in the view of many Member States, Parliament’s amendments ignore a large number of the measures which are already in place and which are in accord with the directive.

Honourable Members, the current directive was intended to improve the safety and health at work, and I quote, ‘of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding’. It was supposed to establish the minimum level of that protection. Among the amendments tabled by the European Parliament, there are many which have raised doubts among some of the Member States, such as those which talk about provisions on breastfeeding breaks for example, but not only this, because there is also a detailed specification of the number and length of these breaks. Is it hard to understand, with such far-reaching and detailed amendments, that in this situation, doubts have also arisen not only on the part of many Member States, but also on the part of the European Commission, as to whether the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality will be upheld?

Honourable Members, we have legislation in the European Union today which governs minimum European standards on maternity leave. Thanks to the question which has been asked by Parliament, thanks to the opportunity of hearing the ministers’ opinions at the meeting held by the Presidency last week, and in connection with the opportunity of presenting the comments of particular Member States, I am going to have the honour today, on behalf of the Presidency, of hearing your opinions. I know that many of them are going to be critical and harsh opinions, but we have come here so that we can talk about them.

Thank you, too, for what is, in our opinion – in the Presidency’s opinion – the very constructive nature of the questions which have been put to the Polish Presidency. They are questions as regards which you have indicated your readiness to reach a compromise. In the Presidency’s opinion, it will be possible to reach this agreement if account is taken of the differences between measures in place in Member States, the financial and social costs of the changes, and the principle of subsidiarity. However, let us say equally frankly that in view of the challenges being presented by the crisis, but also because of the measures already in place in Member States, in the Presidency’s opinion, the Council cannot accept a 20-week period of fully-paid maternity leave.

During the discussion in Council, some Member States pointed out that their national legislation does, in fact, include provisions on several of the matters raised by the European Parliament, such as breastfeeding breaks, special conditions of work for parents with disabled children and additional maternity leave. However, the generally-held view in the Council is that particular measures, including measures relating to these matters, should be left to the Member States, and it stresses that the trend or direction of these changes, of which I spoke at the outset, is shared both by the European Commission and the European Parliament, as well as by the Member States and the Council.

How can we most effectively serve the interests of women in the labour market? Are longer minimum periods of maternity leave and allowances equivalent to full pay the answer to the challenges of the labour market today? It can be stressed again, here, that many of the Member States are moving in this direction, towards such measures. Such measures have been introduced in Poland. However, critics of this solution are pointing to differences in the incomes of working mothers and are asking: why should maternity leave for the highest earners be paid for by the taxpayer? Perhaps the best solution is the one contained in the current directive, which makes the minimum amount of parental allowance equivalent to the amount of allowance which would be paid in the event of sickness and leaves the Member States to specify the upper limit.

You are also asking if the Council will include paternity leave in the revised Maternity Leave Directive. As you know, the Presidency does not have a mandate to present the position of the Council, because a common position has not been adopted, but on the basis of the discussions we have had, I would like to inform you on behalf of the Presidency that, in our opinion, the Member States will not support such a measure, not because they do not appreciate the importance of paternity leave in social policy. Quite the contrary – many of the Member States have already introduced such a measure, and I can say again that Poland is among them. However, the generally held opinion among the Member States and in the Council is that the directive on maternity leave and safety and health at work should not be extended to include paternity leave. Once again, we are not talking about the direction of change, we are not discussing whether paternity leave is an institution which should develop. The Council is showing the direction in which we could proceed.

Honourable Members, I realise that my speech has already exceeded the time limit, but I do want to talk about these decisions openly. I think they concern matters which are so important for the European Union’s citizens that there is no room here for playing or pretending to work. This is why, from the beginning of the Polish Presidency’s work – my thanks are due again to Ms Estrela, who noted this fact – we have attached great importance to the dossier we are talking about today. Please allow me, Madam President, honourable Members, to make a few more remarks, which are a kind of summary of what I have said today and which stress the lack of a formal mandate from the Council and report the state of the discussion in the Council on this subject.

I cannot promise Parliament that agreement will be reached in Council during the Polish Presidency. Whether we are going to continue this work will depend, to a large degree, on your evaluation and on the arguments advanced by the Member States. However, on behalf of the Presidency, I would like here to thank the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Council for continuing the process of the search for the best solutions and to promise to conduct further work with the preparatory bodies, particularly if there are visible signs that the Council and Parliament can discuss a realistic compromise at a later stage.

On behalf of the Polish Presidency, I can assure you all that if the progress of today’s discussion gives grounds for thinking that Parliament is ready to negotiate, and therefore – and I say this openly – is also ready to change its current position, then I will immediately and with pleasure pass this good news on to the Council. If, during the Polish Presidency, it were possible to propose further realistic steps towards reaching agreement, it would also be a promising sign for the ensuing work of the Trio Presidency. This is why we are attaching such great importance to today’s debate, and this is why I thank you once again for the opportunity to take part in it. The Polish Presidency is treating this dossier with the greatest care and is fully aware of its significance. We are counting on your support.

I would like today’s debate to bring us closer to agreement, but if this does not happen, then at least I would like our dialogue and clash of arguments not to be wasted, and I would hope that the exchange of views which is taking place fosters the introduction of further measures which are good for parents and their children, and that sooner or later we find, in this complicated world, the best solution to these matters too.

  Edit Bauer, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (HU) Madam President, I am grateful for the Polish Presidency’s efforts and courage in handling this dossier, and I must say that the news we have heard about last week’s meeting of the ministers for social affairs were much more pessimistic than what we have heard from you. Let me quote from the news. We found only one item, and, as I said, it is not very optimistic: ‘The message of the meeting was clear: Member States simply said no to the extreme proposal of the European Parliament’.

The analysis of the situation – and the situation we are in is indeed very complicated – has two dimensions, one of which is procedural. How can we come out of the deadlock that you also spoke about, observing the rules and competences? The other is a matter of substance: what happens to mothers, what happens to the directive on maternity leave?

As regards procedures, to be honest, we have been waiting for a move by the Council for over a year. We know that at first reading, the Council’s response is not subject to any deadlines, and this delay may be the reason why Parliament opted for a somewhat unorthodox method and put a question to the Council in order to receive information, naturally without interfering with the competence of the Council. We regret that we were unable to extend the rights of mothers and failed to improve their living conditions.

However, it was difficult to interpret the news, also coming from this informal meeting, that the Council refused to adopt a Council position for the proposal. This leaves the question: what is the next move? Can we expect a position from the formal ministerial meeting?

As for the matter of substance, it would be easy to turn the situation to our advantage and say that we have warned you before, because, as you also know, Parliament was fairly divided on the issue of maternity leave. Our aim is not to revel in ‘we told you so’. What we have to focus on as our objective is to protect maternity and improve the living conditions of mothers. I believe that we all agree on this.

To those colleagues who are revolted by the lack of progress and say that maternity leave is the human right of mothers, I would point out that a relevant article is included in the revised Social Charter of the Council of Europe – Article 8 on the right of the protection of maternity – which states that signatory states must grant working women at least 14 weeks of paid leave, disbursed from social security benefits or other budgetary resources.

There is a provision in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, too, under the heading ‘Family and Work’, which guarantees the right of mothers to protection against dismissal from their jobs and paid maternity leave.

Madam President, allow me to add one final idea. I would like to say that development is so divergent from one Member State to another that it is extremely difficult to find common minimum standards, but ‘passerelle clauses’, the transitional clauses that would allow for the combination of parental and maternity leave, may be the way forward.

  Rovana Plumb, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (RO) Madam President, I want to thank the Polish Presidency for the way in which it has endeavoured to address this new directive. I could say it is new because it has undergone numerous improvements thanks to the amendments tabled in Parliament.

You stated, Minister, that the three institutions have a shared objective, but it is targeted in different directions. I can sincerely tell you that, as far as the European Parliament is concerned, it is targeted at citizens. I know that the Polish Presidency is pro-European and we certainly need more Europe, but we should not forget that Europe belongs to its citizens and not to governments.

This is why I want to tell you that this directive and the stance which we have adopted in Parliament are sound because all it does is provide a new instrument which we can use to ensure that a work-life balance is achieved and also to resolve the economic crisis we are going through.

I did not understand what you were referring to when you said that Parliament has overlooked existing solutions. What does our position stand for? Maternity leave which has simply taken into account the recommendations made by the World Health Organisation and a new vision: one where motherhood must not be penalised.

Minister, I am surprised that no representatives from the European Commission are here, but I hope that together, given that the codecision procedure applies, we will be able to find a solution enabling us to make progress with this dossier which is so important, especially at the moment. Indeed, the ‘passerelle’ clause may provide a solution.

  Antonyia Parvanova, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, I would like to thank the Minister for his frank response.

The reconciliation of work, family and private life is recognised as a key element of achieving one of the EU headline targets of the Europe 2020 strategy. It is therefore necessary to give priority to addressing barriers to women’s participation in the labour market and men’s more active involvement in caring duties.

The report presented by the European Institute for Gender Equality last week, during the meeting of the Ministers for Family Affairs and Gender Equality in Kraków, reveals that women spend three times longer than men on child care per day. Women are still the main carers, both for children and for the dependent elderly, and they are more likely than men to be involved in both paid and unpaid work in all Member States.

The revision of the 1992 directive on maternity leave is a necessary precondition for achieving the EU 2020 targets. However, as my colleagues have already said, the press recently reported that during the meeting in Kraków, the Ministers unambiguously stated that they were not willing to move forward with the proposal. What we did not hear, either from that meeting or from you, was the ideas of the Member States on how to improve the current directive. Bearing in mind EU citizens’ worries and concerns on the matter, it would be irresponsible for the Council just to shelve this proposal due to its inability to present an alternative. A responsible attitude would define the pragmatic and reasonable outcome of the current situation.

I think that compromises from both sides are needed, but this can be achieved only through debates and not by taking the issue off the agenda. In this regard, I would like to raise the following question. Does the shelving of this proposal mean that the Council is satisfied with the rules set out in the current directive, and does it think that they are adequate for achieving the EU 2020 targets as well as dealing with low birth rates and the upcoming demographic challenge? If the answer is no, the Council should then present the latest and lowest common denominator position. That would be a starting point in order to move forward on this issue.

  Marina Yannakoudakis, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Madam President, we all know the word Parliament derives from the French word meaning ‘to talk’. Sometimes, I think this Parliament talks too much and is not willing to listen to Member States’ concerns. The ECR Group opposed tabling this question, as we saw little value added. Perhaps we are the only group which puts faith in its Member States. We certainly believe it is not the duty of Parliament’s Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality to hassle the Member States.

The normal sequence of events of any directive is that once it is passed by Parliament, it goes to the Council, which may then deal with it as and when it sees fit. The Women’s Rights Committee is now trying to push its overreaching, expensive and unnecessary proposal onto the Council. Early this year, I was practically a lone voice in the committee calling for a reassessment of the directive, and I wish to state again what I said in the past. The Maternity Leave Directive is not right for women; it is not right for businesses, and it is not right for Member States’ governments in a time of economic recession. Twenty weeks of fully-paid compulsory maternity leave, two weeks’ fully paid paternity leave and breastfeeding breaks of three hours a day are totally unrealistic.

There is a reason why the Council is blocking these proposals. The Council is the last line of defence a Member State has; national governments are sending us a powerful message, and it is time we listened. We should have listened months ago and amended this directive to make it workable for all the stakeholders. Time and again, rigid rules supported by so-called social dimensions triumph over common sense. We need to be more flexible. We did not listen, so now we are paying the price. By refusing to make compromises and concessions, we have managed to let down the very women we are here to support.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (ES) Madam President, I am very grateful for the speeches and the explanations from the Presidency, which were very long, but, even so, were unconvincing.

As stated, what we are dealing with is a health-related issue. This is what the World Health Organisation (WHO) says, not the European Parliament. We are dealing with an issue of economic opportunity. The reports we have produced say so. They show this is not a problem of costs, but is, in fact, an opportunity to improve and further strengthen our emergence from the crisis, also in the area of gender.

This is an issue of rights; the rights of women who work and want to be mothers, and the rights of mothers who want to work. It is a question of joint responsibility, because we cannot ignore the fact that having children is not only the responsibility of mothers, but also of fathers and, in a general way, of society as a whole, because as far as I know, there is no other known way of having children, and societies need them. We need to make fathers accept the responsibilities of fatherhood, but we also need society to accept that mothers must not fulfil this duty alone.

I would also like to add that this is a matter of Europeanism, because while it is true that the Member States have certain prerogatives, I think we would all agree that we should make sure no mother in the European Union feels discriminated against because the government in place in her country does not have such a clear and responsible vision of what the rights of a working mother mean.

  Ilda Figueiredo, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (PT) Madam President, it was a year ago that the European Parliament adopted a very clear position on the revision of the Maternity Leave Directive. It is becoming scandalous that the Council has not tabled a proposal and continues to block the revision. It shows a total lack of respect for the European Parliament and, above all, for the women and men intending to have children, and for the children deprived of this essential support in the first year of their lives.

It should not be forgotten that a report intended to increase the minimum maternity leave period from the present 14 weeks to 20 weeks of leave at full pay has been adopted by the majority in Parliament. Two weeks of paternity leave at full pay for fathers was also introduced. These are fair proposals that must be accepted by the Council in order to support families, motherhood, fatherhood and children. It is not enough to say that we want to increase the birth rate and then not act accordingly by improving the policies that could give some substance to this.

Given the social value of motherhood and fatherhood, the way the Council is behaving is completely unacceptable: refusing all negotiation, and allowing an injustice to working women, to mothers and fathers, and, above all, to society to drag on. It is intolerable that the Council is adopting an attitude of veritable disdain towards the European Parliament and is not responding to the proposals that we have tabled, even if there are some Member States with reservations. We therefore await a positive response from the Council after this debate.

  Derek Roland Clark, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Madam President, I would like to ask the Minister how he can justify this proposal to treble maternity pay by requiring firms to pay new mothers their full salary for 20 weeks. Does he not know we are in the middle of one of the worst recessions of modern times? This will present businesses with the prospect of a 2 billion burden. Even my government opposes this move. In addition, Minister, you plan to extend minimum parental leave from three months to four months for each parent. That is separate from the maternity leave, with one month of the four not transferable to the other parent.

Is the Council prepared to compromise on main issues like the duration of maternity leave and the level of payment? Otherwise, you intend to give Member States two years to amend their laws – though how you can say ‘their’ laws, I do not know. This comes straight from the Commission factory, and we shall oppose this job-destroying proposal.

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

  Antonyia Parvanova (ALDE). – Madam President, I would like to ask the honourable Member for his views on the fact that his government is approving an increase, which is more than twice the increase necessary for maternity leave, on a military budget – which is actually intended not only for security but for killing somebody else’s children.

  Derek Roland Clark (EFD). – Madam President, the honourable Member has pointed out an anomaly in the laws. She is right: it is wrong, it should not happen.

  Elisabeth Morin-Chartier (PPE). – (FR) Madam President, I should like to thank the Council representative for his long presentation on the state of play of this issue between Parliament and the Council.

I would like us to come back to the root of the problem concerning this issue, in which all of us, men and women, are involved in many different ways. The issue with which we are concerned is, of course, the health of pregnant women and women who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding. I believe that all the mistakes we have allowed ourselves to make at one time or another with regard to paternity leave and the confusion over parental leave have now sown the seed of doubt and brought us to a standstill.

I would like to say to Ms Estrela that her report has transported us to a fantasy land through demagoguery and a lack of responsibility. We have got off to completely the wrong start by suggesting that there is a connection between birth rates and the length of maternity leave. All the statistics throughout Europe indicate otherwise.

The second point I would like to emphasise is that the Commission’s proposal to grant 18 weeks’ leave provides a platform for negotiation of which we can take full advantage to reach a consensus between the Council and Parliament. The fact is, the contentious provisions that have led us to the current deadlock were passed by a very small majority and certainly did not earn a great deal of support.

I believe that we definitely need to break this deadlock if we have any sense of responsibility. We cannot remain caught up in the situation in which we find ourselves today. I believe we need to suggest starting all over again with the Commission’s proposal so that, between us, Council and Parliament, we can reach an agreement and free ourselves from the deadlock we are in.

  Britta Thomsen (S&D). – (DA) Madam President, Mr Mleczko, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by thanking my colleague, Ms Estrela, for the questions she has posed to the Council. I cannot emphasise enough how important it is for us to continue to press for the negotiations on this directive to be resumed. I think it has been made clear today that, as far as Parliament is concerned, we are willing to negotiate in an attempt to reach agreement with the Council. However, this requires the Council to make its position clear so that we can obtain an absolutely clear starting point for the negotiations. We owe European citizens a fair and sensible maternity scheme that is capable of rectifying the financial disparity between men and women and which, at the same time, provides the motivation for European families to have more children. Mr Mleczko, there is a shortage of children in Europe.

All women in the EU should have the right to have children without losing their earned income or their pension. Equality is a cornerstone of the EU, and the one gender, women, must not be placed in a poorer position or penalised because they make the huge contribution of having children. The Member States have used the economic crisis as an excuse for not investing in the health and safety of women and children. That is extremely disturbing. If we can afford to give billions to support the banks, we can clearly also afford to provide proper maternity conditions for all women. Besides, the internal market should not just be about cheap goods. It is also important for the internal market to ensure high social standards for workers. We must not have disparate competitive conditions throughout the Union, leading to social dumping where undertakings can see a profit in diminishing the conditions for women. Therefore, the negotiations on this Maternity Leave Directive represent a cornerstone in the attempt to raise standards on the European labour market and improve social conditions for families.

IN THE CHAIR: MIGUEL ANGEL MARTÍNEZ MARTÍNEZ
Vice-President

  Norica Nicolai (ALDE). – (RO) Mr President, I welcome this debate and regard it as a first step towards attempting to resolve a situation which absolutely needs to be resolved in the current context.

I believe that this debate raises at least three types of question. Are we still able to see even beyond the crisis? Are we still able to see Europe’s future through the interests of European citizens, and not through the immediate reality described as the economic crisis?

If we are, then we need to try to change the way we speak about this. This matter is not about the benefit for women, about the benefit for men or even about the benefit for children. It is about the benefit for Europe’s societies which need to survive and be viable. This is what this is all about.

If we want to stick with the nation state principle where we preserve our multiculturalism and identities, we ourselves will have to promote our birth rate policies. I believe that we need to think about European cohesion in totally different terms. Not in terms of financial resources, but completely in terms of human resources.

Does Europe still need families? If it does need families, we have to encourage mothers and fathers to support their children. Education and social cohesion are not a matter of providing services which society can provide better or worse.

If we think in terms of these three factors which are common to European conscience and philosophy, we only have one solution: to say ‘yes’ to this directive and not to try to think in terms of a commercialist vision, which is alien to the spirit and concept of Europe and, in my opinion, an absolute menace to Europe’s future.

  Franziska Katharina Brantner (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, the revision of the directive has been under way for more than three years. We urgently need a clear result. As early as October 2010, we in the European Parliament spoke out in favour of 20 weeks maternity leave on full pay and two weeks paternity leave. This was a clear signal that we support equality and a sustainable future for our society. However, there has been no progress in the Council for a year and Germany, in particular, is blocking the process.

The feasibility study carried out by the European Parliament has shown that an increase of only 0.04% in the employment rate for women would cover all the costs of the two-week paternity leave period. Since Ms Reding took office, we have been waiting for a proposal on a paternity leave directive. So far, we have seen nothing. As long as nothing happens in this respect, we must include fathers in this directive. At a time when the birth rate is falling, society is ageing and the cost of pensions is increasing, a rise in the employment rate for women and a stable birth rate are of great importance in ensuring economic stability. We want an approach based on equality between men and women and between fathers and mothers.

Therefore, I would like to urge the Council, and the German Government in particular, to make progress in this area and to show that the European Union stands for equality and not for a botch-up, so that we can meet the expectations of our citizens.

  Mikael Gustafsson (GUE/NGL). – (SV) Mr President, I would like to express my support for Ms Estrela and thank her for her initiative to urge the Council to enter into negotiations with Parliament. I would also like to thank the Polish Presidency, which has really made a huge effort in this area.

I am convinced that it is through negotiations that we can open the doors in this area, but we must be able to negotiate on the basis of a proposal.

I would also like to take the opportunity to point out the importance of shared parental responsibility for children. There is much to indicate that a better balance between family life and work, for both men and women, leads to better social development, both from the point of view of equality and from an economic perspective, above all, a long-term economic perspective.

It is therefore high time that all of the parties involved took responsibility and sat round the negotiating table. That is the only way that we will be able to find a solution to this problem.

  Anna Záborská (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, Mr Mleczko, wherever possible, our work should be ambitious. The excesses of one section of Parliament have caused the current deadlock. I should say at this point that I personally voted for the directive. We were aware of the risks involved, but some in this Chamber wanted to make a stand. We now find ourselves at war.

The Commission is also partly to blame, having chosen to base the Maternity Leave Directive on combating gender discrimination. On a number of occasions, the Council warned us that it would not waste time on the excesses of its institutional partners. This has been proven by the outcome of the meeting in Kraków.

So there are two possible solutions. One: the Commission could propose a new text. Two: Parliament can keep on voting until the Council is satisfied, given that it does not accept the results of the first parliamentary vote. This was the strategy used to ratify the Treaty and to save the euro, but unfortunately, it cannot be applied here in Parliament.

So we really are at an impasse. The first proposal – starting from a new Commission proposal for the legal basis – is the only way that we can break the deadlock, particularly as the legal situation at work for pregnant women, women who have recently given birth, or are breastfeeding, is unsatisfactory in several Member States. The personal skills of future generations are shaped from birth through the special links between mother and child. Theoretical and practical recognition for maternity is essential if we are to tackle the problem of declining population figures in European countries.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D). – (FR) Mr President, I have naturally listened attentively to all the speakers, particularly the introductory statement made by Mr Mleczko on behalf of the Council, in which he said that the crux of the matter is whether we can reach an agreement. I think that we can. Bear in mind that two camps with opposing views clashed within this Parliament. At the end of the day, the advocates of 20 weeks carried the day by a few votes.

However, I am one of those who believe that there is a middle way, perhaps going back to the Commission proposal, namely, 18 weeks at a decent rate of pay. That said, I would like to dispense with ambiguity. In French, we use adverbs when we want to be vague: we say paid decently or reasonably. We need to define a figure – perhaps 75% or 80% of full salary. I feel that having a minimum entitlement which applies in all European Union countries would be an appropriate starting point for relaunching discussions.

I would like to thank Ms Estrela for putting this item on the agenda. To conclude, I would also like to establish a right to paternity leave, which is essential if parents are to share the load when their child is born: two weeks at full pay for fathers. Are you surprised that I am defending this idea in particular?

  Frédérique Ries (ALDE). – (FR) Mr President, you are looking at one worried dad there.

The European Parliament voted on this Maternity Leave Directive a year ago, almost to the day. One year on, we are still at an impasse. The standoff was fairly inevitable and, given our ambitions, I have to say that it was underestimated at the time. The issue has been put on ice, even though the Council, as colegislator, is required to take a view, irrespective of the red lines drawn by the Member States.

To cut a long story short, it is the procedure rather than the substance that is really at stake this evening, but for the record, my position on the substance has not changed. Should we increase the number of women in work? Yes. Should we promote a better work-life balance? Yes, of course. Should we address population issues? Again, yes. Yet by asking for too much – 20 weeks at full pay – we are indirectly paving the way for further recruitment discrimination against the very women that we want to protect, who, by the way, did not ask for this.

First the Hungarian Presidency and now the Polish Presidency have come up against this issue, only to admit defeat a week ago in Kraków. So, although I have my doubts about the degree of flexibility promised by some Members, given that it is imperative that we extricate ourselves from this situation, I have a question for the representatives of the Council. Why can we not go back to the Commission proposal, as suggested by Ms Záborská and as endorsed by Mr Tarabella just now? Why have you not put forward a common position that would also allow our Parliament to play its part fully as colegislator?

  Christa Klaß (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, Mr Mleczko, ladies and gentlemen, the European Maternity Leave Directive is a never-ending story. I have clear memories, as many of you certainly do too, of the many long-drawn-out and difficult discussions, the hearings in committee and ultimately, also in plenary. We all had the same objective, which was to provide support for mothers. We were fully focused on this. However, everyone had very different ways of achieving this objective. In some cases, we clashed head-on with one another as result of taking different approaches. This has not been forgotten.

It is difficult to put maternity benefits on the same footing throughout Europe and to harmonise the situation, when we know that the Member States are taking different types of action in this area. Mr Mleczko, I am grateful for your clear statement. You have once again highlighted the problem.

We in the European Parliament have put together the longest possible wish list and we are now surprised that we have not received a response from the Council. We have simply overburdened the Council with our wishes. The Council is aware of the many differences and the differing approaches in the Member States. The vote here in Parliament on the key points was carried by a very small majority. Only 327 Members voted in favour of 20 weeks maternity leave. A total of 320 were against and 30 abstained. The votes on full pay and on including paternity leave produced similar results.

It is important for us to recognise that Ms Estrela’s report is not a sound basis for negotiation. Even Ms Estrela will have to admit that the project has failed. If you want everything, you will end up with nothing. The questions that have been asked and Parliament’s readiness to negotiate, which has just been mentioned, will not take us any further. The different conceptions are too far apart. If we want to achieve something, we must start from scratch and make responsible, viable proposals. We must also finally acknowledge that the European Maternity Leave Directive will lay down minimum standards and that paternity leave forms part of parental leave.

  Silvia Costa (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that compromises are made not only by aiming downwards but also by seeking a middle way that aims upwards, and by improving the living and health conditions not only of women but also of children, whom I believe have not received much attention in this debate.

I appreciated the intellectual honesty and politeness with which Mr Mleczko described the Council’s difficulty. I truly hope that a balanced compromise can be reached. However, I believe that we have done well to raise the bar compared with the requests contained in the Commission’s project, which were truly modest.

I want to say one thing which I believe is really a basic objection. It seems as though Europe has not yet understood that, unless it helps reconcile work and motherhood, millions of European women will be excluded from the labour market or will be unable to remain in it. A different type of compromise would rejuvenate Europe, reduce childhood and family poverty and increase the productivity and community of Member States, unless the only proposal for welfare reform and cost optimisation is to increase women’s pension age, which would lead to a paradox. Under this system, these women will never reach pension age, because they will leave their jobs, as happens in many countries including mine, because it is not possible to reconcile work and family during their productive and childbearing years.

I believe that unless European economic thought revises its conceptual base and moves beyond an ‘accountancy’ approach, growth will not be intelligent, inclusive or sustainable, because the women will not be there.

  Anneli Jäätteenmäki (ALDE). – (FI) Mr President, the European Union offers its employees in the European Commission, the Council, the European Parliament and its own political groups 20 weeks of paid maternity leave. However, the other Member States do not allow – the Council does not allow – this same benefit to be offered to all women in those countries. Why do you divide our citizens into two groups, an elite one, and one that we cannot afford?

I have heard the answer many times: that we cannot afford it. It would have been interesting occasionally to hear the Commission say, when discussing a bank bailout, that we could not afford it. When the banks discharge their duties irresponsibly, here we pour in money, and there is definitely money available for this, but when it concerns families, equality and children, there is none. I think that at present, the European decision-making system and our values are both in crisis.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, the European Parliament and Council need to reach agreement on making headway on this legislative act.

In the current circumstances, a balance has to be struck between the need for women’s employment and the financial impact of maternity leave. At the same time, a variety of options have to be offered to avoid women’s professional status declining as a result of their absence from the workplace.

I should emphasise that the option for amending the maternity leave period was highlighted by the European Parliament in Amendments 4 and 42 made to the proposal for a directive. They are aimed at protecting the child’s health and development and at the mother’s wellbeing as an active member of the workforce.

In terms of achieving the 75% target for women’s employment, offering mothers this option is a particularly useful measure. At the same time, the two amendments leave it up to families to establish a work/life balance.

The Romanian Government has been forced recently to amend the legislation in this area to reduce budgetary expenditure and tackle the impact of the economic crisis. This means that women in Romania have two options: they can choose to return to work during the first year after the birth of their child, along with a bonus from the State, or to take two years’ maternity leave.

In addition, in line with the commitments made to the International Monetary Fund, Romania is obliged to use its new social care legislation to reduce the number of allowances of this kind from 54 to nine, thereby preventing as well the fraudulent use of social care funds.

  Emine Bozkurt (S&D). – Mr President, I would like to say to the Minister that this debate is not about time schedules for breastfeeding but all about priorities: priorities of men and women, and priorities of the European Union. Like men, women should also have the right both to work and have a family without having to choose.

In the Europe 2020 strategy, we aim to reach a 75% employment rate for women. To achieve this, immediate measures are necessary. In the EU, we are working towards a competitive and inclusive economy. Thinking that all the responsibilities of having children should be endured by women alone is outdated but, unfortunately, still reality. We should promote shared responsibility and stress the role of both parents in raising children.

The Maternity Leave Directive is stuck with the Council. This diminishes our chances of achieving the Europe 2020 goals. Would the Council agree to a gradual implementation of the directive? What is your stance towards paternity leave? Would you agree on our proposals regarding the length of maternity leave and the level of payments? What is Poland planning to do to facilitate a compromise? We expect a constructive approach from the Council, because we are losing valuable time in achieving true gender equality.

  Nadja Hirsch (ALDE). – (DE) Mr President, Mr Mleczko, it is not the case that we are starting from nothing. We should always remember that we in Europe have a good minimum standard in comparison with many other countries. Regardless of that, the Commission has submitted a new proposal. It is simply a result of the timing that the situation with regard to equality has changed. Therefore, the Commission proposal was a wise move, a step forward, which sent out a clear signal, but, at the same time, it was sufficiently moderate, at 18 weeks and 75%, that it would have been practicable.

Unfortunately, I can only agree with the other speaker. Here in the European Parliament, a small majority put together a huge wish list. At the moment, it is sadly the case that we must either stick with this wish list or get nothing. I would like to make it quite clear to you that I would rather we took the new Commission proposal as our basis, so that we can at least move forward. Each individual country can then decide whether to add other provisions. Then it will be up to every individual Member State to raise its own standards even further.

  Joanna Katarzyna Skrzydlewska (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, Mr Mleczko, we return once again today to the subject of maternity leave. I think we should look at the question of maternity leave from more than just the economic point of view. Naturally, it is important that working women who are on maternity leave should be given the financial resources to maintain their families. Also important is the question as to how businesses will manage with these additional expenses in a situation in which it is they who are going to bear the costs of the allowances for mothers. How can we avoid causing a situation in which employers, worried about the costs, avoid employing young women who are planning to become mothers?

These are very important questions and I understand that it is precisely these questions which differentiate the positions of the Member States in the Council and are making it difficult to reach a shared position. However, in all this let us nevertheless not forget those who, in my opinion, are the most important – the children. For the child and for the woman, the time after a baby is born is the only time which a mother can fully devote to her child. Furthermore, if the European Union is to achieve the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy and avoid the consequences of the demographic decline, new compromise measures have to be introduced. Perhaps a little less ambitious than those which Parliament has demanded. Perhaps we should go back to the European Commission’s proposal?

I appeal to the Member States to think again about the possibility of guaranteeing all mothers in Europe a compromise of 18 weeks with their new-born children. Mr Mleczko, do you think a measure such as this has a chance of securing a majority in the Council, so that we could, in fact, ensure 18 weeks of maternity leave on full pay for all future mothers in Europe?

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D). – (FR) Mr President, aside from a few declarations rejecting any discussion on the content of the maternity leave proposal out of hand, the Council has remained silent for almost a year. That silence deserves to be censured, which is what we are doing today. Parliament has repeatedly stated that it is willing to engage in discussion. Although we are maintaining our target of 20 weeks of maternity leave, discussion and compromise is always an option.

We must not let the wool be pulled over our eyes on the costs, an issue that has come up repeatedly. The national governments tell us that the cost of the measure would not be viable, given the current crisis. The reason why I say that we must not let the wool be pulled over our eyes is that many women already have this leave, notably in France. They are already supplementing their maternity leave with sick leave or paid leave. Yet what is even more unacceptable, in my view, is the fact that national governments are still discounting Parliament. This is unacceptable when it comes to a matter that is so vital to our citizens’ daily lives.

We live in a world where a trader can pretty much trigger a financial crisis at the push of a button, yet we are still waiting. What we want now is for the Council to deign to take an official position on the matter at long last.

  Sari Essayah (PPE). – (FI) Mr President, this directive is a good example of what happens when the European Parliament ignores differences between national family leave systems among the Member States of the EU, including duration, funding arrangements and applicability to existing family leave systems and practical working life. The amendments tabled by the European Parliament are driving something that is good up a blind alley.

The demand for full pay put forward by the European Parliament ignores national compensatory systems where maternity leave is linked to a much longer period of parental leave – although not on full pay – but where responsibility for child care can be shared between the father and the mother. The proposal by the European Parliament does nothing to promote women’s equal participation in the labour market, especially if salaries are left entirely to the employer to pay. In its proposal, the European Parliament ignored the contribution made by the social partners to the development of family leave systems and the fact that in many countries, there are agreements on pay during maternity leave in collective agreements, with all parties making a contribution.

I quite understand that the Council wants individual countries themselves to decide regulation on such matters as the timing of compulsory maternity leave, breaks for breastfeeding, and supplementary leave and how it may be compensated; just as paternal leave is not generally covered under the directive on the protection of pregnant women.

The European Parliament needs to appreciate that the level of regulation should, as far as possible, conform to that for parental leave, so that national law can be made comprehensively consistent.

  Mitro Repo (S&D). – (FI) Mr President, a year ago, I voted here in favour of a 20 week period of maternity leave. We need to ensure that mothers and children everywhere in Europe can benefit from this relatively short period of time, which is invaluable to both.

I quite understand that, in the current economic situation, projects that call for new funding pose a challenge. However, when Europe invests in expectant mothers and in children, Europe is investing in its own future. That cannot be measured in terms of money. Children are Europe’s real capital. There will be no life or Europe without new generations.

The labour market also needs to be developed coherently, so that women never face discrimination on the basis of motherhood or age. Together, we have to change our attitudes, to make Europe a more humane Europe of people. I hope that the Council will show the understanding and courage needed to make progress in this matter.

  Barbara Matera (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I strongly support the question put to the Council by the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality following the former’s lack of response to the adoption of the Maternity Leave Directive approved by Parliament on 20 October 2010.

In order to achieve a 75% employment rate for women, as established by the EU 2020 strategy, and help with the reconciliation of work and family life, the measures introduced by the revised Maternity Leave Directive must be adopted, such as the extension of leave to 20 weeks on full pay and the introduction of two weeks’ paternity leave on full pay.

I note with regret that the current Polish Presidency has not managed to open negotiations for the revision of this directive, and therefore we will all be putting pressure on the forthcoming Danish Presidency to make this directive a priority and kick-start the stalled negotiations. We are, however, very aware of the difficulties that Member States are facing in the current serious economic and financial crisis and therefore we understand the difficulties they could have in introducing such long maternity leave.

I support maternity leave and therefore I support motherhood as life, because life, the future, is represented by children – our children – who will be the new European Union. We must therefore support maternity leave for the future of the whole European Union. I do not want to use forceful words, but I believe that this report should be supported in order to guarantee more security, and give greater impetus to the European Union so that it can recover from this serious economic crisis.

  Zita Gurmai (S&D). – Mr President, I would like to thank the Minister for the update. I wish he had better news.

Every part of the draft directive is equally important. However, I think that we have to look at a broader perspective here for a moment because it seems to me that we cannot see the wood for the trees. We need these directives – yes, we do need them – for our children’s health and for the inclusion of women in the labour market, so that more children are born. We simply do not have a choice in this matter, given the problem of an ageing society. Is the time perfect? No it is not. Will it get better? No it will not. If we want to act, there is no time like the present.

Our rapporteur has shown that she intends to be flexible but, given our institutional system, we have to meet the Council half way. I appreciate the willingness of the Polish Presidency in at least having put the issue on the table again, but now the task will go to the upcoming Danish Presidency. I am confident that, by having a progressive approach, a country with a female Prime Minister has what it takes to move this dossier out of the pit it seems to be in.

  Astrid Lulling (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, as I said yesterday, when we discussed the agenda for this session, it seems utterly ludicrous to put this question to the Polish Presidency at this stage, here in plenary, when we are in the throes of the ordinary legislative procedure following the adoption at first reading of our report on reforming the Maternity Leave Directive on 20 October 2010.

Admittedly, the Belgian Presidency, the Hungarian Presidency, and thus far the Polish Presidency, have failed to establish a formal position in response to the report adopted here one year ago. This being the case, the Polish Presidency certainly has no mandate to answer these bizarre questions, some of which are proposals for compromise based on the text adopted at first reading. This is not the way to proceed, Mr President. The trialogue is the place for proposing and discussing compromise solutions with a view to reaching agreement with the Council at second reading.

The real question is this: why has there been no trialogue meeting yet? We all know the answer, which has been confirmed by the Polish Presidency. It is because the majority who adopted the report unfortunately fell into the trap set by the rapporteur, in that the report was so jam-packed as to rule out any dialogue. Now the rapporteur wants to back down on some points by means of an oral question to the Council. This is a strange way to behave; it disregards the new ordinary legislative procedure, undermines our standing with the Council and, what is more, has made us a laughing stock.

Had I been the rapporteur, I can assure you that I would have already initiated discussions with the Council, through the proper channels. The rapporteur’s question demonstrates a paucity of understanding: an intellectual deficit. I am very sad that I was unable to spare Parliament from this, but I am even more saddened by the fact that this means that millions of European mothers, present and future, have been waiting for over a year for maternity leave to become better protected, all because of certain populist and overly ambitious MEPs.

Those responsible for this situation, the rapporteur first and foremost, ought, at long last, to have realised that everything that is exaggerated is insignificant. The best solution would be for Parliament to withdraw this unfortunate report and for another person to be tasked with drafting a reasonable text …

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D). – (RO) Mr President, the European Union’s institutions consider that it should definitely be a matter of importance to ensure a minimum level of protection for mothers, especially by guaranteeing immediate maternity leave in the period after their child’s birth. The proposal for a directive also deals with protection in the workplace for breastfeeding mothers, the ban on dismissing women after six months’ maternity leave, the rules on adoption, overtime and night-shift work.

I urge the European Council not to use the current economic and financial crisis as an excuse to ignore the issues linked to the application of European legislation in this area, bearing in mind the need for a birth rate policy tailored to the real circumstances of families in Europe.

  Heinz K. Becker (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, back in 2010, there was a discussion involving all the groups which warned, among other things, about the burdens that are imposed in times of crisis. This may be even more applicable today. However, it is important that we make a clear commitment at a high level to maternity and paternity leave. Therefore, now is the right time to take a pragmatic approach. We must find the best possible solution using what is on the table in front of us.

One approach could be not to opt for the maximum solution, but instead to choose the best possible standard solution, in other words, a minimum standard which could be established from the bottom upwards, so to speak, for the whole of Europe, before we start to discuss extending it. However, it is also important for us to look in more detail at what is happening in the Member States. In Austria, for example, there is a separate law governing paternity leave. I am not yet confident that all these aspects will be adequately taken into account. Until now, the focus has been exclusively on the provisions for maternity leave. In other words, in the current situation, we must investigate the proposals pragmatically and calmly and work actively towards a dialogue between Parliament and the Council.

  Iliana Malinova Iotova (S&D). – (BG) Mr President, I wish to begin with a word of thanks and congratulations to Ms Estrela because, for several years, she has been defending this such important directive with a great deal of determination and tenacity. I also want to tell you, Ms Estrela, to ignore the criticisms from Ms Lulling because she is expressing just her opinion. I can assure you that no one in this Chamber shares her view.

You have been defending this directive for several years, but this is precisely because the Council has not been able to find the time for a year to respond to this directive and adopt it. Even though our position in the European Parliament is still crystal clear today, we are again inclined towards making compromises, with the sole purpose of doing something good for families and mothers in Europe.

Unfortunately, there has been no response from the ministers. Motherhood is an expense for Europe’s governments, but we regard it as an investment in the future. In a year or two, Europe will have dealt with the economic crisis, but I wonder whether it will have dealt with the demographic issues so quickly and easily. The provision of better maternity conditions is not a policy for obtaining money, but an opportunity for a better career, for more work, which is also more productive, and for giving children a better upbringing. All of these are prerequisites for the European economy’s competitiveness.

We have had enough of restrictions in Europe because this is a path leading nowhere. We must improve maternity conditions and encourage the families who want to have children, and not add to their insecurity and fears. We already have positive examples of this, such as the practice followed in Bulgaria. For four years, mothers have been receiving in the first year 90% of their last salary; in the second year, the minimum wage, and nothing only in the third year.

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE). – (NL) Mr President, we do not need to have a debate to try and persuade each other as to why maternity leave, long maternity leave and paid maternity leave are necessary. We all know that debate. What now needs to be done is to get the debate afloat again.

We could do that in two ways. Either the Presidency concedes to Parliament that it has asked for far too much: ‘I will fix it at 18 weeks, I will eventually be able to introduce that, but I will leave out paternity leave’. That was actually the proposal Ms Plumb put forward in the Committee on Social Affairs at that time, a sensible proposal. That is a possibility which Member States can sound out.

The second possibility is that you, with the Commission – and I do not actually see anyone from the Commission here – can withdraw the proposal. If the Commission withdraws the proposal, they can come back with a new proposal. I do wonder actually why we have not taken that course. As the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), we have said: ‘You are asking for too much, and if you ask for too much, we will fail’. That has now happened.

However, there are two possibilities and I ask the Presidency to come up with a new initiative. Come up with a new proposal where you will be asking for less. Take another good look at Ms Plumb’s proposal, which was unfortunately outvoted by the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, and then come back to us. I think that we really can find a solution.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D). - (SK) Mr President, we have called many times in Parliament for the legislation currently in force relating to pregnant employees and parental leave to be improved, and for measures to be adopted for improving the balance between work, private and family life. Women should be able to balance their obligations better, thus strengthening equal opportunities between periods of maternity leave, and also between women and men in terms of working life, working conditions and the labour market.

In my opinion, an extension of maternity leave would definitely have a positive impact on the health of the mother, and would help women make a better recovery from childbirth and build a stronger relationship with their children. Longer leave and stronger rights for women returning to work after leave would also, among other things, surely contribute to equal opportunities on the labour market. We should also bear in mind a fact that is even enshrined in the text of the directive, which is that women should be protected from discrimination based on pregnancy or maternity leave, and should have access to adequate means of legal defence, to ensure compliance with their right to dignified working conditions and a better work-life balance.

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I would like to thank Ms Estrela for her work. To be honest. I do not understand the concerns of many Member States with regard to the costs of extending maternity leave and paying a full salary.

Indeed, in my view, the economic crisis should not be an excuse to sweep aside fundamental rights. As a mother, I know that it is essential for women to be able to count on maternity leave also because, for cultural reasons that are hard to eradicate and a lack of adequate child care, women are responsible for over 80% of the care of elderly and disabled people, as well as their children, with inevitable consequences in terms of employment and career.

In addition, the growing phenomenon of single mothers, which we talked about yesterday and today, should not be underestimated since single mothers account for 85% of single-parent families. The phenomenon is also a matter for further concern because only 69% of single mothers are employed and, on average, 18% of single mothers only work part-time, which means that single mothers are a category more at risk of poverty and unemployment.

I will conclude by saying that, in my view, maternity leave forms the foundation of the reconciliation between family life and professional life. Therefore, we certainly cannot take a step backwards on this basic objective. Finally, I would like to add that leave should obviously not be restricted to women, but that fathers must also be able to take up this opportunity.

  Sergio Gaetano Cofferati (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I heard and appreciated the heartfelt tone with which the Council representative introduced this debate. However, I must say that genuine problems unfortunately remain, despite the care and respect shown for Parliament.

Non-implementation of the directive results in a number of serious consequences for the health of mothers and children, for the respect for people’s fundamental rights, which have been built over a long period of time, and, in my view, also has negative effects on employment. I do not understand how we can achieve the EU 2020 goals unless we have tools to increase the rate of employment of women, starting with the directive on maternity and paternity leave. It will also not be possible to tackle the falling demographic trend, often cited as one of Europe’s future problems, unless concrete action is taken to support families that decide to have children.

Therefore, we need to make an effort to rapidly make this directive a reality and, allow me to say so, this topic of the difficulties caused by the crisis really does not stand up. Do we think the crisis will last forever and therefore we are not going to defend women and motherhood now? Do we think that priority choices do not need to be made in the crisis and that everything is blurred together? If we believe in the goals that we have written down, we need to indicate what the priority policies are, even in the crisis. In my view, this is one of them.

  Sabine Verheyen (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, first of all, I would like to thank Mr Mleczko for his very clear description of the current situation. We have constantly heard in this debate that it is all about improving the position of working women who decide to have a child. In my opinion, the directive is focusing too closely on increasing maternity leave to 20 weeks. Do we really believe that the decision to have a child can be reduced to an issue such as 20 weeks’ maternity leave? As the mother of three children, I am very well aware that it is important to have overall packages and good provisions in place for families, in order to have a positive influence on the decision to have a child and to create equal opportunities for women.

The current draft directive does not even come close to doing justice to the different provisions and overall packages in some Member States, some of which are very good. We need flexible solutions which take into consideration the situation in the Member States and in society and the resulting needs of women. Maximum requirements and wish lists will not resolve the problem in this case. Therefore, we in Parliament firstly need to establish a sound, realistic basis for negotiations. Comprehensive maternity benefits and the welfare of children must be given the highest priority. We can ensure that this is the case using different methods and models. People who are intent on getting their own way regardless will not necessarily achieve their objectives more quickly. A lack of willingness to compromise does not open doors or build bridges. A moderate proposal would be a better solution to providing improved maternity benefits and making progress in this area.

I believe that we must start looking for another approach on the basis of the Commission’s draft directive which offers more flexibility for different concepts in individual Member States in order to significantly improve maternity benefits and protection for children in the first few months of life. This will not be possible with the current draft which has not had broad support, as some Members have made clear today. I would like to see a little more flexibility, more realism and a greater focus on what the Member States have already achieved, without calling our basic requirement into question.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). – (SK) Mr President, the achievement of balanced demographic development in European society and 75% employment of women, as set out in the Europe 2020 strategy, requires the adoption of measures to protect mothers with children who are in work. The substantial ageing of European society and the lower birth rate show that the personal care of children by mothers is not sufficiently valued in the current legal and social environment. Nonetheless, according to all available medical knowledge, personal care is essential for the healthy physical and psychological development of infants in the period when they are beginning to notice their surroundings and the mother is their main source of security, emotion and, last but not least, also sustenance.

I personally believe that women should have maternity leave for at least 20 weeks with regard to birth and caring for the infant, and this period ought to be extended if the woman gives birth to more than one child.

  Phil Prendergast (S&D). – Mr President, this is a timely question from Mrs Estrela, and I would like to thank her. I have been a midwife for over 20 years and I have heard some very discriminatory remarks here this evening. In Ireland, we have a good level of maternity leave and also an option for eight weeks’ unpaid leave, but the situation for fathers is nowhere near as good. They have no entitlement to paid leave at all. Fathers, in fact, can be very badly treated in the justice system across the EU, and workers in general have made huge sacrifices through cuts in pay, hours and allowances. It is time that we recognised this and granted fathers paternity leave.

19 EU countries already have paternity leave, and making a statement of intent to extend this meagre entitlement to fathers is the right thing to do.

  Ulrike Lunacek (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, I have listened to most of the debate and I feel the need to express my amazement at some of the points made. I am astonished when I hear in particular the Conservatives in Parliament from the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) saying that it will be too expensive, that the European Parliament is asking for too much and that we should tread more softly and moderate our demands. At the same time, it is those very Conservatives who are constantly saying, for example in Austria, the country where I come from, that they are the party of the family and of business. I have to ask myself whether they have not yet understood that proper maternity benefits and enabling fathers to spend time with their children right from the beginning also brings benefits for business. It results not only in happy children and happy families, but also motivated employees. So, please take this seriously and establish a real party of the family.

I would also like to say something about the statement that Parliament should not ask for as much. I would like to demand of the Council that it at least …

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Jaroslav Paška (EFD). – (SK) Mr President, I admit I am concerned that the European Council has so far failed to formulate its position on revising the Maternity Leave Directive. The European Parliament has done everything to make the revision of the directive fit into the current period, and for this legislation to contribute to better care for mothers and infants by the state. The EU is ageing and slowly dying, and the position of the European Parliament is therefore natural and right, revising the current legislation to extend maternity leave, increasing contributions and enabling fathers to have paid leave for infant care as well. If some Member State representatives think that better care for mothers and infants when they most need it is a large burden for their countries, they should also say how they want to address current demographic developments, and how they want to secure the future of their country without children. Without good care for women during the period of maternity, Europe will not have children, and without children it will have no future, and that would be terrible, in my opinion.

  Dimitar Stoyanov (NI). – (BG) Mr President, we have a saying in our country which goes: ‘Let us stop splitting hairs’. The calls which we have heard in the Chamber, in other words, Parliament’s readiness to conduct some compromise negotiations with the Council on reducing the duration of maternity leave below 20 weeks is ‘hair-splitting’.

This leave cannot be less than 20 weeks. This is not really a very great requirement; it is not even a minimum requirement. I will finish what my colleague, Ms Iotova, was not able to say. In Bulgaria, 100% paid leave is given for 410 days, along with another year on the minimum wage. I myself am currently expecting my first child and I can tell you that, if the amount of fully paid maternity leave had been less, I would not have managed to convince my wife for us to have this child right now.

Therefore, Mr Mleczko, tell us whether you will submit this issue for a radical solution, or will the Council continue to beat about the bush in a populist manner?

  President. – Congratulations on your forthcoming fatherhood, Mr Stoyanov.

We have reached the end of the catch-the-eye session with this speech, in a debate that I think has been one of the most fascinating that I have ever chaired. I am sure my male colleagues will not be offended if I say that, whenever our female colleagues are in the majority in speaking, the debates are usually extremely interesting.

I am going to give the floor to the President-in-Office of the Council, Radoslaw Mleczko, so that he can conclude with his response to the speeches that have been made on this important issue in their entirety.

  Radosław Mleczko, President-in-Office of the Council. – (PL) Mr President, I would like first of all to offer a little criticism of myself and apologise to you for the fact that I overran my time slightly when making my initial statement. This happened for two reasons: first – very mundanely – is the fact that this is my first appearance in the European Parliament; second – more importantly – is the fact that I was having to condense the careful study I have made of measures which have a beneficial impact on work-life balance, pro-family measures and measures which are intended to help mothers return to work in 27 Member States. Please believe me, it is a huge lesson in humility.

It also results in the conviction that when we talk about the length of maternity leave and the level of related allowances, we should and it is our duty to take into consideration the traditions and experience of the Member States and also the fact that this experience is based on a directive which is already in place, the possible revision of which we are talking about here. Of course, I could talk endlessly here about those changes. I would ask you, Mr President, to cut me off in a moment if I do not curtail my comments.

All the more therefore, I would like to thank Ms Estrela and Parliament for putting their questions to the Presidency and for the opportunity of taking part in this debate which, I am sure, is going to be of enormous significance for the further development of work on this dossier, regardless of whether the end of this work will be reached during the Polish Presidency or the next Presidency. We are in the Trio with Denmark and Cyprus. We are going to work together and share our observations and experience. In particular, I would like to note the fact that you have spoken here, honourable Members, about very specific proposals for a way out of the situation in which we now find ourselves. Proposals have been made for a return to the European Commission’s proposal, and there has also been consideration of the possibility of a new proposal from the European Commission and of the use of a ‘passerelle’ or ‘bridge’ clause, which could be the answer to a number of doubts. I would also like to thank you very sincerely for the respect you have shown for the existing tradition arising from the measures currently in place in the Member States and for what you have said about the fact that we have standards and are not starting from scratch and, what is more, that the current directive has given rise to traditions on which we can build the future. Thank you, too, for those remarks which pointed to the need for feasibility in the measures which would be introduced or proposed. Thank you for the encouragement to hold talks and seek optimal solutions, and also for the requests for new initiatives on the part of the Presidency.

For me – as the person responsible for work on this directive – the conclusion which has come from our debate is simple: objective analysis of all the arguments which were heard today and immediate contact with the European Commission and my colleagues in the Council.

  President. – Mr Mleczko, I should like to inform you that there is no formal time limit on the length of speeches by either the Council or the Commission, other than that imposed by prudence and a sense of just measure. Naturally, I should recommend the exercise of both virtues, but there is no time limit on your speech.

The debate is closed.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I am extremely glad that the oral question on extending maternity leave was raised this evening by Ms Estrela, as it is important to follow up on the vote that we had on this issue just one year ago. It is certainly a very ambitious vote, which received a large majority in favour of increasing the minimum maternity leave to 20 weeks on full pay as well as paternity leave. Thoughts on the matter are relatively fluid, given that Member States were granted a certain flexibility regarding the principle of the bridging clause. That said, I regret that we have heard very little from the Council since then. Of course, our Parliament must be realistic and take into consideration the current economic crisis. I would therefore suggest maintaining the principle of full pay but that it is phased over two stages: extending maternity leave firstly to 18 weeks, and subsequently to 20 weeks. I would like to thank you but also remind you not to overlook adoption leave.

  Lena Kolarska-Bobińska (PPE), in writing. – (PL) The lack of agreement to the European Parliament’s proposed revision of the Maternity Leave Directive testifies to the short-sightedness of certain politicians and the fact that they are being guided by current and narrow economic arguments. We need to look at achieving a work-life balance and promoting gender equality in the labour market from a broader perspective.

The decisions we make today will have long-term consequences. Europe is facing not only a financial crisis, because before long, it will also be facing a demographic crisis. Europe is getting older, and therefore what we have to do is to create the kind of measures which would make it easier for families to decide to have and bring up children. The lack of such measures will, in the future, affect labour markets and insurance and pensions systems. This is why maternity leave, the guarantee of a return to work after taking maternity leave, and paternity leave are so important. Rejection of the European Parliament’s amendments will be seen as offering an economic advantage, but it will be a short-sighted advantage.

We have to think, today, of the future of Europe. We must also remember that the proposals contained in the report are intended to facilitate the furtherance of fundamental European values – the equality of women and men and the absence of discrimination in the labour market.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Extending maternity leave to 20 weeks raises significant issues. First of all, such a measure would entail substantial costs, amounting to EUR 2 billion a year for France alone. As a woman, and a committed activist, I cannot help but wonder whether extending maternity leave by so much would do more harm than good to women. Distancing them further from work runs the risk of them losing skills, could increase the period of underpaid work, and thereby compound gender inequality when hiring. Furthermore, does anyone need reminding that in France, where they give 16 weeks’ maternity leave, the birth and fertility rate is one of the highest in the European Union? France was one of the first countries to introduce active measures to support families by developing child care facilities, crèches, and measures making it easier to reconcile work and family life. The French example has much to offer. In my opinion, it is these kinds of measures that go in women’s favour that we should be focusing on.

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE), in writing. – (ET) I consider it extremely regrettable that the Council has not hitherto managed to take a position regarding the Pregnancy and Maternity Leave Directive (92/85/EEC). I understand that this is a complex matter, taking into consideration the financial crisis and the differences between Member States, but if negotiations commence between Parliament and the Council, it will be possible to achieve the required compromise. Europe’s demographic future is not encouraging, and having discussed this situation already in 2008 in this same hall, we passed a resolution calling for measures in connection with the duration and protection of pregnancy and maternity leave, convinced that a corresponding policy would be able to influence the birth curve, creating a financially and psychologically favourable environment for families. We have spoken a great deal about the equal opportunities and equal rights of men and women in the labour market, and it is clear that longer maternity leave and also paternity leave create better grounds for this.

IN THE CHAIR: RODI KRATSA-TSAGAROPOULOU
Vice-President

16. System of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States - Compatibility of the German and British tax agreements with Switzerland with the EU Savings Tax Directive (debate)

  President. – The next item is the joint debate on the report by Sven Giegold, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States (COM(2010)0784 - C7-0030/2011 - 2010/0387(CNS)) (A7-0314/2011) and

- the oral question to the Commission (O-000229/2011) by Sharon Bowles, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs: Compatibility of the German and British tax agreements with Switzerland with the EU Savings Tax Directive (B7-0635/2011).

  Sven Giegold, rapporteur. – (DE) Madam President, Mr Langen, it is strange to appear here both as rapporteur and as co-author of the written question to the Commission.

I would like to start with my report. This is all about the fact that the Parent-Subsidiary Directive must be revised and amended, in particular, in the light of the new Treaty of Lisbon. The aim of the directive is clear: avoiding double taxation in the internal market. If profits are returned by a subsidiary to the parent company, it is, of course, important to prevent the profits from being taxed twice within the internal market. That makes sense. The directive ensures that the country where the dividends are paid has no option of levying capital gains tax on the export. Conversely, the country where the profits are returned and where the parent company is based has the choice of whether to exempt these profits or to offset them against the national tax regime.

Unfortunately, this directive has given rise to various consequences. On the one hand, transnational companies are making use of the directive. In principle, it is, of course, right that profits should not be taxed twice even within closely associated companies. Unfortunately, the directive is constantly being abused. Profits subject to low rates of taxation in the country where the subsidiary is based are returned to the parent company’s country and then not taxed effectively there. Some of these profits are also transferred outside the European Union and are still not properly taxed.

I would like to give two current examples of this. Exxon Luxembourg made profits of EUR 3.6 billion and transferred them via Exxon Spain to the USA. No tax was paid at all on these profits. In contrast, Google is well-known for mainly using two tax regimes called Double Irish and Dutch Sandwich which allow it to pay tax on its profits at a rate of just 2.4%. These extreme forms of low taxation or less than single taxation represent an abuse of the directive and, at the same time, a crude form of unfair competition between transnational companies and small and medium-sized enterprises, which, of course, cannot use methods like this.

This is happening at a time when there are major problems with public budgets. We are in a great deal of difficulty and we have had to put in place austerity programmes and tax increases. Mr Rehn has been desperately trying to impose budgetary discipline on the different countries. At the same time, the revision of this directive has, unfortunately, been rubber-stamped by the Commission and has not been used as an opportunity to stop potential abuse. In contrast, the vast majority of the Member States have committed, as part of the Euro Plus Pact, to making progress on tax harmonisation. Unfortunately, that is not in the spirit of this revision. The European Parliament has voted within the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs with an overwhelming majority for an amendment to this directive beyond what has been proposed by the Commission. This would mean that profits would only be covered by this directive if they had been taxed in advance at a rate of at least 70% of the nominal average tax rate in the EU, which is a minimum rate of 16%.

For this reason, I can only say to the Council that it should reconsider whether this revision is really appropriate at the moment. The Council should make changes. I would also like to say to the Commission that it should rethink its plans. It should withdraw its proposal and make use of the potential of this directive to levy additional fair taxes.

(DE) Madam President, I am aware of the privilege and I will make the greatest possible effort. I just need to change my tone briefly, because I want to ask a question.

Firstly, I am presenting this on behalf of our Chair, Sharon Bowles. This is a question which has been raised on my initiative and formulated on the basis of a consensus among the members of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. It is an oral question in accordance with Article 116. It concerns the recently signed tax agreements between Switzerland, on the one hand, and Germany and the United Kingdom, on the other, and the issue of whether they are compatible with the European Savings Tax Directive.

These tax agreements have triggered a major debate. In Germany, it seems doubtful that there will be a majority in favour in the second chamber, the Bundesrat. In the United Kingdom, the Tax Justice Network has, in the meantime, published a list of 10 ways of circumventing the agreement. Both agreements have now been signed but not yet ratified.

The questions which we are asking here relate to the fact that these agreements provide for the payment to Switzerland of a withholding tax on the earnings on capital by private individuals. On the one hand, these payments are made retrospectively for profits which were not taxed in the past and, on the other, in relation to future earnings on capital. The point of all of this is that in return, Swiss banking secrecy will be maintained. Therefore, Switzerland will help to collect the across-the-board withholding tax at a rate of 26% or 48% on the basis of the respective agreements. Of course, this will result in inheritance taxes and capital taxes not being properly recorded. At the same time, other states are in negotiations about similar agreements or are considering introducing them.

The questions posed by our committee are as follows. The first question concerns compatibility with the Savings Tax Directive, in relation to the tax rate. From July of this year onwards, the Savings Tax Directive sets the tax rate at 35% for countries which do not take part in the automatic exchanges of information. In contrast, the rate is set at 26.375% in the agreement between Germany and Switzerland. Does that represent a breach of the Savings Tax Directive? The agreement with Germany attempts to compensate for this difference by allowing for tax credits under Article 20 of the agreement, while the United Kingdom provides for a higher withholding tax rate of 48%. Is that sufficient from the Commission’s perspective, particularly as far as the comparison is concerned, to compensate for the difference between each of the agreements and the Savings Tax Directive?

Our second question concerns the impact that these agreements will have on the negotiations concerning the revision of the Savings Tax Directive in the Council and also outside. What approach do these bilateral agreements take to the fact that we are planning to introduce greater tax coordination and harmonisation in the EU, including in the Euro Plus Pact? Then there is the question of whether these bilateral agreements are an obstacle to the development of the Savings Tax Directive which is currently being negotiated in the Council.

Therefore, the question we want to ask is: how do you, Mr Šemeta, and how does the Commission plan to defend the provisions of the Savings Tax Directive and how do you intend to make practical progress in the revision process?

Another series of questions relates to the issue of whether the Member States have the authority to enter into bilateral agreements in this area with third countries, in the light of the negotiations defined in the Savings Tax Directive which are already under way. Does the Commission plan to introduce prior checks in this area? Were you included in the current negotiations? Were you consulted and do you want to retain the right to be consulted in future?

Finally, we would like to know how the regulations which make up these bilateral agreements relate to Article 26 of the OECD Model Convention for double taxation agreements. What is the situation here? How does that affect the development of the automatic exchange of information which we all want within the EU? I look forward to hearing your answers, Mr Šemeta.

  Algirdas Šemeta, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, I would like to thank the European Parliament and, in particular, Sven Giegold and Sharon Bowles, for their reports on the proposal to recast the Parent-Subsidiary Taxation Directive and for the oral question.

The report is a plea in favour of a minimum level of rates in the Member States, but it challenges their competences in this matter. Requiring the suggested minimum rate on the subsidiary distributing its profits would result in the exclusion from the directive’s scope of companies established in several Member States with rates below the threshold, namely Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Romania, Ireland and Cyprus.

This approach would lead to a partial integration of the national markets and a situation potentially challenging the Treaty freedom of establishment. In addition, pursuant to the interinstitutional agreement on the recasting of legal acts, the introduction of such substantive amendments to unchanged provisions in the Commission’s proposal requires a different legislative procedure. In this case, the Commission would have to follow the procedure for amending a directive. That requires a much more detailed political and technical assessment than the recast.

I fully understand the concern about aggressive tax planning, but the approach contained in the report does not ensure a level playing field, is not sufficiently targeted towards abusive practices, and thus not appropriate in this case. Next year, I plan to table an initiative addressing these issues, outlining possible approaches to tackle tax circumvention, particularly in case of double non-taxation.

Let me now reply to the questions related to the German-Swiss and UK-Swiss savings taxation agreements. Let me first emphasise that we have made, at this stage, only an initial comparison of both agreements with the EU-Swiss agreement. However, I can already share with you some elements. As regards the agreement with Germany, two aspects emerge at this stage of the analysis. First, the level of the rates. The withholding tax rate of 26.375% contained in the German-Swiss agreement differs from the rate of 35% of withholding tax fixed in the EU-Swiss agreement. This result is achieved through a refund of withholding tax.

Second, the nature of the withholding tax. While it is in the nature of an advance payment under the EU-Swiss agreement, the German-Swiss withholding tax appears to be final. It is likely to be less efficient when it comes to deterring tax evasion.

The agreement between the United Kingdom and Switzerland was made public only on 6 October. Our first assessment indicates that it generally provides for higher rates of withholding tax than the EU-Swiss agreement. Moreover, no automatic refund appears to apply. However, we are still examining the details.

As to your second question, the proposed amendments to the directive are still being discussed in the Council. Germany and the United Kingdom are part of these discussions and are among strong supporters of the enhancement of the directive.

The Commission has already asked the Council for a mandate to negotiate amendments to the EU savings agreement with Switzerland to extend its scope in line with the proposed developments in the directive.

The Commission favours an ambitious agreement with Switzerland. I see no good reasons to further delay the adoption of the mandate. This position has been broadly supported by the Member States. It is important, however, that this ambition is not undermined by bilateral agreements. The recent developments, therefore, reinforce the importance of a common EU approach towards Switzerland and other third countries.

Your third question refers to the respective competence of the Union and the Member States in the area concerned. Member States are free to enter into international agreements with non-EU countries, but they must respect EU law and its principles governing exclusive EU competence. Taking into account their wide scope, the bilateral agreements may also cover aspects already covered by the EU Savings Directive and/or the EU-Swiss agreement. Insofar as the bilateral agreements may prove to cover areas of exclusive EU competence, the Commission would take this matter very seriously. It would not hesitate to take the corrective steps if necessary.

In general, Member States must ensure that any bilateral negotiations they foresee or conduct do not cover aspects which are a matter of exclusive EU competence. And likewise in particular, in the savings taxation regime, Member States must not include in such agreements any area covered by the EU Savings Directive or the EU savings agreements with third countries.

Unilateral action taken by Member States in this field should not affect future action on the part of the European Union that could comprise the amendment of one of these instruments. In this specific case, the Commission has not been associated with the negotiations. All along the process, Germany and the UK have consistently reaffirmed their attachment to the EU common rules and objectives. As a general principle, the Commission urges Member States to take the necessary precautions in the matter. In case of any doubt, they should consult with the Commission at the earliest possible stage.

Finally, as regards your question on how far the German-Swiss agreement potentially curbs the development of automatic exchange of information, I can assure you of the Commission’s continued commitment to automatic exchange of information. We will continue to strive to apply that standard across the EU, and we will continue to push for the highest possible enhanced standards of transparency and exchange of information with third countries.

  Werner Langen, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (DE) Madam President, I would like to thank Mr Šemeta for giving such a clear answer to the questions from the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. I would also like to congratulate Mr Giegold on his report. A broad majority in Parliament has supported this report and we will also be adopting it. Mr Šemeta, you have the opportunity to put into effect the points that have been made in this report on the Parent-Subsidiary Directive as part of the process of tax harmonisation which you are working towards. We know that some of the problems in the euro area, for example, have arisen as a result of different taxation rates. The countries which you mentioned were almost all euro area states. We are asking you to have the courage to submit a corresponding proposal. You will have our support.

My second point concerns the bilateral tax agreement between Germany and Switzerland. Fortunately, you have been very restrained on this subject. All I can say is that this agreement does not contravene the EU agreement with Switzerland. I can remember when I first took my seat in Parliament in 1994 that there was already a lively debate going on about the standardisation of tax on interest. First Luxembourg tabled an objection, then Austria, then Luxembourg again and finally the Channel Islands. Once they had all been reconciled, we had to include Switzerland. After this, there were more delays. Things went to and fro for more than 10 years, because the principle of unanimity had to be preserved. You really do not have an easy job, Mr Šemeta, because it is difficult to reconcile the interests of all the Member States.

The model chosen by Switzerland, which does not involve exchanging information, but instead adopting its own taxation measures, does not conflict with this bilateral agreement. Firstly, as you yourself have said, you were not involved, but you were informed. Secondly, this is not about having the same basis for taxation. It is about ensuring that what may possibly be dirty money, which has not been subjected to taxation, is taxed retrospectively at a different tax rate. It is also about a payment in the future. This goes further than the EU agreement with Switzerland. The tax rate chosen there corresponds to the current level in Germany, in other words, 25% plus the solidarity surcharge, which amounts to exactly 26.57%. I have read a passage in the agreement which clearly states that if the tax rates in Germany are changed, then the agreement will be amended. If Switzerland does not comply with this, the agreement will be terminated within six months. In other words, this is a completely new situation. I understand that people see problems here, particularly in Germany, where there have been fierce political debates on the subject. However, this agreement represents an initial step which does not attack Swiss banking secrecy in general. We do not anyway have the powers to implement a new dimension of interest taxation with a third country, in this case Switzerland. If other states follow suit, this could be a model for the ongoing development of the bilateral agreement with Switzerland. I agree that there is a need to ask questions, but I believe that the criticism that has been made is unjustified.

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

  Sven Giegold (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Madam President, Mr Langen, I do not want to get into discussions on European law with the Commission. I just want to put one direct question to you. You have just referred to the consequences in Germany. Are you aware that the German Police Federation has significant concerns regarding the effect of this agreement on the enforcement of the law? Are you aware that the German Tax Union has significant concerns regarding the outsourcing of the authority to levy tax? Finally, are you aware that the churches will receive nothing from this tax and that you are creating a loophole in church tax regulations? What is your response to this?

  Werner Langen (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, Mr Giegold, your last point is correct. Church tax has been excluded. I do not know whether we can include this in subsequent negotiations. This is a point which is open to discussion.

In answer to your objection that, of course, the tax officials and others are complaining about this, I would like to ask the simple question – Madam President, you are familiar with the case of Greece – of whether there is a legal option for introducing supplementary taxation and for transferring the tax revenue to the German national budget. The alternatives are either nothing at all or a sensible regulation in future. Politicians in Germany will also have to choose one of these two possibilities. They will not be facing the question of whether to allow the agreement to lapse again. Instead, they must ask themselves what is the better route to take, including for Europe as a whole: a bilateral agreement in future with Switzerland?

  Liem Hoang Ngoc, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there will be no political Europe without a fiscal Europe. Unfortunately, the two issues that we are debating today demonstrate the Commission’s lack of ambition on that subject.

As regards the system of taxation for parent companies with subsidiaries in other Member States, under the current directive, these groups are undertaxed, which is detrimental to public finances in the Member States. It has been a boon for transnational groups.

In order to remedy this, I proposed in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs that a parent company should only be exempt from paying tax on profits generated by subsidiaries on two conditions. Firstly, the parent company must hold the statutory minimum of 15% of company equity in another Member State for an uninterrupted period of at least two years in order to benefit from this tax regime. Sadly, the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs did not accept that minimum period.

Secondly, the profits distributed by a subsidiary to the parent company used to be taxed at a rate of 75% or more of the average tax rate in the EU Member States. I am pleased to say that the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs did agree to maintain the threshold of 70% of the average tax rate.

The European Commission chose not to comment during our discussions, which was a pity. Consequently, Commissioner, we are left hoping that you will act on the message that we are sending, since Parliament is still not a colegislator on tax matters.

The second symptom of your lack of concern about taxation is your failure to act when the Council quashed the directive on taxation of savings income. The ensuing vacuum has resulted in pick-and-mix bilateral agreements on the exchange of banking information, such as those concluded by the United Kingdom and Germany with Switzerland. Yet the Savings Tax Directive paved the way for automatic exchanges of information with several different tax havens, including Switzerland. The directive was the subject of a report that was adopted by a resounding majority in plenary. Although Mr Barnier has explained that there is no more money available to promote growth, applying the directive would allow us to generate EUR 200 billion for the public purse. A fiscal tool is essential if we are to recover from the crisis. Harmonised taxation is vital for an effective single market. Combating fraud and tax avoidance is crucial if we are to rebalance public accounts.

For all these reasons, Commissioner, I can only urge you to do all you can to promote a fiscal Europe, in order to put an end to the Member States’ self-destructive rivalry. The main casualties of that rivalry are growth, public finances and solidarity among European citizens.

  Olle Schmidt, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (SV) Madam President, tax evasion, fraud and lack of transparency cost the EU and its Member States many millions of euro in lost tax revenue every year. I therefore welcome this debate. It is important to discuss how we can enhance the EU’s regulations in order to prevent tax evasion and ‘double non-taxation’.

As has been pointed out, it is particularly important right now in view of the economic and financial crisis and the huge increase in public debt in Europe. Comprehensive and lasting budgetary consolidation is needed, because the debt crisis is also a tax crisis. The lack of coordination of tax policy is contributing to a deepening of the debt crisis. The necessary, but painful, reduction of debt requires expenditure restraints, increased cuts in public spending and, in many cases, also tax rises. Taxes are necessary to enable us to finance the common welfare system, but taxes must also be viewed as legitimate and used effectively.

In the European Parliament, there is obviously broad support for the need to tackle tax evasion, double taxation and non-taxation. I have tabled a few proposals in this area myself in the European Parliament’s Annual Tax Report, for which I am rapporteur, and which will be debated in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs in November and then afterwards in plenary.

I am particularly concerned about the exploitation of loopholes in European legislation, whereby international companies operating within the EU attempt to avoid paying tax within the Union, a matter that Mr Giegold also addresses. The aim must be for every euro in tax that is intentionally withheld from the state through clever tax arrangements in future to be paid to the tax authorities.

I therefore understand the amendments that Mr Giegold has tabled with regard to parent companies and subsidiaries, which we are debating today. It is a question of tackling tax evasion and double taxation, even though the Treaty limits the EU’s decision-making ability, as pointed out by Commissioner Šemeta.

However, Mr Giegold goes further than this, and this is where I have a slight problem. In his text, he recommends the introduction of a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB) for all companies in the EU and wants a common minimum tax rate to be levied. I believe that, in the current situation, companies should sign up to the system voluntarily. The aim, of course, is to create a competitive tax system that benefits cross-border operations. It is also important to permit and encourage institutional competition. Forcing a European system onto small and medium-sized enterprises that only do business nationally runs the risk of causing considerable costs for these enterprises. I believe that the Member States must continue to set their own tax rates. That is important from a budgetary perspective. Different tax rates could potentially promote healthy tax competition and lead to increased European competitiveness.

With regard to the bilateral tax agreements that Germany and the United Kingdom have concluded with Switzerland, I welcome the debate. We have to admit that it has not been an easy task to reach an agreement with Switzerland, at least not for some countries until recently.

As we know, there are conflicting aims within tax policy and we always have to find a balance between the different objectives. That is not the easiest thing to do, and it is that debate that clearly needs to continue. I would like to conclude by congratulating Mr Giegold.

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

  Werner Langen (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, Mr Schmidt, are you aware that under this agreement between Germany and Switzerland, it is not the earnings which will be taxed retrospectively, but the capital, at a rate between 19% and 34%? It is the capital, not the earnings. This puts things in quite a different perspective.

  Olle Schmidt (ALDE). – Madam President, I did not get the question; it was just a statement. What was the question?

  Werner Langen (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, Mr Schmidt has said that we need to evaluate the agreement critically. I would like to ask whether he knows how it is structured and that there are two parts: one for interest earned in the future and the other for deductions from capital in the past. It is important that he is aware of this for the purposes of the evaluation.

  Olle Schmidt (ALDE). – Madam President, yes of course, if I am able to. What I said was that I think we should be glad that it has been possible to conclude some sort of negotiations and agreements with Switzerland. It has not been easy, as you know, Mr Langen. Now we have an agreement; it could have been better, but we have an agreement, and I think that is useful and helpful.

  Jürgen Klute, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (DE) Madam President, Mr Šemeta, I would like to make a few comments on the tax agreement between Germany and Switzerland, as other speakers have done.

Instead of stopping tax evasion and blocking the loopholes for tax evaders, which would have been sensible, the result that has been produced here is a Swiss cheese full of large holes. The proposed transition period of five months gives tax evaders plenty of time to transfer their money from Switzerland to other tax havens. As foundations and trusts are not governed by the agreement, it is also possible to transform assets which have been stashed away in Switzerland into the assets of a foundation. Forms for doing this can be obtained from Swiss banks. Tax investigators in Germany have recently received information about a number of tax evaders who have hidden their assets away in Switzerland. The agreement gives these people an amnesty and the tax investigators can no longer use the information that has been made available to them. What sort of agreement is it that restricts the activities of tax investigators? An advertising video produced by Swiss banks says about this agreement that customers will benefit even more in future from the values of Switzerland as a financial centre.

The agreement obviously not only lacks the necessary coordination at EU level, but also counteracts the efforts of the EU to bring more transparency into tax issues, to make the collection of tax in the Member States more efficient and, above all, to combat and to prevent tax fraud. Therefore, this agreement is, in our view, not acceptable. We are calling on the EU to oppose it, if there is any doubt.

  John Bufton, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Madam President, the problem being expressed is faced by the EU as a whole but should be regarded and tackled domestically. In the UK, for example, management of offshore banking in British Crown dependencies is intrinsically tied with reciprocal contributions to the liquidity of the domestic market. I demand that the Commission heed caution when seeking to harmonise corporate taxation and when taking such bold legislative leaps as to criminalise tax avoidance by enshrining it as tax evasion within EU law.

In a global marketplace, there will always be tax havens, offshore banking and questionable yet astute financial handling by the most profitable multilaterals. It is estimated that some 15% of countries in the world are tax havens. These countries tend to be small and affluent, with the most successful well-governed and regulated. It is fair to suggest that over-regulation drives away commerce and investment.

However, both over-regulated and mismanaged tax systems are often the product of sprawling tax bases too large to effectively manage or allow necessary economic elasticity. Many multilateral conglomerates are turning their backs on the European market due to the eurozone crisis and the burden of EU law. Raising this issue now will only deter corporations from establishing headquarters in the EU, and they will instead look to Asia or South America.

Taxation must remain the prerogative of Member States better placed to manage and enforce their own systems, allowing for increased flexibility while also promoting the sort of competition that helps catalyse recovery. It would be foolhardy for any Member State outside the common currency to sign up to such corporate fiscal union.

  Astrid Lulling (PPE). – (FR) Madam President, having taken part in them for so long, I am very aware that the debates and discussions around taxation on savings in Europe tend to be fairly emotive, with prejudices prevailing rather than objective analysis. Consequently, it has always been deemed good form to speak out against withholding tax, which works, and to laud the system of exchanging information, which has failed in so many cases.

As I see it, far from setting a dangerous precedent for the Savings Directive, the bilateral agreements between Switzerland and Germany and between Switzerland and the United Kingdom constitute a promising starting point for finally putting an end to the quarrelling and talking at cross purposes, which has gone on far too long.

The new system that is taking shape would actually apply a withholding tax to a far broader tax base at rates agreed by the two parties. This effectively means taxing interest income and capital revenues in accordance with the tax system in the State of origin. The upshot would be that the revenue services in the State of origin would receive far more than they do at present. In these times of austerity, finance ministers should be the first to welcome any such move. Its commonsensical arguments lead me to think that what can be done with third countries should also be feasible within the European Union.

Commissioner, why not apply this system across the board, in the name of efficiency, since withholding tax produces good results? Let us apply the system across the board, ladies and gentlemen, given that taxpayers would then be taxed entirely in line with the tax system in their country of origin.

So, unlike my colleagues, I am arguing in favour of a dispassionate analysis of the facts. Although the bilateral agreements seem to me to be compatible with the Savings Directive, given that they have not contravened any of its provisions, I do recognise that the directive needs to be amended. So let us proceed on a sound basis.

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

  Werner Langen (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, Ms Lulling, you are an expert on tax in every respect. In past years, your expertise related to delays in taxation and now it concerns the implementation. Wonderful! Therefore, I have a question for you. You have described this as a highly promising approach. Would you advise the Greek Government to enter into a similar bilateral agreement so that it can finally access its interest earnings?

  Astrid Lulling (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, yes, of course.

  Saïd El Khadraoui (S&D). – (NL) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, in response to the oral question, I would again refer to the very serious crisis that the European Union is currently undergoing. The European Union’s response so far – very much criticised by my group – has, amongst other things, rather fiercely been focused on savings, and penalties if those savings are not made rapidly enough. Look at the current restructuring efforts being made in Greece, but also in Portugal and Spain, and which are in preparation in many other countries. It is usually very ordinary people who are the first victims of this. They have the feeling that they are paying the price for the failures of the system.

In that context, what is obviously crying out for reform is the fact that, meanwhile, some of the most well-off Europeans are being allowed to violate laws, evade their responsibilities and park billions of dollars without taxation in Switzerland and other tax havens. That is how as much as EUR 80 billion of Greek funds are said to be stored in Switzerland. Several Member States are now trying – and I think very rightly – to do something about that and tax those billions in some way. However, we believe they are using the wrong methods, by regulating those matters bilaterally. This allows the Swiss to conduct a policy of divide and conquer and defend their own interests all the more easily by, amongst other things, insisting on levies lower than those that should normally be paid, and, on top of that, cementing the anonymity of their customers.

It is patently obvious that, in the interests of all our Member States’ tax authorities and, therefore, in the interests of ordinary people, we need to be pulling in one single direction and that the European Union as a whole should negotiate a global agreement with Switzerland and others, if only to ensure coherency with our own efforts to tighten the interest rates directive, for example. This could perhaps be based on the approach taken by the United States. There, they are threatening banks that do not want to budge with penalties of up to USD 2.5 billion. More than ever, we need to do away with tax havens. Banking secrecy should not take precedence over the principle that everyone should simply follow the same rules.

I am pleased, Commissioner, that you have made it very clear tonight that bilateral initiatives could undermine the community approach of the European Union. As a result, it is important that the Commission adopt a slightly more proactive strategy on the issue of Switzerland, where automatic exchange of information and the closing of various loopholes are crucial. Commissioner, I therefore wish you a great deal of courage and good luck, but I think that we in Europe ought to centralise things, negotiate collectively and, in that way, achieve better results.

  Jaroslav Paška (EFD). – (SK) Madam President, by modifying the Council directive on a common taxation system, we could help to tax profits of supranational parent companies that go to the state of the parent company from the subsidiaries, from countries which attract capital flows, so that the capital coming from the third countries is not properly taxed. Such profits most often come from tax havens and are often declared as licence payments for the use of intellectual property. The profit then goes through the country of the subsidiary to the parent company with a head office in a Member State of the EU, often with no tax whatsoever. Supranational companies thus avoid paying tax on profits, and so do not contribute a fair share towards funding the social needs of their state. A similar mechanism also applies to the dividend which parent companies obtain from their subsidiaries in neighbouring Switzerland.

The proposed solution of the rapporteur, Mr Giegold, therefore raises the requirement that a tax of approximately 25% be levied in the state to which the profit goes, if the profit was not previously taxed in the country from which it came. At a time when the state coffers of our countries need every euro they can get, this proposal may appear to be one way of boosting the budget.

  Sławomir Witold Nitras (PPE). – (PL) Madam President, I would like to compliment Mr Giegold on his report. It is a report which I can endorse, although this is not easy, because I am opposed to the harmonisation of direct taxation. While I am an ardent supporter of European economic integration, I would like to remind everyone that an organisation, an economic organisation like the United States, for example, which we cannot say is economically integrated, does not have harmonised taxation at all. We should use taxation to compete, whereas we should harmonise procedures and rules; we should create a single market and eliminate barriers in the single market.

Why, then, is it that I can endorse the report? It is because I do not perceive it as an attempt to harmonise taxation. I see it, in fact, as an attempt to fight against unfair tax dumping, because there is a difference between a rate of 30-something per cent or 40%. By the way, there is by no means a great difference between Germany and Poland if we are talking about personal taxation, because the German system of tax reliefs makes this tax very similar in the German system. However, a rate of 10% is dumping and there is no doubt that this should be resisted.

I would like to compliment Mr Giegold on the provisions which speak of a rate of 70%, and I would also like to endorse the hopes which you expressed with reference to the Commission, Mr Giegold, although these remarks should have been directed to the Council – which I regret to note is not here. I hope that the Commission will tackle this problem and that in this matter, we will, in fact, manage to go a step further – the step proposed by the European Parliament but which was missing from the document the Council presented to us. Thank you very much. Madam President, I would like to point out that so far, I am the only speaker who has not exceeded the allotted speaking time.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Madam President, I think that membership of the single European market implies that harmonisation is carried out in a number of areas, including tax matters. In order to ensure the completion and smooth operation of the internal market, the European Union must stipulate neutral tax regulations for groups of companies from different Member States.

I think that the tax provisions should not hinder companies’ activities by means of restrictions, disadvantages or distortion. This would make it difficult for companies to adapt to the requirements of the internal market and reinforce their competitive position globally.

I think that double taxation on revenues paid by subsidiaries to parent companies must be ended. Payment of interest and charges between two affiliated subsidiaries must be exempt from taxes applied by the source state. I should point out that these dividends are not liable for tax in Romania.

  Algirdas Šemeta, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, I would like to thank you for this debate on such an important subject. The Commission is seriously concerned about the situation, as the lack of international coordination permits abusive practices. It leads to unfair and inefficient taxation, and my services are working hard to deal with these questions.

Next year, I plan to table an initiative addressing these issues. Although I share the concerns expressed in the report by Sven Giegold, it is more appropriate to address them via the planned initiative. I would greatly welcome your continued support in this area.

As regards bilateral savings taxation agreements, I understand the Member States’ wish to find solutions to consolidate their budgets. Concluding bilateral agreements in order to tax hidden savings income in third countries might appear very attractive. However, the competence of the Union and the Member States in this area needs to be respected.

I am convinced that only a coordinated EU approach towards third countries will allow Member States, big and small, to reach a level playing field in the taxation of savings. I would therefore like to repeat my call to rapidly reach a unanimous agreement on the revision of the Savings Taxation Directive and on the mandate to negotiate tax agreements for the European Union as a whole.

Some of you mentioned that the Commission has to be brave enough to make proposals. This year, you have received a number of proposals which are probably out of step with what would normally have been suggested in previous years. I can reassure you that subsequent proposals will follow, on the issues of abuses and double non-taxation. We are working on this very seriously, since this subject has to be fully addressed one way or another.

In terms of savings taxation, the Commission will ask the Council to extend a mandate to us to negotiate with Switzerland. Without this mandate, no negotiation is possible.

I am convinced that by acting together, we can achieve much more than with bilateral agreements, so I once again urge Member States to extend this negotiating mandate and immediately allow the Commission to start negotiations with Switzerland.

  Sven Giegold, rapporteur. – Madam President, I have just a few comments. First, I would like to thank Mr Nitras, because he analysed totally correctly my report, which does not take a position on the principled question of whether there should be minimum tax rates. It is very clearly only saying – and this is also in answer to you, cher Olle – that it should not be used for someone to repatriate and then get away with no taxation.

So the report does not take a position on the question of whether we want European minimum tax rates. It does not say that certain countries are basically excluded; it is only saying that, if profits are then repatriated, they can be taxed according to the laws of the home state rather than having to take this directive into account.

(DE) I would just like to say a few words in German to you, Mr Langen. One thing is clear. Given that inheritance tax and capital tax do not interest you, I find the fact that you are not interested in church tax either highly questionable. However, if you are concerned, we should renegotiate this. I would just like to say one thing and you can pass this on to Mr Schäuble: I would like him to renegotiate this agreement. That would please me a great deal.

One final point concerning the answer to the question about the double taxation agreement. Mr Šemeta, you have already heard this in the question put by Ms Lulling. In the light of this bilateral agreement, Luxembourg and Austria, which are currently blocking this mandate, are asking themselves whether they should move to the automatic exchange of information and what would happen when they negotiate with third countries. You have already heard the answer, which is ‘Of course not’.

When you draw up the written version of your answer, please think carefully about whether you are missing the last opportunity to prevent this bilateral approach to tax on interest. You have heard exactly what the provisions are and it is in your hands.

  President. - The joint debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow, Wednesday, 26 October, at 12.00.

17. Agenda for next sitting: see Minutes

18. Closure of the sitting

(The sitting closed at 22.00)