Verbatim report of proceedings

Tuesday, 15 November 2011 - Strasbourg

8. Explanations of vote

  President. – We shall now proceed to the explanations of vote.

Oral explanations of vote

Report: Kerstin Westphal (A7-0350/2011)

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Madam President, I would like to say that I voted for this report because a dwindling working population and ageing workforce will mark the demographic trends in the EU in the coming years. In light of this, the lack of effective measures for maintaining quality of life and social integration may have an adverse impact on social security systems. In the EU, pension fund costs account, on average, for 43% of the gross expenditure on social welfare services. The potential offered by the elderly must be utilised. At the same time, I think that strategies are needed to encourage the birth rate and migration. These issues must be addressed using a coordinated approach involving all European, national and regional authorities. Romania has more pensioners than employees, which means that its pension system will be at risk in the future.

  Ramona Nicole Mănescu (ALDE). – (RO) Madam President, I voted to adopt the report on demographic change in light of the future cohesion policy because aspects such as depopulation, an ageing population or labour migration pose real challenges for Member States, with a noticeable impact on Europe’s regions in particular. Regional policy is a key instrument for tackling demographic change. This is precisely why we need to ensure that this aspect will be included as a horizontal objective in the future cohesion policy.

The vote I gave today was in support of the hardest hit regions being given the resources and technical assistance they need to be able to access the Structural Funds. They will guarantee not only access to vital public services, but also create new sources of jobs, especially by supporting small and medium-sized enterprises. One of the EU-level solutions for reducing the adverse impact of demographic change is to promote the exchange of good practices between Member States.

This is why I have called on the European Commission to come up with concrete solutions for ensuring that the Erasmus programme for local and regional elected representatives continues. I think that this programme must be continued in a form suited to the relevant needs and real circumstances.

  Robert Dušek (S&D) . – (CS) Madam President, Europe has the oldest population and, at the same time, the lowest population growth in the world, and the waves of migration from third countries are still growing. If we treat these population changes as an opportunity, and jointly mould them in an appropriate way, they will not become a time bomb for the EU. Unlike strategies, Member States, regions and cities can make use of resources from the Structural Funds. In the 2007-2013 period, a mere 9% of the potential funding was absorbed. Regional policy is, in the meantime, the main tool that can be used to address demographic changes. I would like to call on the regions to make greater use of the possibilities the EU provides, and to work on adequate projects for supporting old people, children and families, and work for young people. In the area of immigration, I would like to emphasise that it is vital for the EU to distinguish in its policies between migrants who move Europe ahead and those who migrate to the EU merely with a vision of an easier life. The submitted report offers many appropriate solutions, and I have therefore voted for its adoption.

  Peter Jahr (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, we are all aware that demographic change is presenting us with a wide range of challenges. In rural areas in particular, it is important for us to put in place concrete measures which will allow us to make good use of the opportunities that will undoubtedly accompany this change. This is all about making rural areas as attractive as possible. First and foremost, this means providing sufficient jobs for younger people in order to counteract the trend for migration away from these areas.

In addition, public bodies must adjust to the needs of an ageing population. Our rural regions must remain a home for the people who live there. Therefore, cohesion policy must make a significant contribution in this area in future. Nevertheless, it will be important, in future, to weigh up the requirements that we are able to meet against those that we simply cannot fulfil.

  Kay Swinburne (ECR). – Madam President, I welcome the report, which recognises the different strategies needed from region to region across the EU to combat demographic change. We need to have a coordinated effect at EU, national and regional level, as we have in Wales.

The report sets out a number of recommendations, focusing on suggestions for structural policy reform, urban development, measures for families, the use of the ESF to combat youth unemployment and, in particular, the sharing of best practice between the different regions and nations. Wales, as a convergence region, welcomes the initiative.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – (GA) Madam President, I welcome this report, especially the practical recommendations in it to deal with the challenge facing us, and we have a lot of challenges facing us.

In this regard, I recall that my colleague, Danuta Hübner, when she was a Commissioner, pointed out that one-third of regions would decline in population by 2020 and a half will have a decline by 2030. This poses huge problems for us, particularly in relation to structural and cohesion policy. Particularly worrying is the impact which an ageing population will have. It will put huge pressure on finances in terms of health care and infrastructure, etc. We have got to meet that challenge, and the sooner we face up to it and put measures in place and utilise cohesion funding for it, the better it will be.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). – Madam President, the elemental cause of our discontents is easily stated: there is too much debt. Too much personal debt, too much corporate debt and too much public debt. Even I am not going to claim that this is wholly a crisis of the eurozone. It was also a crisis in Latvia, a crisis in Hungary and indeed a crisis in my own country, and the underlying cause is easily diagnosed: interest rates were kept too low for too long and this mistake was made equally by the Bank of England, the European Central Bank and, indeed, the FED and the Bank of Japan.

What is happening now is that there is a correction. The malinvestments of the decade of easy credit should be being rectified so that growth can begin again on a more sober and realistic basis, but here in Europe – and indeed in the United Kingdom – politicians and central bankers are furiously working the bellows in trying to re-inflate the bubble. It is not going to work; it is like trying to postpone a hangover by remaining drunk. You may defer the reckoning, but it will be all the worse when it comes.

  Julie Girling (ECR). – Madam President, the challenge stemming from the current demographic changes within the EU is one of the biggest we will face over the coming years. We must strive to develop policies which not only make the public aware of the benefits and opportunities inherent in demographic changes, but also enable older workers to fully access work and housing markets. I therefore welcome some elements of this report which recognise the unique benefits to the current demographics. In the UK, we have recently abolished the default retirement age, acknowledging, amongst other things, the benefits of an older workforce.

However, there are a number of recommendations within this report which I cannot support, most particularly those recommendations which call for a common EU strategy on migration and the diversion of Structural Funds away from building economic capacity and towards special multi-generational housing projects and undefined ‘communal events’ to integrate immigrants into their local communities.

Report: Pascal Canfin (A7-0055/2011)

  Bendt Bendtsen (PPE). – (DA) Madam President, I voted in favour of the regulation today. Credit default swaps can provide greater liquidity in our economy and, in certain cases, can also help to protect and safeguard us against loss. The problem is – as the financial crisis has shown very clearly – that they also contain problematic elements that have entailed a significant systemic risk for our economy, because speculation kicked off a negative spiral. What has been absolutely crucial today is the fact that we have taken a decision that can remedy the problem. We are injecting a degree of responsibility into credit default swaps by ensuring that there is an ownership element, such that buyers and sellers must have a certain relationship to the instrument that they are trading with. I think this is a very positive development and I have therefore voted in favour of the proposal.

  Paul Murphy (GUE/NGL). – Madam President, I abstained on this report as it does not go anywhere near tackling the dictatorship of the markets that exists in our society. The extent of that dictatorship has been seen very clearly in the past week, which has been reminiscent of Europe’s colonial era. The same arguments have been used to impose technocratic governance on Italy and Greece, with the argument that the people are not capable of governing for themselves, with the same result that the basic democratic right of people to elect their government comes second to the needs of the market, second to the needs of the bankers, second to the profits of the elite in our society.

These technocrats who have been appointed are not neutral between the 1% and the 99%. Until the weekend, Mr Mario Monti served as an adviser to Goldman Sachs. Mr Papademos has spelt out how the interests of the bankers must be protected in writing down Greek debt. Their mandate comes not from the people of Italy or Greece or the rest of Europe, but comes from the markets. It is a mandate to continue the savagery of people’s living standards in the interests of the elite. Above all, what is needed again is a European-wide fight back, the need for a European-wide struggle against austerity and against the rule of these elites. What is needed is a European-wide strike.

  Peter Jahr (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, nobody would consider taking out a fire insurance policy for a house that they did not own, unless they were interested in their neighbour’s house burning down so that they could claim on the insurance policy. Anyone who did this would be regarded as a fraudster and would be imprisoned.

I think that the rules that apply to real life should also apply to the stock exchange. Therefore, I am very pleased that the regulation which we have adopted today will impose stringent restrictions on short selling throughout Europe. In particular, it has become clear in the past that highly speculative trading in sovereign bonds puts our financial system at risk. You cannot sell what you do not own and you cannot insure what you do not own. Therefore, it is particularly important that we have adopted standardised rules for the whole of Europe to counteract this type of trading.

Now, it is essential that the new regulations come into force as quickly as possible and are regularly monitored. We must call for a ban on these activities not only in Europe but throughout the world.

  Kay Swinburne (ECR). – Madam President, despite having voted against the first version of the Canfin report in plenary, and although the subsequent report has been revised after a number of trialogues, I still have a great number of reservations about the report, which is why I have abstained.

As a member of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, I am concerned by the detail in the report and the ability to implement the proposal as it stands, particularly about the proposed ban on uncovered sovereign CDS and the potential subsequent impact on the ability of Member States in the EU to raise revenue through bond issuance. An opt-in, and not an opt-out, system for Member States’ regulators would have been more equitable and added to the report’s credibility.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). – Madam President, in the past two weeks, we have witnessed a coup d’état: bloodless and genteel, but a coup d’état nonetheless. In Italy as in Greece, elected premiers have been toppled in favour of Eurocrats – respectively, a former Vice-President of the European Central Bank and a former European Commissioner. They head what are called ‘national governments’, but the governments have been put together for the sole purpose of implementing a programme that would be rejected at a general election.

They are called technocrats, but it is precisely their policies that created the problem in the first place. They presided over the debt; they decided to keep the euro going at the expense of the prosperity of the constituent nations; they – Mr Papademos in particular – were responsible for admitting countries that did not meet the debt criteria at the outset. Now we see the true face of the European project. Apparatchiks in Brussels deal directly with apparatchiks in Athens and Rome. The people are cut out altogether and their elected representatives are sidelined. The lamps are going out all over Europe.

  Julie Girling (ECR). – Madam President, short selling and credit default swaps are two of the principal methods of investing in, or hedging against, a fall in prices or a default of a bond. Restrictions on the trading of sovereign debt, in particular, when the underlying asset is not owned or borrowed by the investor, can be very controversial. We must ensure that while we bring about some protection from aggressive short selling in the markets, this must not be done at the risk of liquidity. Any blanket ban on credit default swaps could have serious consequences on the ability of Member States to raise revenue through issuing bonds. Despite this report being brought closer into line with the position of my group, I still have a number of reservations, and these have come out in the detail and the general direction of the proposals.

  Syed Kamall (ECR). – Madam President, as a shadow rapporteur on this report, I had a number of concerns.

First of all was the lack of focus on the causes of the crisis. One of the things we are ignoring in this place is the role that governments themselves played in creating the crisis. Look at the US Government and the Community Reinvestment Act which encouraged banks to lend to uncreditworthy customers, and at the levels of debt that governments incurred – and then they blamed the markets.

At the same time, I also share some of the concerns about the CDS and uncovered sovereign CDS. However, my concerns over this report were that we actually missed the target. Of course we should be tackling the issue of CDS when a bank does a swap and suddenly bad debt is re-rated as good debt because the CDS has been issued by an institution that itself has a good credit rating.

But the most important thing that we have missed is that those organisations, those institutions that issue CDS, should make sure that they have sufficient capital to meet their obligations when a default occurs. This has not occurred and we have missed the elephant in the room.

Report: Mariya Nedelcheva (A7-0188/2011)

  Peter Jahr (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, Fruit and wine production is very important in the European Union. I am very grateful to Ms Nedelcheva for succeeding in simplifying the regulations for statistics on permanent crops. On the one hand, we all know that statistics are necessary. However, on the other hand, they do not always please those people affected, in this case farmers, because they are associated with a large amount of red tape. It is particularly important to me that smallholdings are excluded from the regulations on statistics and that the administrative effort involved is kept to a minimum for all the businesses affected. Our stated goal is to make agricultural policy simpler and more transparent. Regulations which do not make sense and are no longer up-to-date must be abolished.

This report represents another small step forwards, but we will, of course, have to continue evaluating our own rules and regulations constantly to ensure that they meet the requirement for a reduction in bureaucracy.

  Julie Girling (ECR). – Madam President, although this report is largely technical concerning the provision of detailed statistics, I was pleased to support it.

Crop statistics are essential for the management and evaluation of EU markets and the common agricultural policy. Although the details in this report largely concern vines which – I have to accept – are not very prevalent in my Member State, although they are a growing part of our agricultural scene, it is still important that all Members of this House pay attention to the detail of these technical reports so that we do not have motions and reports going through that we are not clear about and of which we do not fully understand the implications. At this important time for the common agricultural policy, I believe that it is even more imperative that we pay attention to the detail.

Report: Emma McClarkin (A7-0373/2011)

  Raffaele Baldassarre (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the complexity of the process of recognition, which affects an extremely high number of professions, is an obstacle to the circulation of European professionals and has negative effects on growth and competition.

Therefore, I share Ms McClarkin’s view which aims to streamline administrative processes by creating registration systems and an online portal containing all the relevant information regarding procedures. I believe that the proposal to extend the Internal Market Information system to professions not yet open to the directive on services is valid and necessary.

Finally, I hope for further development of the debate towards other and wider categories of professionals. I refer, in particular, to professions close to the world of business, which currently raises an often unnecessary barrier against cross-border exchanges, as in the case of legal and accounting professions.

o

o o

  Charles Tannock (ECR). – Madam President, I would like to raise a point of order regarding your interpretation of the Rules. In previous years, when I requested to make an explanation of vote, it was deemed that it could only be called provided the Member had made the request before that report itself came up on the screen, not the initiation of the explanation of votes session.

Now you are having a narrow interpretation that you have to submit the request before the whole explanation of votes session begins. Can you have a consistent interpretation of this rule, because clearly it was intended that you could only apply before that particular report, not the whole thing starting after the ending of the voting session? Each President interprets that rule differently as far as I can see. I agree, for that matter, that the way it is written in the Rules is not clear either.

  President. – I believe that you are right, because it is written in the regulations that a request for the declaration of the vote cannot be received after the beginning of the first declaration. Therefore, in my opinion, I believe that you are right; however, we will consult the services for the purposes of greater clarity.

  Andreas Schwab (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, I have just listened to your statement with great interest. However, I would like to point out that I indicated to you by raising my hand before the start of the debate on the reports that I wanted to take the floor. I do not know why you did not notice. Your colleague has just informed me about this. The question is whether this really has to be done in writing or whether it is also possible to do it orally.

  President. – I repeat that, in my opinion, you are right, but the services have given me their negative opinion. Therefore, we will clarify the matter once, for all modalities, before publicising it.

o

o o

  Salvatore Iacolino (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, there is no doubt that a system organised on real and actual cooperation between the Member States dictates that, with regard to the relationship of confidence that is established between the Member States, the principle of freedom of movement should be characterised concretely by effective and assertive instruments.

Mobility of professionals, which is essentially directed towards those who are in a position to add value to activities which take place in another Member State, must surely be interpreted favourably. Compulsory training and compulsory retraining, as well as a minimum standard requirement which allows for equivalence between accreditation systems, appear to be absolutely necessary, especially in a delicate and essential sector like public health; in this way, we can avoid potential distortions in the implementation of a provision which we support and believe can aim for ambitious results in realising concrete and measurable objectives for the benefit of the patient, in the case of health care, and for the benefit of the consumer, in the case of other equally significant sectors.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). – Madam President, I take the opportunity to say that the freedom of movement of EU professionals is a very good thing, but I believe that in some ways, by going further than what is even permitted in the United States, we have, in the European Union, allowed loopholes to emerge which allow for doctors for instance – and I am a retired one myself – who are not sufficiently professionally equipped to discharge their duties medically to practise in my country, the United Kingdom.

I strongly believe that all EU doctors registering in the United Kingdom should be subject to linguistic and professional aptitude assessment before being given full registration. Too many problems have arisen in recent years due to different medical practices and poor English skills, and patients have suffered as a consequence. This needs urgent review by the Commission.

  Andreas Schwab (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, firstly, I would like to thank you very much for interpreting the Rules of Procedure in a way which is helpful to the Members of this House. I would also like to add to the comments on Ms McClarkin’s report concerning the implementation of the Professional Qualifications Directive. I think that the report which we have adopted today takes Mr Tannock’s concerns into consideration, because we believe it is important to allow for more mobility within the European internal market, in other words, more mobility for the professionals who want it. This is because we will only be able to create a common economic and monetary area in Europe in the long term when professional qualifications are generally recognised and when the holders of the qualifications can genuinely move about freely within Europe.

However, the European Commission now needs to make a series of proposals which, first of all, ensure that automatic recognition continues and, secondly, enable the Internal Market Information system, which the Member States use to recognise professional qualifications, to be easily accessed. A lot remains to be done in this area.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Madam President, I voted for this report because I am in favour of simplifying the procedures for recognising professional qualifications. As I also emphasised during the hearing which I organised last month, an effective recognition system is vital for the mobility of highly skilled workers. For example, Romanian physiotherapists are receiving the right to practise in France more quickly following SOLVIT’s intervention. The Association of German Engineers reported recently that more than 36 000 posts have not been filled due to the lack of professionals. A European area open to workers from every Member State is part of the solution to this problem.

According to the latest Commission report, the mobility of Romanian and Bulgarian workers raised the EU’s GDP by 0.3%. I take this opportunity to call again for the restrictions aimed at them to be lifted. I welcome Iceland’s decision to give them unconditional access to the labour market.

  Mario Pirillo (S&D). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, with today’s vote, Parliament has laid the foundations for future discussion on the new directive which, as anticipated yesterday by Commissioner Barnier, will be presented on 13 December. I approve of the report given by the rapporteur who, in collaboration with all the rapporteurs, has managed to synthesise the view put forward last June by the Commission with the Green Paper.

I feel I should underline two key elements at the heart of the report: language and training. I believe it is necessary, in particular with regard to health care professions, to introduce an accurate means of evaluation of the level of linguistic ability that should take place prior to the authorisation of allocating work, and to raise the minimum training requirements common to all Member States, with a view to ensuring ever greater security to European patients.

  Morten Messerschmidt (EFD). – (DA) Madam President, I think it is quite incredible that we can adopt a report like this one here on migrant workers without a single word being said about the huge problems that these same migrant workers have created for a number of Member States. There has not been a single word said about the problems that many countries are experiencing in connection with a lack of compliance with wage requirements. There is not a single word in the report about the lack of compliance with the agreements, nor is there anything about the lack of compliance with the rules governing driving and rest times, and I could go on.

What version of reality are those of you who voted in favour of this report actually living in? As far as I am concerned, not a day goes by when I am not approached by citizens, undertakings, NGOs and various countries, particularly in the western part of the Union, concerning precisely these problems. Do you really believe that the problems will go away of their own accord if we simply avoid mentioning them in a report like this one?

  Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR). – Madam President, I believe in the single market and I believe in the free movement of people. These are the tools the European economy needs to return to growth.

However, when looking at medical qualifications, the first priority must be the wellbeing of the patient. I am pleased that this report gives Member States the responsibility for checking the ability of migrant doctors and nurses. Doctors must be able to communicate adequately with their patients and colleagues. The new alert mechanism for doctors is also welcome.

In the UK, the case of the German doctor who killed a patient in Cambridge after making serious errors has raised concern about the EU mobility of doctors. The fact that he was allowed to continue practising medicine in Germany after being struck off in the UK is also troubling.

I hope the earlier warning system will allow medical authorities in Member States to better protect their citizens. I am in favour of movement for employment, but we must ensure that we protect our patients across Europe first.

  Richard Howitt (S&D). – Madam President, I have spoken before in this Parliament on the case of my constituent, 70-year-old David Gray, who was killed when a locum German doctor unlawfully administered 10 times the recommended dose of a pain-killing drug. On behalf of his sons, Stuart and Rory Gray, I do so again today, to say that their father would still be alive if the mandatory blacklist system the European Parliament calls for today had been in place back in 2008. I am also incensed that Germany failed to extradite the doctor involved, despite the fact that an e-mail dated 16 March 2009 to the Cambridge Constabulary clearly shows that the European arrest warrant was received before the doctor, Daniel Ubani, was finally judged to be incompetent in Germany. His case should, under the existing law, have been heard in British courts.

Today, MEPs have called for a change to the law to clarify beyond doubt that language checks for foreign doctors are perfectly permissible, as well as requiring an alert system to ensure that doctors under disciplinary questioning in one EU country cannot escape penalty in every country. But I say, with the greatest respect to my German colleagues, that changing the law only works if every EU country respects the law that is passed.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – (GA) Madam President, the vision our founders had in relation to the European Union was that goods and people across Europe would have free, easy and official movement over borders. It is a good vision and a lot has been done to implement it.

Today’s proposals go further, particularly in trying to get qualifications mutually recognised right across the European Union but, as speakers have pointed out, there are difficulties, particularly regarding qualifications where the person with the qualification is dealing with the public and services, such as medical services, teaching, etc. Language proficiency is very important and certainly there is no room for error here, particularly in the diagnosis of patients, as has been pointed out.

My second point is that we should also have some effective method of ensuring that the contents of the programmes that lead to qualification are of the same standard across the European Union.

  Julie Girling (ECR). – Madam President, I would also request speaking time on this item. I would like to congratulate my colleague on her report on the Professional Qualifications Directive; this has been a very high profile issue recently in the UK. The report is particularly encouraging with its emphasis on the reduction of the number of regulated professions and its encouragement of online application procedures.

The report will encourage the free movement of a growing number of highly skilled workers across the EU. Within the report, there is a specific mention of the health care sector. The protection of consumer and patient safety, as we have heard, is a vital objective in the context of the revision of this directive. Thus, I am delighted to see that special attention has been paid to the special status of health care professionals.

There has been much debate on the issue of language barriers. I believe that they are not necessary in all fields of work, but again we must have a decree of flexibility and, for professions where they are vital, we need to acknowledge that and make sure that we carry that through.

  George Lyon (ALDE). – Madam President, I would also like to welcome Parliament’s vote today in favour of the report by Emma McClarkin on mutual recognition of professional qualifications.

In particular, there has been great concern in Scotland about the competence of European doctors working for the National Health Service. Since the introduction of the 48-hour working week and the handing over to NHS 24 of all out-of-hours care, almost one in ten health care professionals in the UK have now trained outside the UK. While these doctors provide a vital service, patients must, of course, have peace of mind about their competence.

This report takes an important step towards ensuring that a cross-border alert system will stop the so-called ‘dodgy’ doctors from moving from one country to another to continue practising when they have been accused or suspended in their own country for a question of malpractice. That will reassure patients that their doctors are qualified and not facing charges of misconduct in the countries they came from.

The relationship between patient and doctor is important to recognise and respect. In this regard, use of language is vital, and that is why I am pleased that this report has identified the language issue as an area that does need further work. Patients must feel comfortable with their doctor and health professional and understand the advice and treatment plan, wherever their doctor comes from.

I do hope Parliament can trust the Commission to look into this report with the necessary attention to ensure the best quality of treatment across Europe, through changes of legislation where necessary.

  Kay Swinburne (ECR). – Madam President, by voting in favour of the McClarkin report, I have voted for simplification and the reduction of the number of regulated professions in the EU, which, importantly, will enhance the mobility of professionals whilst ensuring that the proper safeguards and checks are in place for them, particularly those who work in the health care sector. I believe that the report takes the right steps to protect and encourage professional workers seeking to work in another Member State. However, we need at all times to ensure that language specificities, particularly with respect to patient safety, are workable in practice – a concern expressed by many of my patients in Wales.

Report: Kyriacos Triantaphyllides (A7-0369/2011)

  Paolo Bartolozzi (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the challenges posed by the modern age and by Mr Triantaphyllides’s report, for which we have voted in favour, dictate that citizens in their capacity as consumers should be placed at the centre of the EU debate, and they remind us that the safeguarding of citizens’ interests cannot remain a principle sanctified at the level of treaties, but should be a concrete and inspiring principle of EU politics.

Protected and informed consumers, who are made more aware and are therefore in a position to take full advantage of the instruments and resources at their disposal, as well as to make full use of their rights, should be the final aim of the EU’s new strategy on consumer policy.

This strategy should therefore be established as an approach with ample breathing space, and it should be all-encompassing, so that it can move freely from the sector of financial services to that of food, from the safeguarding of minors to advertising, and, therefore, be in a position to make an important contribution to Europe’s social and environmental objectives.

  Morten Messerschmidt (EFD). – (DA) Madam President, it is interesting to read this report. You almost get the impression that the EU is a promised land, where the streets flow with milk and honey. There is no limit to the good things that we offer citizens here: free movement, a social market economy, progress, a high level of competitiveness, full employment, high environmental quality, and so on.

Unfortunately – and rather strangely – there is not a single word about how we want to achieve all of these good things for our citizens. Nowhere is it explained how we are to achieve all of these objectives. Looking around the EU’s territory, all I can say is that it is probably not going very well! Rarely has the EU’s competitiveness been worse than it is today. Rarely has employment been lower than it is today, and rarely has free movement operated as poorly as it is doing today. Nevertheless, one fine statement after another is adopted here in this House that bears absolutely no relation to the reality that citizens outside this House live in. Perhaps we will get the two ends to meet sometime in the future.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). – (SK) Madam President, the EU needs a strategic approach to consumer policy, for it to be closely coordinated with other EU policies. Consumers’ dissatisfaction with the functioning of many services, above all, banking and financial services, and with the quality and safety of some products, which results from a lack of awareness of the rights of consumers and the obligations of suppliers, must produce a reaction in the form of a political and legal response from the EU to this issue.

In my opinion, the priority of consumer policy should continue to be the protection of consumers – especially children – from hazardous products. A high level of consumer product safety must therefore be effectively guaranteed in the EU by the relevant market surveillance authorities and agencies in the area of the food, chemicals and pharmaceuticals industries and in agriculture, since these areas have a direct impact on the health of EU citizens on a daily basis through their products.

  Kay Swinburne (ECR). – Madam President, together with my ECR colleagues, I voted in favour of this consumer policy report as it clearly sets out the need for a proactive policy which places consumers at the heart of the single market. Encouragingly, the report draws from statistics from the Consumer Scoreboard and has taken the recently published top 20 main citizens’ and business concerns regarding the single market into full account. The report calls for the Commission to integrate initiatives across all its responsible services, which will ensure proper implementation and enforcement of existing legislation. We now, on behalf of our citizens, need to deliver these policies.

  Julie Girling (ECR). – Madam President, I was happy to support this report, particularly the emphasis on requesting the Commission to improve the criteria for carrying out more impact assessments and to review EU regulations which have a direct effect on consumer policy. It is high time consumers reclaimed a key position in the discussions around the single market. E-commerce is increasing and brings huge opportunities for consumers, but it also increases all of our vulnerability. So I welcome particularly the recognition of the e-commerce issue in this report and the promise to go forward with further work in that area.

  Anna Záborská (PPE). – (SK) Madam President, I will always support the right of consumers to accurate information on the products or services they wish to buy. It is possible to make responsible decisions on the basis of such information. The law must clearly guarantee every consumer the right to turn to the courts in the event of disappointment or damage.

As an MEP, I have worked for many years with consumer groups, helping them to defend this right. At the same time, I am rather dismayed at the huge growth in the consumer agenda that the Commission has come forward with. We should not underestimate people’s common sense when deciding how to spend the money they have earned. We must not take this responsibility away from them. The relationship between the buyer and the seller is a relationship of trust. If this relationship is distorted, the trust and responsibility of both parties disappears.

I supported the report, even though I believe that excessive regulation paradoxically increases dishonesty, both on the part of sellers and buyers.

Report: Jürgen Creutzmann (A7-0342/2011)

  Salvatore Iacolino (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Internet came into being exactly 20 years ago. On this network today, the most popular pieces of information circulate ever-increasingly, widely available for anyone interested in them. Online gambling services represent a concrete modality by means of which a very important industry in Europe – the third largest in Italy, generating EUR 75 billion – is nourished on a daily basis.

The principle of subsidiarity between Member States applies here. Evidently, there is certainly a need to combat any instances relating to the illegal use of these activities. Illegal online gambling – that is, unauthorised online gambling – must be punished as a transnational offence and, in such cases, Member States should also cooperate with each other. Organised crime and money laundering are the negative aspects of this industry, and one should also recall the extent to which addiction can especially harm vulnerable individuals; in order to tackle addiction, an interdisciplinary approach supported by appropriately equipped health authorities should be adopted. However, it is an important system which, economically, should be aided and supported within a normative framework, in which the presence of the European Union can be advantageous.

  Bendt Bendtsen (PPE). – (DA) Madam President, I voted in favour of the report today, but I did not vote in favour of paragraph 20 or what is stated in paragraph 20. I understand the purpose behind what is stated there, but I think it is rather poorly worded. I think it is important that there should be a demonstrable intention to break the rules. If we have different rules in 27 Member States, there is no point shutting down one business if a mistake is made. We need to give them the opportunity to remedy the situation before we shut down their business in other Member States as well.

There is one issue to which I would just like to draw attention. In principle, online gambling has made gambling more accessible, and that has resulted in more gambling addicts. I would strongly urge the Commission to ensure that gambling operators also pay for the treatment of addicts. It is currently often left to religious organisations and others to take care of addicts. In other words, the gambling operators must be involved in paying for the damage that they cause. It could be a very small proportion of their turnover – we are probably talking per mille – but I do not think that the job of clearing up after online gambling should be the responsibility of the Member States alone.

  Cristiana Muscardini (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the topic for discussion is the Commission’s communication on online gambling. The development of gambling and its horizontal growth across various social sectors certainly begins to cause concern with regard to the negative implications entailed, such as the involvement of minors and vulnerable adults in a high-risk activity, particularly in the case of children – and this risk is not simply of a financial nature, but is, first and foremost, a moral one.

My recent written inquiry regarding video games was concerned with gambling games in which minors could take part, and asked what initiatives should be undertaken to provide a remedy for the anomaly.

The current concerns of the Commission and the resolution for which we have voted clearly put forward the need for a proposal on a directive which defines the minimum applicable standards across the whole of Europe. These standards should be binding for all authorised operators who offer online gambling services, and should grant Member States the power to supplement and improve upon them by formulating their own standards. For this reason, we hope that the Commission puts forward a definitive proposal on this subject as soon as possible.

  Mario Pirillo (S&D). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, in the last five years, gambling has spread over the whole of Europe. In Italy, according to the state monopolies, online gambling increased by 153% from 2008 to 2009, and by 29% from 2009 to 2010. These worrying figures provide evidence of the widespread impact of this phenomenon. We must consider this issue seriously.

Although online gambling falls within the jurisdiction of the Member States, common actions must be established across Europe to protect vulnerable consumers and to tackle illegal gambling. The report on the initiative opens the door to actions which I hope will soon be initiated and I agree that there is a need to implement preventative measures with a view to reducing addictive behaviour. The trials taking place in some countries could set the measure for ‘best practice’ to be replicated all over Europe, with the aim of monitoring the phenomenon and promoting responsible gambling.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, online gambling is a continually growing market whose turnover has exceeded EUR 10 billion. Currently, responsibility for keeping the gambling market in check lies with individual Member States, but the more delicate question at stake here concerns the proliferation via the Internet of an unregulated black market of considerable dimensions, whose principal protagonists are located in Asia.

The idea that the principle of subsidiarity should be respected at the level of individual Member States remains pivotal, but in order to be able to combat external dangers it is advisable to guarantee coordination across the EU. These dangers relate to protecting not only consumers, but also revenues on the part of Member States which rely upon tax generated by so-called legal gambling.

Another significant point is linked to the difficulty of accurately detecting the identity and age of gamblers on the Internet. The Commission and the Member States must intervene without delay in order to protect European consumers from bogus operators and from the risk of addiction.

  Mitro Repo (S&D). – (FI) Madam President, the report on gambling was adopted by the Committee with an overwhelming majority of votes. I voted in favour of it, but I wish to say that the rapporteur changed the report fundamentally, although he himself did vote in favour of it. This, I think, was somewhat surprising.

As the report states, the purpose of the Commission’s Green Paper is not at all to reduce regulation and open up the online gambling market. The Green Paper has mainly initiated a public dialogue between the various actors, thus providing a welcome alternative to the decisions of the Court of Justice. In the report, it quite rightly states that gambling policy in Europe needs to be clarified. We must also do all we can to take action against illegal betting.

Moreover, the report’s major message, that there should be strong support for national decision making, is absolutely vital. Gambling is something quite different from ordinary economic activity. Given this, there are good arguments for organising gambling games so that they are covered by national legislation. This would take into account the special features of Member States and, furthermore, their levels of consumer protection.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the online gambling sector is constantly expanding, with a turnover of several billion euro along with many problematic issues that need to be resolved. Therefore, I fully agree with the adoption of all those measures which are aimed at safeguarding the integrity of the sport, even by means of greater coordination between the Member States and the various sports federations.

Last year, Mr Iacolino and I presented an inquiry calling for the decisive intervention of European institutions to prevent instances of fraud concerning fixed sports events, and to tackle the potential for the interference of organised crime in European sports; we asked, as in the text put to the vote today, for a mutual definition of fraud in sports and for harmonisation of sanctions across Europe. For this reason, I voted in favour today.

  Kay Swinburne (ECR). – Madam President, as shadow rapporteur on the ECON Committee opinion, I have supported the Creutzmann report on online gambling as it acknowledges that a uniform European legislative act would not be appropriate to deal with the whole of the gambling sector.

However, it recognises where there would be clear added value from a coordinated European approach, in addition to additional national regulation in certain areas, such as in administrative cooperation. Given the cross-border nature of online gambling services, this seems appropriate. It also goes some way towards enhancing protection for vulnerable consumers, such as those adopted in the common advertising standards, and developing a blacklist of illegal gambling providers. This is a step in the right direction that acknowledges the cross-border nature of this sector.

  Diane Dodds (NI). – Madam President, I welcome this discussion on online gambling. What is of most concern when one considers online gambling is the increasing ease of access to online gambling sources via the Internet, interactive TV and apps for smartphones. Gambling seems to be everywhere. You cannot escape advertising for betting in newspapers and television, at sporting occasions, and it now seems that there is very much a cultural acceptance of this as a fun thing to do. Sadly, while some people may get enjoyment, there are, for many, the miseries that online gambling brings.

In September 2008, a report by the Gambling Commission in the United Kingdom showed that between 10% and 14% of young people are at risk of developing gambling problems, while between 5% and 7% were said to be problem gamblers. The studies examined by the Commission categorised those young people as under the age of 18. This is a shocking statistic, but not surprising.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – Madam President, one of the noticeable changes in my country in recent years is the closure of so many public houses and the opening of betting shops. Side by side with that has been the growth of online betting particularly, as many people have pointed out, amongst young people. It is a worrying trend and it is one that needs to be contained.

You also have the possibility – indeed the probability – of illegal online gambling which is used to launder money, etc. So there is definitely a need for tighter regulation for a number of reasons: firstly, so that those who are providing the activity, particularly sports bodies, can get something back in return; secondly, as has been pointed out, to deal with addiction, rather than leave it to Member States on their own; and thirdly, of course, to control it so that it is legal and not illegal. All those matters are important. Cross-border mutual state cooperation is very important.

  Julie Girling (ECR). – Madam President, I am happy to support this report tackling the issues around online gambling. It is an issue with which I am very familiar, not because I am much of a gambler myself, but because in my own constituency – in Gibraltar in fact – we have an exemplar of how regulation can work well.

For those concerned about the application of consumer protection, I can do no better than to advise them to visit the Rock and its online gambling industry. The advanced use of computer-based algorithms to monitor activity, both from the point of view of gambler behaviour and from the point of view of detecting large-scale fraud, is truly impressive. This report calls for much which is already in place there. You do not need to re-invent the wheel; just have a look at how it can be done.

  Anna Záborská (PPE). – (SK) Madam President, smoking is harmful to health. Tobacco advertising leads to an increase in smoking. Society therefore increasingly restricts this kind of advertising. Although health falls within the jurisdiction of Member States, regulation of the sale of tobacco products is pan-European.

Poverty is also harmful to health. Habitual gambling leads to poverty, but in this case, the responsibility rests on the shoulders of Member States. Smoking and gambling both harm people and are addictive. While the Member States can act effectively in regulating the sale of cigarettes, it is regulated by the EU. In the regulation concerning online gambling, however, we are proposing respect for the different cultural traditions of individual Member States.

I voted in favour of the report, but I have two questions. What do we really mean by subsidiarity? Do we apply it only when it suits us?

  Christofer Fjellner (PPE). – (SV) Madam President, the gaming market in Europe is cross-border in nature. Therefore, it needs and is awaiting a European response. This Green Paper is very welcome and important, but the Commission must now go further and take action. The European Parliament’s demands that we are voting on today are very clear. First and foremost, the Commission is, and must act as, the Guardian of the Treaties. The Commission must take action against Member States that do not have a coherent gaming policy and that exclude trustworthy, lawful providers from other countries. Secondly, we need European rules for responsible gaming.

Gambling addition is a major problem in Europe, but sometimes it almost seems as if the finance ministers’ dependency on gaming revenue is even greater. We must therefore ensure that the EU guarantees a good level of protection for all consumers who gamble across borders. The Member States may not like it, but consumers will. The protection must then go with them. The Commission must demonstrate that it is on the side of the consumers – rather than seeking to obtain revenue from gaming.

Report: Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (A7-0359/2011)

  Andrea Zanoni (ALDE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, protecting bees means protecting all pollinating insects, agriculture, the environment and the ecosystem. I have abstained from voting on the resolution of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development because it is incomplete and not effective enough.

The use of neonicotinoid pesticides to treat maize seeds in agriculture has led to the destruction of millions of bees. In Italy, we have experienced losses of between 30% and 70% of hives, causing serious damage to beekeepers, bees and the environment. In the two years that Italy has prohibited the use of these pesticides, two important results have come about: the bee population has recovered, and it has been demonstrated that maize production has not diminished without the use of pesticides.

Today’s resolution has been a missed opportunity to call for the banishment across Europe of neonicotinoid pesticides. Europe should undertake to defend this most important natural asset on a wider scale and with greater conviction. Albert Einstein said, ‘If all the bees died, man would have four years to live’.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, beekeeping is an activity which provides numerous jobs – around 600 000 – and is a valuable bastion of agro-environmental biodiversity.

I believe it is crucial to protect the distinctive features of beekeeping that exist in the different Member States and to promote professional training schemes geared towards increasing the technical and scientific level of the relevant human resources both in the agricultural phase and in the retail phase, by means of information and product marketing measures aimed at getting honey accepted as one of the essential elements of a healthy diet.

Therefore, what is needed is a strategic recovery plan that takes into account the many factors – from those that are institutional and administrative to those that are veterinary – able to provide that impetus for growth which all European agriculturalists are awaiting. The report approved today takes steps in this direction and I firmly support it with my vote, as it upholds, amongst other things, the interests of all European beekeepers.

  Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE). – (PL) Madam President, annual honey production decreased in Poland by 4 000 tonnes in the last 10 years, and the number of bee families decreased from 2 000 000 to 1 800 000. In other countries of the European Union these declines have been much more dramatic. These data show that the population of this most useful of insects is dying at an alarming rate. In the EU, 80% of crops are pollinated by bees, so it is important to change the policy being followed in this sector.

The processes that are currently taking place can leave irreversible effects in the ecosystem, and yet one of the priorities for future agricultural policy is to work actively for biodiversity. Money is needed to study the bee population, the reasons for its decline and the treatment of apian disease. We should also pay attention to human activity, which, through a more informed use of chemicals, can contribute to the creation of favourable conditions for the development of beekeeping. I did, of course, vote in favour of the report.

  Mario Pirillo (S&D). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, today’s vote has drawn attention to the beekeeping sector, which plays a crucial role in European agriculture by helping to maintain biodiversity and provides an income for around 600 000 workers in the European Union.

I consider the programme launched by the European Commission for monitoring the health of honeybees to be a useful one that has the aim of identifying the reasons behind their increased mortality rate in recent years. The impact of pesticides on the health of bees must be explored in more detail.

I have voted in favour of the report and I am disappointed that the reference to a correlation between some pesticides and bee mortality has not been supported, as proposed by the rapporteur. I call on the European Commission to provide greater financial aid to the beekeeping sector in the new common agricultural policy (CAP) for 2014-2020.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Madam President, I welcome the vote in favour of this report on the day we are debating the subject of the common agricultural policy. I voted for it because it is vital to create a common insurance system for protecting beekeepers during crises. This professional group is on the wane, especially due to the shortage of young workers. The only Member States where such a situation is not being seen are Romania and Bulgaria.

I must emphasise the importance of point 30: the impact of pesticides on larvae needs to be assessed in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. At the moment, the authorisation procedure does not take into account all their effects on bees. The EU reference laboratory for bee health was created to study and prevent the effects of substances of this nature. Its coordination with the national authorities also ensures information is provided in real time about the occurrence of particular diseases.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union is currently committed to defining the contents of the new common agricultural policy. I believe that the beekeeping sector is an integral part of our agriculture. Indeed, 84% of plant species and 76% of food production in Europe are dependent on pollination by bees. In order to preserve the health of bees, it is important to put specific and effective interventions into practice, not only on a national level but also across Europe, in such a way as to guarantee an appropriate harmonisation of surveillance systems.

Another problem is linked to the inappropriate and excessive use of pesticides which can have negative consequences and cause excessive bee mortality, and which are tolerated in different ways by the Member States, so as to distort competition on the internal market. In support and defence of our quality produce, I am in favour of the request for obligatory indication on the label of source and country of origin. Our fight has always been concerned with informing and protecting the consumer.

The risks derived from the use of GMO crops in agriculture should also be taken into serious consideration. Recently, the European Court has intervened, acknowledging that beekeepers have the right to be compensated for their losses.

  Giommaria Uggias (ALDE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I was among those who signed the alternative resolution on the health of honeybees, because the report put forward by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (AGRI) completely rejected the recommendations indicated in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI) opinion, for which I was a shadow rapporteur.

The plague inflicted upon bees is a problem which is becoming more and more serious, and there is plenty of scientific confirmation to show the damage caused by pesticides and monocultures. In order to understand this, we only have to think of areas of the world, for instance certain valleys in China, where pollination is now carried out by hand precisely as a result of uninhibited overuse of particular types of pesticides over time.

Yet, the report approved today by the European Parliament has not taken a stance on this topic. We lack a critical objective on the toxicity of pesticides, specifically, the prohibition of systematic neurotoxins; we lack indications for the beekeeping sector relating to contamination of honey produce by GMO crops; we lack a critique on monoculture; and we lack the idea that large-scale changes are required in agriculture, including crop rotation, to reduce the use of pesticides, with a view to reversing the sharp decline in the production of pollinators.

  Kay Swinburne (ECR). – Madam President, as we are all aware, the honeybee population has seen a stark decline these past few years, which subsequently could have a devastating effect on Europe’s ability to produce crops that require pollination. A number of factors have been attributed to this decline, and Welsh beekeepers – although they themselves are increasing in number – are concerned about their bee population’s long-term survival. Indeed, such is the revival of beekeeping in the UK that even the London Stock Exchange now boasts beehives on its London City roof.

The Tabajdi report offers a balanced view of reasons for honeybee mortality and rightly calls for more research funding to be made available from the FP8 programme to focus on bee disease prevention and to find possible solutions. I hope researchers look globally for case studies and do not begin from a prejudiced viewpoint with respect to certain pesticides and genetic technologies. Independent research needs to be just that: independent and without bias.

  Diane Dodds (NI). – Madam President, whilst it is true that in general, the bee population is declining, it is also equally true that their importance within agriculture is undervalued by many. Without bees, many crops would fail and in Northern Ireland, we are particularly privileged to have a very good product in the Armagh Bramley apple. These orchards are, of course, especially reliant on bees for pollination, and on a recent visit to some orchard owners, they expressed grave concern over the bee population.

I agree that funding should be made available to research the disease and monitor bee populations across Europe. However, I would plea for a balanced view of the decline of the bee population; we must not use agriculture as a scapegoat for this, but actually investigate ways of improving the bee population and the disease and parasites that affect it.

  Julie Girling (ECR). – Madam President, I am happy to support the Agriculture Committee’s report on honeybee health. I was, in fact, the person who drew up the Environment Committee’s opinion and was not able to vote for it because it was hijacked by non-scientifically-validated concerns about pesticides, which were knee-jerk and disproportionate. I regret that this also found its way into an alternative resolution, which I am pleased was rejected by this plenary.

As we move into a world containing our seven billionth citizen, it is more and more important that we make sure that agricultural production and productivity move forward. I welcome the Commission’s extra resource to Member States. I very much welcome the setting up of the reference laboratory in France. I would recommend all Members visit or at least have a look at the work that they are doing. We need to do far more to develop veterinary medicines to tackle the effect of the Varroa virus and parasites, and we need to stick with our programme on plant protection, where we have regulation which is coming into force.

Report: Peter Simon (A7-0371/2011)

  Bendt Bendtsen (PPE). – (DA) Madam President, I think it is very important that we now have clear rules in this area. We were in need of simpler rules, for both the national and the local authorities, with regard to State aid. One thing that has created legal uncertainty is the very vague definition of services of economic interest and services of no economic interest. I therefore think it is good that we will now hopefully have a clearer definition in this area. It is also good that we will increase the thresholds for exemption from the requirement of notification to a level, and in those areas, where it will have no detrimental effect on trade. That will actually make it easier for the national or regional authorities to comply with the rules that we lay down.

  Raffaele Baldassarre (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of Mr Simon’s report since I fully agree with the urgency to bring more clarity and directness to the application of rules on State aid to services of general economic interest. In particular, I believe that there is widespread agreement on the urgency to draw up de minimis measures for services of general interest which do not substantially affect commerce between Member States.

Having said this, I have some reservations on the approach chosen by the Commission. In fact, I believe that the excessive quantity of texts, between communications, decision and regulation, runs the risk of confusing the normative framework and of making it appear confused and difficult to understand rather than contributing to a genuine and functional updating of existing rules as required.

  Morten Messerschmidt (EFD). – (DA) Madam President, I voted in favour of this report, but I am nevertheless taking the floor because I believe that the whole issue should be seen in a wider context. Once again in this area, we politicians, who are democratically elected, are being pulled around the circus ring by the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. We find that the Court has once again issued a ruling, most recently in the Altmark case, that means that we – as a reaction to what the Court in Luxembourg has said – ought to amend the rules. It ought to be the case in a democracy that it is the politicians that sit at the head of the table, not the officials. I think that we should have a debate on how, in principle, we can restructure the system so that, to a greater extent, it is we elected representatives that make the rules, instead of us simply rushing around afterwards to follow the rules laid down by the judges in Luxembourg – with good intentions, I am sure, but without being democratically elected. In other words, I think that this matter raises a question of principle with regard to how the rules – particularly those in the area of health – come into being.

  Kay Swinburne (ECR). – Madam President, in my opinion, the report on the reform of EU State aid rules on services of general economic interest is of concern as it extends the definition of social services of general interest, which could be to the detriment of competition across the whole of the EU single market. The value-creating potential of the private sector will not be fully realised as long as the public sector still has unfair competitive advantages applied to it. The privileges enjoyed by the public sector therefore have a negative impact on the EU’s economic strength as a whole, and should be terminated immediately. Failure to come to this conclusion is why I have voted against this report.

  Julie Girling (ECR). – Madam President, I voted against this report because it does far too little to break up the cosy cushion of privilege often enjoyed across Europe by the public sector. Far more work needs to be done in this area. My constituents in the South West of England believe that there is an unfair application of State aid rules and this is a major factor in undermining their confidence in, and support for, the single market.

This failure of confidence in the functioning of the single market then permeates through to discontent with the European Union as a whole. I do not believe that my constituents are particularly unique in this, so I do believe that this is an area that should have far more attention from this Parliament in order to increase confidence in the work that this Parliament does. I regret that this report does not go far enough, and I look forward to more action on this area in the future.

  Andreas Schwab (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, to a certain extent, this report concerns the issue of the internal market having an impact on our doorsteps. Many mayors, people in positions of authority and office holders underestimate the importance of the effect of the internal market right outside our front doors. For this reason, this report is a step in the right direction. On the one hand, we are calling for a distinction to be made between economic and non-economic services of general interest. This sounds hugely complex, but ultimately it involves very concrete measures when it is a question of allowing specific bus routes or specific social housing construction to be subsidised by local politicians on a small scale. However, the general principles of the internal market must, of course, play a role in this respect. It goes without saying that efficiency takes priority over local responsibilities.

Secondly, I am very pleased and very grateful that it has been possible to rule out Article 14 as the basis for the regulations on issues concerning State aid. The European Parliament has made its position clear, partly as a result of our efforts on the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. This will have a very positive impact on the further stages of the discussion.

Report: Frédéric Daerden (A7-0370/2011)

  Ramona Nicole Mănescu (ALDE). – (RO) Madam President, I am deeply concerned that young people and children feature among the most vulnerable social groups. I voted for the measures ensuring not only access to high-quality education and vocational training, but also for stepping up the efforts to reduce the school dropout rate. Member States must take action as a priority to combat dropping out of school, but the rate of 10% envisaged in the EU 2020 strategy is not ambitious enough to be able to guarantee a solution to this problem. At a time when the youth unemployment rate is so high in Europe, combating the problem of dropping out of school and preventing it are key issues.

I believe that this report is largely good and includes specific, necessary measures which I also voted for. However, I was unable to vote for the proposal for a framework directive on framework services of general interest or for a European legislative initiative imposing a minimum income, since I believe that these aspects come rather under the sovereignty and jurisdiction of Member States.

  Raffaele Baldassarre (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, over 80 million people in Europe are threatened by poverty. The economic crisis has aggravated this situation, leaving the weakest fringes of society exposed. I have therefore voted in favour of Mr Daerden’s report; I particularly appreciated its comprehensiveness and the number of issues raised, making for an effective fight against poverty. I refer specifically to the close examination of cooperation between states, to the definition of common principles to establish the so-called ‘basket’ of goods and services that are essential and accessible to all, and to the fight against child poverty.

In the same way, I agree with the lines of action drawn up by the Commission, in particular, the priority of better use of Structural Funds, which could play an essential role in the development of innovative approaches and of specific programmes in the fight against poverty.

  Paul Murphy (GUE/NGL). – Madam President, this report comes at a time when poverty is returning on a mass scale to haunt Europe. There are 116 million people in the EU at risk of poverty. Youth unemployment rates now stand at over 40% in Greece and Spain, in Ireland it stands at over 29%, and because of the driving down of wages and conditions, even those with a job are not immune from the risk of poverty, with 22% of those still at risk of poverty.

The fact that this report was passed by a large majority brings to mind the quote from Shakespeare, ‘words, words, mere words, no matter from the heart’. This is precisely the same Parliament that has voted in favour of the likes of economic governance, in support of savage austerity dressed up as so-called fiscal consolidation: the same policies of savage attacks on people’s living standards, savage attacks on public services that have resulted in more people being at risk of poverty and social exclusion.

If we are serious about tackling poverty, it means putting an end to austerity, it means tackling the power of the 1% in society – the speculators, the banks, the big corporations like the energy companies that will profit this winter while thousands die of fuel poverty. It means tackling that power, taking wealth and power out of those hands and using it instead to invest and to create jobs and public services.

  Morten Messerschmidt (EFD). – (DA) Madam President, I have to admit that I found reading this report disturbing. Just consider the passage ‘poverty is the unacceptable reflection of an uneven distribution of wealth’. What sort of report is this? A communist manifesto? Poverty is not simply a result of an uneven distribution of wealth, but of unequal access to opportunities. Calling poverty a reflection of the fact that wealth has not been properly distributed simply makes people passive participants; it turns people into objects that merely receive benefits on the basis of a fair distribution as determined by politicians.

When I read this report, I could not help but think of the American Declaration of Independence, where Jefferson describes ‘unalienable rights’ as being ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’. That is how politicians set people free, namely, by saying that it is people’s own responsibility to create their fortune – to establish their own ‘pursuit of happiness’ – not by saying that it is politicians’ responsibility to distribute whatever resources may be available evenly. This is a disgraceful report. It could have been written during the Soviet era.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Madam President, I would like to point out that I voted for this report because poverty and social exclusion affect people’s quality of life. In Romania, as all over the world for that matter, mining settlements offer jobs. Towns like Roşia Montană have a mono-industry economy in mining. Reopening these mines offers a chance for local inhabitants to have a better living. Social welfare systems must offer security against the risks and provide effective support to those in trouble.

In my country, the social welfare law adopted recently by the Senate promotes the principle of reintegrating the unemployed into the labour market. Social inclusion policies need to be supplemented by programmes combating multiple forms of discrimination. The National Agency for Equal Opportunities for Women and Men supports the principle of gender equality in all national policies.

  Bendt Bendtsen (PPE). – (DA) Madam President, the vote on the report on the European platform against poverty and social exclusion was not by a show of hands. Firstly, I would like to say that the reason why I am voting against it is because the principle of subsidiarity has not been complied with. I am surprised that we actually want the EU to introduce minimum wages. It is stated in paragraph 95 that this is to be done in full compliance with the principle of subsidiarity. This sentence alone actually renders paragraph 95 redundant. We cannot introduce minimum wages via the EU without violating the principle of subsidiarity.

In Denmark, we have a model in which the social partners reach an agreement on the setting of wages by negotiation. That is the Nordic model in which the social partners negotiate wage levels themselves. The workers are very much in agreement with this and they are united in this agreement. They therefore adopt this principle. Another key paragraph in this report concerns the food distribution scheme. The fact that the EU could previously help to feed the poor by using the intervention stocks was great; it was good that butter mountains and milk lakes were at least, to a certain extent, used for something useful. However, the scheme should be abolished because it is out of date. We no longer have these surplus stocks.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the dramatic financial crisis which we are experiencing has aggravated further still the situation of millions of European citizens living in poverty or in conditions of semi-poverty and marginalisation. The fight against early school leaving, easier access to European funds and better use of these funds, more attentive and efficient use of social welfare – these are just a few of the steps forward that need to be taken in order to reach the ambitious objective of reducing the number of people living in insecurity to 20 million before 2020.

For these reasons, I have voted in favour, as I am aware that only with a collective, well-coordinated effort will it be possible to reduce the number of people living in need within the European Union.

  Julie Girling (ECR). – Madam President, I voted against this report because it will be completely ineffectual in doing what it purports to do. The way to fight poverty is to provide solid, reliable and flexible employment. This can only flow from strong and growing economies. This is where we should be placing our emphasis.

Youth unemployment is a scandal and it will not be resolved by the Commission interfering in Member States’ actions on minimum wages or by any of the other proposals in this report. Micro-management from Brussels has never solved anything. This report has lots of wishful thinking and worthy words, and lets down the people it purports to support.

Written explanations of vote

Report: Klaus-Heiner Lehne (A7-0348/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) In view of the recommendations of the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, I am voting for the position at first reading.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I welcome this recasting of the coordination of safeguards required of companies within the meaning of Article 54 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Coordination of these safeguards is required so as to protect the interests of members and third parties, in respect of the formation of public limited liability companies, and the maintenance and alteration of their capital. The purpose of this recasting is to make such safeguards equivalent throughout the Union.

  Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the European Parliament legislative resolution of 15 November 2011 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on coordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 54 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in respect of the formation of public limited liability companies and the maintenance and alteration of their capital, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent. Every five years, the European Parliament and the Council, acting on a proposal from the Commission in accordance with Article 50(1) and (2)(g) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, will examine and, if need be, revise the amount expressed in paragraph 1 in euro in the light of economic and monetary trends in the Union and of the tendency towards allowing only large and medium-sized enterprises to opt for the types of company listed in Annex I.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I agree with the rapporteur and the opinion published by the three legal services of the European institutions that the proposal in question does not include any substantive amendments and is limited solely to straightforward codification of the existing texts, without any change to their substance.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report, drafted by Mr Lehne, concerns a proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council whose purpose is the coordination of safeguards which, to protect the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies, pursuant to Article 54(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in respect of the formation of public limited liability companies and the maintenance and alteration of their capital, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent throughout the European Union. Given that the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission has published an opinion that the proposal does not include any substantive amendments, and that it is limited to codification of the unchanged provisions of the earlier act and is therefore restricted to straightforward codification of the existing acts, I am voting for the report on this proposal for a directive.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) There have been numerous substantial amendments to the second Council Directive 77/91/EEC of December 1976 on coordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in respect of the formation of public limited liability companies and the maintenance and alteration of their capital, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent. Due to further amendments, it would be appropriate, on the grounds of transparency, to recast this directive.

The Consultative Working Party consisting of the respective legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission met for the purpose of examining, among others, the proposal submitted by the Commission, and concluded that the proposal does not comprise any substantive amendments (other than those proposed in the draft of the recast text) and, as regards the codification of the unchanged provisions of the earlier acts with those substantive amendments, that the proposal contains a straightforward codification of the existing texts, without any change in their substance.

  Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (S&D), in writing. – (PL) The European Parliament’s proposal on coordination of safeguards required of companies, which finds expression in the amendments to the proposed directive, will significantly improve the scope of the law in this field. In its role as legislator, the European Union has done more in the field of company law than in any other area of private law. Using directives to harmonise legislation in different Member States reduces the risk associated with the existence of differences in the legal systems of different Member States. The protection of shareholders, creditors and economic partners and creating the right basis for an economic space without internal borders, in which the most important legal conditions applied to companies are the same, should be a priority for us.

Legislation which is adopted must not hinder the growth of European companies; it should, however, stimulate integration of the European internal market by guaranteeing firms a freedom of movement similar to that which exists in national markets. I hope that further work on harmonisation of the law in this area will tend to improve the position of firms and other interested parties, and also that implementation in this area will be carried out with ever greater efficiency.

  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 does not include any substantive amendments other than those identified as such in the proposal and, in terms of the codification of the unamended provisions of the earlier acts together with those amendments, the proposal contains a straightforward codification of the existing texts without any change to their substance.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this proposal in which, according to the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission do not include any substantive amendments other than those identified as such in the proposal and whereas, as regards the codification of the unchanged provisions of the earlier acts together with those amendments, the proposal contains a straightforward codification of the existing texts, without any change in their substance.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the Lehne report. It is, in fact, appropriate to replace the existing secondary legal basis with the ordinary legislative procedure. The amendment tabled is rightly aimed at this.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. – I voted in favour of this report, which provides legal certainty in respect of the formation of public limited liability companies and the maintenance and alteration of their capital, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of this report, which ensures legal certainty in respect of the formation of public limited liability companies, and the maintenance and alteration of their capital, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent throughout the EU.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The report describes the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on coordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 54 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in respect of the formation of public limited liability companies and the maintenance and alteration of their capital, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent. What is more I would like to see these measures be transparent and accessible for implementation of comprehensive control. Therefore, I voted ‘In favour’.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcome this proposal, which contains a straightforward codification of the existing texts without any change to their substance. I believe that when adopting new amendments, it is appropriate to recast the directive in the interests of legal clarity. Furthermore, in cases where it is necessary to go beyond straightforward codification and make substantive changes in a speedy manner, the Commission will be able to choose, on a case-by-case basis, whether to recast its proposal or whether to submit a separate proposal for amendment, leaving its codification proposal on the table, and then, once the substantive change has been adopted, incorporate it into the proposal for codification. The legislative process will thus be more flexible and swift. It should be noted that, in order to ensure minimum equivalent protection for both shareholders and creditors of public limited liability companies, national provisions relating to their formation and to the maintenance, increase or reduction of their capital must be coordinated.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on coordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of Article 54(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in respect of the formation of public limited liability companies and the maintenance and alteration of their capital, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent. This text is the result of an interinstitutional agreement analysed by the Consultative Working Party of the legal services, which concluded that the proposal does not comprise any substantive amendments and that, as regards the codification of the unchanged provisions of the earlier act, the proposal contains a straightforward codification of the existing texts, without any change to their substance. I voted in favour for these reasons.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Since there are instances of imprecision in the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on coordination of safeguards which are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 54 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, such as the format of the text, the use of appropriate adaptation markers, as well as issues concerning shading, and taking into account that the proposal does not contain any other substantial amendment other than those indicated, I voted in favour of re-codifying the existing texts.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Given that the purpose of this directive is the codification of texts that were disparate, with benefits in terms of the accessibility and comprehensibility of the legislation, without making any changes to their substance, and that the individual amendments introduced have already been accepted by the Committee on Legal Affairs, I voted in favour.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. On the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on coordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 54 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in respect of the formation of public limited liability companies and the maintenance and alteration of their capital, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent (recast) (COM(2011)0029 – C7-0037/2011 – 2011/0011(COD)) (ordinary legislative procedure – recast), 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 does not include any substantive amendments other than those identified as such in the proposal and whereas, as regards the codification of the unchanged provisions of the earlier acts together with those amendments, the proposal contains a straightforward codification of the existing texts, without any change in their substance, 1. Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out, taking into account the recommendations of the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission;

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report is technical in nature. It concerns the recasting of the Company Law Directive and its purpose is to remove the secondary legal basis from the directive’s text, as the Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled that it is illegal. As such, and in line with the opinion of the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, two amendments were made to the European Commission proposal in the Committee on Legal Affairs and I voted for them today in plenary.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) In the proposal for a directive on the coordination of safeguards required by the Member States for the formation of public limited companies and for the maintenance and alteration of their capital, the European Parliament has tabled two amendments concerning the revision of the minimum capital needed to establish a public limited company. I have voted in favour.

Recommendation: Brian Simpson (A7-0356/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report, whose unanimous recommendation regarding the Protocol to the Athens Convention is an evolutionary step, given that many cases have been insufficiently dealt with by the convention since 1974.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The carriage of passengers by sea is regulated by the Athens Convention of 1974. In 2002, a Protocol was adopted to fill a number of gaps in the convention, such as the carrier’s liability in case of fault and the compensation of passengers in the event of an accident. This Protocol is in keeping with Community policy on maritime safety. Since it offers more guaranties to passengers carried by sea, I decided to vote for the Simpson report.

  Adam Bielan (ECR), in writing. – (PL) The main objective of the Athens Convention, to which the Member States are bound, is the safety of passenger ships and regulation of the rights of their passengers. This does not mean, however, that action intended to improve legal protection should not be taken, particularly if it is in the interests of EU citizens. The convention has insufficiently regulated a number of issues, including the nature and extent of carriers’ liability and minimum requirements on insurance. So the current Protocol lays on carriers greater obligations towards passengers, specifies the liability for damages caused by accidents and also in the case of terrorist attacks, as well as the claims and the insurance procedures associated with such events. Another beneficial measure is the fact that the European Union has become a contracting partner to the Protocol, which increases its powers in this matter.

In expectation of an increase in the quality of services and the level of safety of maritime transport, I endorsed the resolution.

  Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The accession to the Athens Convention Relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea is a long-standing issue followed closely by the EU and by Parliament, in particular. This convention dates back to 1974 and concerns, in particular, the safety of passenger ships and passenger rights. However, it was considered that this convention did not regulate adequately a number of important issues, such as the nature and limits of the carriers’ liability and minimum insurance requirements. Being a mixed agreement requiring ratification by Member States, in order to achieve a coherent legal framework throughout the European Union, both Member States and the EU must prepare the simultaneous deposition of their instruments of ratification or accession by 31 December 2011.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the recommendation on the carriage of passengers and their luggage by sea, concerning the 1974 Athens Convention, because I agree with increasing the liability of maritime carriers. This increase has particular impact on cases of failure or negligence, and it is now also becoming mandatory for carriers to be properly insured and for users to be able to claim compensation directly from the insurer.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Whatever the mode of transport used, passengers have the right to be provided with a quality, safe service. I therefore view accession to the Athens Convention relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea positively. Its purpose is to ensure the safety of passenger ships and passenger rights, and to close certain loopholes in the regulations regarding liability of carriers at international level.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This proposal for a recommendation, drafted by Mr Simpson, relates to the draft Council decision concerning the accession of the European Union to the Protocol, adopted on 1 November 2002, to the Athens Convention relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea, with the exception of Articles 10 and 11 thereof. What was at stake was an issue as important as liability in case of fault or neglect by the carrier, compulsory insurance and the right to make claims directly against the insurer. Accession negotiations, started in 2003, were suspended and only restarted in 2007, after the Commission had tabled a complementary regulation in 2005 on the liability of carriers of passengers. In 2009, following four years of negotiations, the European Parliament and Council reached an agreement on Regulation (EC) No 392/2009, which stipulates that the EU has exclusive competence to accede to the Athens Protocol as far as the matters covered by the regulation are concerned, and that all other aspects of the Protocol will fall under Member State competence. As such, I welcome the adoption of this recommendation and the overcoming of a problem that has existed for almost 10 years.

  Jim Higgins (PPE), in writing. – I voted in favour as this represents an improved regime relating to the liability of shipping carriers and the compensation of passengers carried by sea. In particular, it obliges carriers to take out insurance.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed the proposal because the accession to the Athens Convention relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea is a long-standing issue dealt with by the EU and by the European Parliament in particular. The convention itself dates back to 1974, with the safety of passenger ships and passenger rights lying at its heart. It was, however, considered that the convention insufficiently regulated a number of substantive issues, including the nature and extent of the carriers’ liability and minimum requirements on insurance. The Committee on Legal Affairs is responsible for, inter alia, the interpretation and application of Union law and compliance of Union acts with primary law, notably the choice of legal bases, the interpretation and application of international law, insofar as the Union is affected, and measures concerning judicial and administrative cooperation in civil matters. The Committee on Legal Affairs is responsible for drafting the European Parliament legislative resolution on this decision. The other articles of the Athens Protocol concern amendments to the Athens Convention regarding the liability of a carrier, compulsory insurance, the limit on liability for death and personal injury or for loss of or damage to luggage and vehicles, and accounting and conversion issues. These are all issues relating to transport.

  Bogusław Liberadzki (S&D), in writing. – (PL) The Athens Convention was signed in 1974, but many questions concerning the safety of the carriage of passengers remained unresolved. As a member of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, I think maritime transport is a very important branch of transport, and it is one which is used by EU citizens. This document is of great importance in terms of the liability borne by carriers. In the case of fault or neglect by the carrier, passengers have a legal warrant to take action. It resolves issues related to the insurance of passengers and gives passengers the possibility of making direct claims against the insurer. I endorsed the report.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – The accession to the Athens Convention Relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea is a long-standing issue followed up by the EU and by the Parliament. The convention itself dates back to 1974 with the safety of passenger ships and passenger rights lying at its heart. It was, however, considered that the convention regulated insufficiently a number of substantive issues including the nature and extent of the carriers’ liability and minimum requirements on insurance. Under the aegis of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), the Protocol, which was adopted on 1 November 2002, amended the Athens Convention in a way that satisfied key elements such as liability in case of fault or neglect by the carrier, compulsory insurance and the right to make claims directly against the insurer.

The compensation of terrorism-related damages is addressed by IMO Guidelines and a reservation to the Protocol. Considering that most of the desirable elements were then covered by the Protocol, the Commission proposed in 2003 that the European Community become a contracting party to the Protocol of 2002 and that the Member States should do likewise. Negotiations within the Council on the conclusion were suspended, however, and were only resumed in December 2007.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I believe that at this moment, it is important for the EU to adhere to the Protocol of 2002 to the Athens Convention of 1974. I voted in favour, and agree with the choice of a mixed agreement and with the reasons for excluding Articles 10 and 11.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. – I voted in favour of this report that consents to accession of the European Union to the Protocol of 2002 to the Athens Convention relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea, 1974, with the exception of Articles 10 and 11 thereof.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report giving European Union assent to the 2002 Protocol of the 1974 Athens Convention relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea, with the exception of Articles 10 and 11.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – According to the convention, the carrier is responsible for damage incurred as the result of loss or damage to luggage, bodily harm inflicted on the passenger or his death, if damage occurred during transportation and was a consequence of the fault or negligence of the carrier, his employees or agents acting within the limits of their responsibilities. The complainant is required to prove guilt. The carrier is not responsible for the loss or damage of money, securities, gold, works of art or other valuables if they were not given to the carrier for storage. I am categorically against that norm of convention. After the Council had solved numerous issues that the convention had regulated insufficiently, such as the carrier’s liability in the event of fault or neglect, compulsory insurance and the right to make claims directly against the insurer, I supported the initiative.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) The convention of 1974 primarily concerns issues of safety and liability which can arise during the carriage of passengers and their luggage by sea. The convention was revised by means of a Protocol adopted in 2002 to allow for more efficient regulation of areas including liability in the case of fault or neglect by the carrier, compulsory insurance and the entitlement to make claims directly against the insurer. The Member States retain the right to regulate independently all the areas not covered by the Protocol. In addition, it is possible to specify higher limits of liability.

As Articles 10 and 11 of the Protocol relate to the areas of judicial cooperation in civil matters which come under the terms of Article 81 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, these provisions will be covered by a separate act. It goes without saying that accession to the Protocol involves the creation of a general legal framework which standardises the rights of passengers transported by sea in a positive way and, therefore, represents an improvement on the current situation. However, some of the provisions are unclear, which is why I have abstained.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcome and supported the draft Council decision concerning the accession of the European Union to the 2002 Protocol to the 1974 Athens Convention relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea, with the exception of Articles 10 and 11. It should be noted that, in order to properly guarantee the safety of passenger ships and passenger rights, it is very important for appropriate limits of liability to be set for carriers, particularly in cases of fault or neglect. I believe that it is only possible to achieve these objectives by establishing a uniform level and type of liability throughout the EU in the areas of international and national transport. We should welcome the fact that we have finally managed to reach an agreement and adopt a regulation and to give the EU exclusive competence to accede to the Athens Protocol as far as the matters covered by the regulation are concerned. I also believe that it is appropriate to give individual Member States the right to decide for themselves on issues that are not covered by the regulation.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The basis of this report is the draft Council decision concerning the accession of the European Union to the 1974 Athens Convention relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea. The primary aim of this convention is to ensure the safety of passenger ships and passenger rights. It was, however, considered that the convention regulated insufficiently a number of substantive issues, including the nature and extent of the carriers’ liability and minimum requirements on insurance. Some of these issues were overcome with a Protocol negotiated under the aegis of the International Maritime Organisation, which was adopted on 1 November 2002, amending the Athens Convention. However, the accession of the European Union and its Member States was not consensual and, following four years of negotiations, a complementary regulation was tabled on the liability of carriers of passengers by sea in the event of accidents, with a view to concluding the Protocol and incorporating most of the substantive provisions into EU law. It was adopted in 2009 and will apply by 2013. The aforementioned steps enabled accession to the convention. I voted for this report for these reasons.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) This draft decision, which concerns adhesion to the Athens Convention relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea, aims to guarantee valid criteria regarding elements relating to liability as well as minimum insurance requirements. Insufficient regulation relative to this subject urged the Commission to propose in 2003 that the European Community became a contracting party to the Protocol of 2002 and that the Member States followed suit. I agree on the importance of respecting fundamental elements such as liability in the event of fault or negligence by the carrier and compulsory insurance, and I therefore vote in favour of the draft decision.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The 1974 Athens Convention relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea was amended by the Protocol of 1 November 2002, which sought to introduce liability in case of fault or neglect by the carrier, compulsory insurance and the right to make claims directly against the insurer. These amendments were introduced into the Union statute book by Regulation (EC) No 392/2009, adopted on 23 April 2009. As there is nothing to prevent the conclusion of the agreement, I voted in favour.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. The accession to the Athens Convention relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea is a long-standing issue followed up by the EU and by the Parliament, in particular. The convention itself dates back to 1974 with the safety of passenger ships and passenger rights lying at its heart. It was, however, considered that the convention insufficiently regulated a number of substantive issues including the nature and extent of the carriers’ liability and minimum requirements on insurance. Under the aegis of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), the Protocol, which was adopted on 1 November 2002, amended the Athens Convention in a way that satisfied key elements such as liability in case of fault or neglect by the carrier, compulsory insurance and the right to make claims directly against the insurer. The compensation of terrorism-related damages is addressed by IMO Guidelines and a reservation to the Protocol. Considering that most of the desirable elements were then covered by the Protocol, the Commission proposed in 2003 that the European Community become a contracting party to the Protocol of 2002 and that the Member States should do likewise. Negotiations within the Council on the conclusion were suspended however, and were only resumed in December 2007.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The aim of the 1974 Athens Convention is to ensure the safety of passenger ships and passenger rights. The Protocol in question was signed in 2002 and includes issues such as liability in case of fault or neglect by the carrier, compulsory insurance and the right to make claims directly against the insurer. The proposal for the accession of the EU to the 2002 Protocol was requested in 2010, although certain aspects of it fall under Member State competence. Therefore, the institutions asked the Member States to ratify the Protocol, as the Union has done, so as to ensure a coherent legal framework in the EU.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the European Parliament resolution on the draft Council decision concerning the accession of the EU to the Protocol of 2002 to the Athens Convention Relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea, 1974, with the exception of Articles 10 and 11 thereof. This Protocol introduces clarifications about liability in case of fault or negligence by the carrier, compulsory insurance, the limit of liability for death or physical injury or damage to luggage or vehicles. The adoption of Regulation (EC) No 392/2009 on the liability of carriers of passengers by sea in the event of an accident entails that the EU now has exclusive competence to accede to the Athens Protocol as far as the matters covered by the regulation are concerned. All the other aspects of the Protocol which are not covered by the regulation come under Member States’ remit. The Athens Protocol continues to be a mixed agreement which each Member State must sign up to. With this in mind, Member States and the European Union must deposit the accession instruments on the same day. I must highlight the deadline of 31 December 2011, which is when the EU and Member States must deposit the instruments for joining the Athens Protocol or ratifying it, in the case of those which have already signed it.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) The Athens Convention of 1974 relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea primarily covered the safety of passenger ships and passengers’ rights. However, the provisions of the 1974 convention concerning the nature and extent of the carriers’ liability and the minimum requirements on insurance were inadequate and, therefore, the convention was amended accordingly by means of a Protocol in 2002. The European Commission submitted a proposal in 2005 for a further amendment to the Protocol, which involved standardising the liability of carriers in the case of accidents (this was updated in 2010). This act makes the EU a contracting party to the Athens Convention. I have voted in favour.

Recommendation: Klaus-Heiner Lehne (A7-0341/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this technical report, since it deals with important issues as regards judicial and civil cooperation, and will hopefully have important benefits regarding passengers’ rights.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the recommendation because I believe the measures therein serve the interests of the European public, by contributing to increasing the liability of maritime carriers and the defence of passengers’ rights.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Whatever the mode of transport used, passengers have the right to be provided with a quality, safe service. I therefore view accession to the Athens Convention relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea positively. Its purpose is to ensure the safety of passenger ships and passengers’ rights, and to close certain loopholes in the regulation regarding liability of carriers at international level.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This proposal for a recommendation, drafted by Mr Simpson, relates to the draft Council decision concerning the accession of the European Union to the Protocol, adopted on 1 November 2002, to the Athens Convention relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea, with the exception of Articles 10 and 11 thereof. Accession negotiations, started in 2003, were suspended and only restarted in 2007, after the Commission had tabled a complementary regulation in 2005 on the liability of carriers of passengers. In 2009, following four years of negotiations, the European Parliament and Council reached an agreement on Regulation (EC) No 392/2009, which stipulates that the EU has exclusive competence to accede to the Athens Protocol as far as the matters covered by the regulation are concerned, and that all other aspects of the Protocol will fall under Member State competence. This draft decision sets out the declarations to be made by the Union at the time of the deposit of the instrument of accession. As such, I welcome the adoption of this recommendation and the overcoming of a problem that has existed for almost 10 years.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report returns this issue to the Committee on Transport and Tourism, as the committee is considered competent to draft the European Parliament’s legislative resolution on the proposal for a decision relating to these articles with regard to the Athens Convention, whilst giving its assent to accession to the Protocol.

The 2002 Protocol to the 1974 Athens Convention relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea was intended to tackle certain loopholes in the regulation relating to the responsibility of international carriers. The majority of the articles of the Athens Protocol concern amendments to the Athens Convention regarding liability of a carrier, compulsory insurance, limit for liability for death and personal injury or for loss of or damage to luggage and vehicles, and accounting and conversion issues.

These points relate to transport, so it is right that the Committee on Transport and Tourism should be the committee competent for drafting the European Parliament’s legislative resolution on the proposal for a decision relating to these articles.

  Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I believe that the Protocol of 2002 to the Athens Convention of 1974 relating to the carriage of passengers and their luggage by sea could remedy certain shortfalls in the regime currently in force on the liability of carriers at international level. I voted in favour.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed the document because the majority of the articles of the Athens Protocol concern amendments to the Athens Convention regarding the liability of a carrier, compulsory insurance, the limit on liability for death and personal injury or for loss of or damage to luggage and vehicles, and accounting and conversion issues. These are all issues relating to transport, and the Committee on Transport is therefore responsible for drafting the European Parliament legislative resolution on the draft decision relating to those articles.

  Bogusław Liberadzki (S&D), in writing. – (PL) Despite the fact that a horizontal agreement has existed between the European Union and Jordan since 2008, the European Union wants to establish a Euro-Mediterranean aviation area between the EU and Jordan. This is because the EU-Jordan Euro-Mediterranean aviation agreement will facilitate the work of carriers from all Member States, and Jordan will become a country where aviation law will be adapted to EU requirements. Jordanian legislation on questions such as safety and air traffic management will be aligned with EU legislation. I think it is worth developing commercial relations with as large a partner as Jordan undoubtedly is. The agreement is also an element of the development of the EU’s neighbourhood policy. It is my expectation that, thanks to this agreement and the opening of this market, there will be an increase in passenger numbers and in revenues. I endorsed the report.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this technical report on the legal elements of the EU’s accession to the Athens Protocol in order that the Protocol can be applied by 2013 at the latest.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Mr Lehne’s recommendation is a useful instrument which facilitates better comprehension of the decision to split accession to Articles 10 and 11 from the rest of the Protocol. The above Articles concern issues relating to the jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments, and the relevant legal basis as regards these Articles is Article 81. I voted in favour.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report giving European Union assent to the 2002 Protocol of the 1974 Athens Convention relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea, with the exception of Articles 10 and 11.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – Since it has become clear that the legal elements of the Protocol relate to judicial cooperation in civil matters, particularly regarding passenger compensation, providing for strict liability and including compulsory insurance with a right of direct action against insurers up to a specified limit, I voted in favour.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report, which concerns report A7-0356/2011. In fact, the Committee on Legal Affairs is being called on to intervene because the legal basis of the act is at issue. The Committee on Legal Affairs is unanimously proposing that Parliament give its assent to accession to the Protocol. All aspects of the Protocol not provided for in Regulation (EC) No 392/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 are Member State competences. That is the case, for example, regarding the provisions relating to the possibility of setting liability limits higher than those provided for in the Protocol. As such, the agreement is a mixed one and has to be ratified by the Member States.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I agree with the notion that the Protocol of 2002 to the Athens Convention of 1974 on the transportation of passengers by sea is inadequate, as it lacks regulations relating to the liability of international carriers. Moreover, I believe that, as these are matters regarding transport, the Committee on Transport is responsible for drafting the European Parliament legislative decision. I must therefore vote in favour of the draft decision relating to Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The subject of Regulation (EC) No 392/2009 of the European Parliament and the Council of 23 April 2009 is the liability of carriers of passengers by sea in the event of accidents, and the intention was to include the amendments to the Athens Convention relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea introduced by the Protocol of 1 November 2003. The system introduced partially conflicts with that instituted by Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. As the Committee on Legal Affairs has not raised any reservations about concluding the agreement, I voted in favour.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. The 2002 Protocol to the Athens Convention relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea of 1974 aims at addressing certain shortcomings in the regulation of the liability of carriers at international level. Under Annex VII to the Rules of Procedure, the Committee on Legal Affairs is responsible for, inter alia, the interpretation and application of Union law and compliance of Union acts with primary law, notably, the choice of legal bases, the interpretation and application of international law, insofar as the Union is affected, and measures concerning judicial and administrative cooperation in civil matters. Since Articles 10 and 11 of the Athens Protocol concern questions relating to jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judgments, the relevant legal basis as far as those articles are concerned is Article 81(1) TFEU on judicial cooperation in civil matters. The Committee on Legal Affairs is thus the committee responsible for this aspect of accession to the Protocol.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The 2002 Protocol is intended to regulate matters concerning the liability of international carriers, which were expressed in the Athens Convention. Regulation (EC) No 392/2009 enabled the incorporation of these amendments into EU statute law. I am therefore voting in favour, since I consider consistency between European legislation and that of the Member States important, as well as because Parliament’s committees will have a voice in future amendments to the agreement.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) Articles 10 and 11 of the Athens Convention cover jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in each Member State. I have voted in favour.

Recommendations: Brian Simpson (A7-0356/2011), Klaus-Heiner Lehne (A7-0341/2011)

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The accession to the Athens Convention relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea is a long-standing issue followed up by the EU and by the Parliament.

The convention itself dates back to 1974 with the safety of passenger ships and passenger rights lying at its heart. It was, however, considered insufficient, and there is therefore a need to incorporate changes into it relating, above all, to carriers’ liability, compulsory insurance, a limit for liability for death and personal injury, or for loss of or damage to luggage and vehicles. The Protocol, which was adopted on 1 November 2002, amended the Athens Convention in a way that it also satisfied these key elements.

Considering that most of the desirable elements were then covered by the Protocol, the Commission proposed in 2003 that the EU, together with the Member States, became contracting parties to the Protocol. The Union now has exclusive competence to accede to the Athens Protocol as far as the matters covered by the regulation are concerned, and all other aspects of the Protocol which are not covered by the regulation belong to the competence of Member States. Taking into account the process applied in the case of international agreements, the accession to the Protocol is submitted to Parliament for consent and, in my opinion, it is also right for the Committee on Transport and Tourism to issue a positive opinion on the conclusion of this agreement.

Recommendation: Olga Sehnalová (A7-0347/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report because it harmonises the already existing bilateral agreements with European Union law.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Since the Barcelona Process (1995), which became the Union for the Mediterranean (2008) as a result of the impetus given by the French Presidency of the EU, Jordan and the EU have maintained economic, political, environmental and cultural relations, the European neighbourhood policy completing this Union. The Arab Spring, supported by the European Parliament, has shown the need to re-launch Euromed and to pursue integration of the EU and the countries to the south of the Mediterranean. This is why I gave my support to the Euro-Mediterranean Aviation Agreement between the EU and Jordan.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed the conclusion of this agreement, which replaces all of the bilateral agreements by creating a Euro-Mediterranean aviation area between the European Union and Jordan. The agreement establishes uniform standards for air carriers in all 27 European Union Member States and allows them to benefit from them. External studies carried out for the Commission estimate that the conclusion of a Euro-Mediterranean aviation agreement with Jordan would generate 54 000 extra passengers and consumer benefits of up to EUR 30 million in the first year of market opening.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The air services operated between the European Union and Jordan are based on bilateral agreements concluded between the Member States and Jordan.

The Commission recently negotiated a comprehensive agreement that is much more ambitious and replaces all the bilateral agreements by creating a Euro-Mediterranean aviation area between the European Union and Jordan, establishing uniform standards for air carriers in all 27 Member States.

The agreement in question has the following objectives: gradual market opening in terms of capacity and access to routes on a reciprocal basis; non-discrimination and a level playing field for economic operators; and alignment of Jordan’s aviation legislation with EU legislation on issues such as safety, security and air traffic management.

The conclusion of a Euro-Mediterranean aviation agreement with Jordan would generate 54 000 extra passengers and consumer benefits of up to EUR 30 million in the first year of market opening.

For all the above reasons, I voted for this recommendation.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I am voting in favour of the draft legislative resolution on the Euro-Mediterranean Aviation Agreement between the EU and Jordan. The agreement will allow for gradual market opening in terms of aviation routes and transport capacity and provide for the alignment of Jordan’s aviation legislation with EU legislation on issues such as air transport safety and air traffic management. Jordan and the EU came to this agreement in view of extending it to other EU partner countries in the Mediterranean area. I voted in favour of the draft resolution on the agreement.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for Ms Sehnalová’s report on the EU-Jordan Euro-Mediterranean aviation agreement. This agreement provides for gradual market opening in terms of access to routes and capacity on a level playing field. It will also strengthen security, safety and air traffic management.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The conclusion of the EU-Jordan Aviation Agreement plays an important role in developing the European neighbourhood policy. For this reason, I voted for this agreement, since it will enable both parties to gradually open up their markets to each other, in terms of capacity and access to routes. It is also crucial to promote a level playing field between these two markets, thereby enabling participation without discrimination, as well as the alignment of Jordan’s aviation legislation with EU legislation on issues such as safety, security and air traffic management.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The conclusion of a Euro-Mediterranean aviation agreement with Jordan is a long-standing EU priority, as it is an important element of the European neighbourhood policy. Moreover, this new agreement negotiated by the Commission brings obvious benefits, in that it replaces provisions of the current bilateral agreements with a horizontal agreement that restores a solid legal basis for EU-Jordan relations, setting out uniform conditions for the airlines of the 27 Member States. It should be noted that, to date, provision of these services has been conditional on the existence, or not, of bilateral agreements between each Member State and Jordan. The European Commission’s estimated figures for the first year of this new common aviation area are really positive: benefits to consumers will be around EUR 30 million and there should be 54 000 extra passengers.

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. – (PT) As Chair of the European Parliament’s Delegation for relations with the Mashreq countries, I was extremely satisfied to vote for this recommendation, because this agreement represents a long-standing priority for the EU, which the Commission estimates will generate 54 000 extra passengers and consumer benefits of EUR 30 million in the first year of market opening. This agreement is part of a wider objective for creating a common Euro-Mediterranean aviation area, and is perfectly in line with the objectives of the future European neighbourhood policy, for which I am the European Parliament’s co-rapporteur. I am therefore doubly satisfied – personally, as well as politically – to vote for this recommendation. This is a step towards strengthening EU-Jordan relations, since, as the rapporteur rightly says in his recommendation, relations between the EU and Jordan are based on the 2002 association agreement, whose objective is to establish an EU-Jordan free trade area. Moreover, both parties are working closely together on democratic reforms in Jordan and modernising its economy. The EU is also Jordan’s biggest trade partner after Saudi Arabia.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) This report, which I voted for today, concerns the agreement to gradually open up markets in terms of access to routes and capacity on a reciprocal basis. In addition, it will strengthen the safety, security and management of Jordan’s air traffic once its legislation has been aligned.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this recommendation because it supports the re-establishment of direct flights between EU airspace and Jordan, which I consider an important step in bringing these regions closer together again. The aforementioned recommendation seems balanced to me, since it promotes the gradual opening up of the aviation markets, accompanied by harmonisation of security and air traffic rules, whilst also being based on respect for the principle of non-discrimination.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The EU-Jordan agreement on certain aspects of air services will replace the bilateral agreements of the same kind that have been concluded and will standardise common rules on air services within the EU. The agreement seeks the gradual market opening in terms of capacity and access to routes on a reciprocal basis; non-discrimination and a level playing field for economic operators, based on the principles laid down in the EU Treaties; and alignment of Jordan’s aviation legislation with EU legislation on issues such as safety, security and air traffic management, in order to create a common Euro-Mediterranean aviation area between the European Union and Jordan.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This proposal for a recommendation, drafted by Ms Sehnalová, concerns the EU-Jordan Euro-Mediterranean aviation agreement. Currently, air services between the countries of the EU and Jordan are governed by bilateral agreements, which is no longer possible under the Treaty of Lisbon. In 2008, an agreement with Jordan enabled the harmonisation of the bilateral agreements with EU law. Recently, the European Commission negotiated a wider-ranging comprehensive agreement, with a view to creating an EU-Jordan Euro-Mediterranean area, thereby establishing uniform operating conditions for the air carriers of all 27 Member States. I therefore welcome the adoption of this proposal, whose agreement will encourage the gradual opening up of the air market in terms of capacity and access to routes on a reciprocal basis, in line with the European neighbourhood policy. Moreover, Jordan’s legislation in this area will be aligned with EU legislation on issues such as safety, security and air traffic management. Non-discrimination and a level playing field for economic operators are also guaranteed, based on the principles laid down in the EU Treaties.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) Air services between the European Union and Jordan presently operate on the basis of bilateral agreements between individual Member States and Jordan. The Commission is now submitting an agreement that is much more ambitious in its scope and replaces all of the bilateral agreements by creating a Euro-Mediterranean aviation area between the EU and Jordan.

The agreement establishes uniform standards for air carriers in all 27 Member States and allows them to benefit regardless of their national affiliation. Accordingly, EU-based air carriers will be able to operate services between any location in the EU and Jordan. The agreement’s objectives include a gradual opening up of the market and the introduction of a non-discriminatory and level playing field for economic operators, based on the principles laid down in the EU Treaties, and the alignment of Jordanian aviation legislation with EU legislation on issues such as safety, security and air traffic management.

Since the agreement regulates not only the areas falling within EU jurisdiction, but also areas falling within the jurisdiction of Member States, its conclusion is desirable so that it can be ratified at EU level and in the Member State parliaments. I firmly believe that the conclusion of the Euro-Mediterranean Aviation Agreement with Jordan is in the interests of EU citizens and businesses and is in line with the EU’s neighbourhood policy. This is another reason for the European Parliament to consent to the conclusion of the agreement.

  Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I believe this report makes it clear that the agreement can gradually open up the market on a reciprocal basis, bring in fair and non-discriminatory conditions on the basis of the principles of the EU Treaties, and align Jordan’s laws on air transport with those of the EU in various ways. I therefore voted in favour.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) Air services between the European Union and Jordan currently operate on the basis of bilateral agreements between individual Member States and Jordan. The European Commission recently negotiated a comprehensive agreement that is much more ambitious in its scope and replaces all of the bilateral agreements by creating a Euro-Mediterranean aviation area between the EU and Jordan. The agreement establishes uniform standards for air carriers in all 27 Member States and allows them to benefit regardless of their national affiliation. Accordingly, EU-based air carriers will be able to operate services between any location in the EU and Jordan. Hitherto, various conditions have applied to the provision of these services. I welcomed this document because the conclusion of a Euro-Mediterranean aviation agreement with Jordan has long been an EU priority and also represents an important element in the development of the EU’s neighbourhood policy. External studies carried out for the Commission estimate that the conclusion of a Euro-Mediterranean aviation agreement with Jordan would generate 54 000 extra passengers and consumer benefits of up to EUR 30 million in the first year of market opening.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this proposal. Air services between the European Union and Jordan presently operate on the basis of bilateral agreements between individual Member States and Jordan. These bilateral agreements were brought into line with EU law by the conclusion of a horizontal aviation agreement with Jordan in 2008. The Commission recently negotiated a comprehensive agreement that is much more ambitious in its scope and replaces all of the bilateral agreements by creating a Euro-Mediterranean aviation area between the EU and Jordan. The agreement establishes uniform standards for air carriers in all 27 Member States and allows them to benefit regardless of their national affiliation. Accordingly, EU-based air carriers will be able to operate services between any location in the EU and Jordan, something that was, until now, conditional upon, among other things, the existence of a bilateral agreement between the Member State concerned and Jordan.

  Clemente Mastella (PPE), in writing. – (IT) We offer our congratulations for the conclusion of a far more ambitious global agreement which replaces the mass of preceding bilateral agreements and anticipates the establishment of a Euro-Mediterranean aviation area between the EU and Jordan.

This agreement should be considered an important element in the development of European neighbourhood policy, and will ensure equal and unbiased economic conditions for operators founded on the principles of the EU Treaties. Without a doubt, the introduction of uniform standards for air carriers from the 27 Member States will be of general benefit to everyone, regardless of their nationality. EU air carriers will therefore be able to provide their services between any point in the EU and Jordan, whereas hitherto, the provision of these services was in part dictated by the bilateral agreements made between a given Member State and Jordan.

  Marisa Matias (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The air services currently operating between the European Union and Jordan are based on bilateral agreements concluded between the Member States and Jordan. The conclusion of a horizontal air services agreement with Jordan in 2008 enabled the harmonisation of these bilateral agreements with European Union law.

The agreement establishes uniform conditions for the air carriers of the 27 Member States, from which they all benefit regardless of nationality. In this context, the European Union’s air carriers will be able to provide their services from any point in the European Union and Jordan, whereas, to date, provision of these services has been conditional on, for example, the existence of bilateral agreements between each Member State and Jordan.

The agreement has the following objectives: gradual market opening in terms of capacity and access to routes on a reciprocal basis; non-discrimination and a level playing field for economic operators, based on the principles laid down in the EU Treaties; and alignment of Jordan’s aviation legislation with EU legislation on issues such as safety, security and air traffic management.

I voted in favour for these reasons.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The European Union is Jordan’s main trading partner after Saudi Arabia, which is one reason why the conclusion of the Euro-Mediterranean aviation agreement with Jordan is of enormous significance for the European Union, including for the development of the EU’s neighbourhood policy. I am voting in favour.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. – Air services between the European Union and Jordan presently operate on the basis of bilateral agreements between individual Member States and Jordan. The Commission recently negotiated a comprehensive agreement that is much more ambitious in its scope and replaces all of the bilateral agreements by creating a Euro-Mediterranean aviation area between the EU and Jordan. The agreement establishes uniform standards for air carriers in all 27 Member States and allows them to benefit regardless of their national affiliation. Accordingly, EU-based air carriers will be able to operate services between any location in the EU and Jordan, something that was, until now, conditional upon, among other things, the existence of a bilateral agreement between the Member State concerned and Jordan. I support this report.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The EU-Jordan air services agreement is very important for the future of relations between both parties. As such, and following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, Parliament needs to be fully informed and consulted about the work carried out by the joint committee and the entities involved. Any agreement to be concluded must be adopted by Parliament, which will therefore need to be kept up-to-date with all negotiations, and it will even be important in the future for regular meetings to be held between Members of this House and members of the US Congress in order to debate all questions relating to aviation policy between the EU and Jordan. This agreement is therefore an important step towards opening up the market to airlines from the EU and Jordan without any discrimination. This opening up of the market will contribute to improving the services provided to passengers.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The agreement allows the operation of direct flights between any location in the EU and Jordan. The following aspects will become possible: gradual market opening, non-discrimination and the harmonisation of rules on safety, security and air traffic management. I am in favour.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) The Euro-Mediterranean Aviation Agreement replaces the existing bilateral agreements between the individual Member States and Jordan in this area. The aim is to establish uniform standards for the air carriers from all 27 Member States. From now on, these companies can operate services between any location in the EU and Jordan without requiring an additional bilateral agreement. The main objectives of the agreement are the gradual opening of the market in terms of access to routes and capacity, the removal of discrimination, the creation of a level playing field and the alignment of Jordanian aviation legislation with EU legislation on issues such as safety, security and air traffic management.

The agreement represents the next stage of the association agreement signed in 2002 which has the objective of creating a free trade area between the EU and Jordan. For the reasons described above, it is to be expected that a common aviation area will bring significant competitive advantages for the relevant European air carriers and a considerable improvement in terms of travelling conditions for passengers. Therefore, I have voted in favour of concluding the agreement.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of the conclusion of this agreement. This is one of those cases where an EU agreement replacing bilateral agreements of EU Member States with third countries is more ambitious and will deliver greater benefits because it lays down uniform standards for air carriers, harmonises conditions for the provision and operation of services which hitherto varied, and prevents possible discrimination. The market will gradually be opened up on a reciprocal basis, and this will contribute to the establishment of a free trade area between the EU and Jordan. The agreement will increase the efficiency of transport, will facilitate interpersonal contacts, will have a positive impact on economic development and will promote technical cooperation. This agreement should, in the first year alone, boost passenger numbers by 54 000 and generate benefits to consumers worth around EUR 30 million. It is a step towards implementing the objective set by the EU of establishing, in the long term, a common aviation area with all Mediterranean partners and is consistent with the goals of the European neighbourhood policy.

  Katarína Neveďalová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The European Union is making a very systematic effort to develop good neighbourly relations with all adjacent regions. This dimension is extremely important, especially for the southern members of the EU, led in this case particularly by France, and it applies to the Mediterranean Sea area in particular.

Some Member States have an aviation agreement, but many, such as Slovakia, for example, still do not have such an agreement. I welcome agreements such as the one between the EU and Jordan, particularly for the positive effect that the agreement entails in terms of opening up the market to all Member States in a non-discriminatory way. It will also save costs and time for those that did not have an agreement.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcome the conclusion of a comprehensive agreement between the EU and Jordan aimed at creating a Euro-Mediterranean aviation area between the European Union and Jordan. Above all, EU air carriers will enjoy uniform standards and a favourable and liberal environment to provide competitive services in open markets. The entry into force of this agreement will also ensure greater aviation safety and security and, moreover, will be mutually beneficial as regards consumers, air carriers, workers and the community.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report concerns the air services operated between the European Union and Jordan. There has been a horizontal air services agreement with Jordan since 2008, which has enabled the harmonisation of these bilateral agreements with European Union law. However, the Commission recently negotiated a comprehensive agreement that is much more ambitious and replaces all the bilateral agreements by creating a Euro-Mediterranean aviation area between the European Union and Jordan. The agreement establishes uniform conditions for the air carriers of the 27 Member States, from which they all benefit regardless of nationality. In this context, the European Union’s air carriers will be able to provide their services from any point in the European Union and Jordan, whereas, to date, provision of these services has been conditional on, for example, the existence of bilateral agreements between each Member State and Jordan. As this is an agreement with objectives that are positive overall, such as gradual market opening in terms of capacity and access to routes on a reciprocal basis, and non-discrimination and a level playing field for economic operators based on the principles laid down in the EU Treaties, I voted for this report.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The importance of this air space in the European contingency is a challenge that also opens up greater services for the community. It is therefore necessary to conduct a careful analysis of aviation services between the European Union and Jordan which allows us to note that the aviation market in question, characterised by bilateral agreements between individual Member States and Jordan, does not therefore guarantee free movement within the area described above. This agreement aims to reach a very ambitious global agreement to replace the 27 bilateral agreements with a Euro-Mediterranean airspace between the EU and Jordan, which would allow any European air carrier to provide services between any point in the EU and Jordan. Considering that this initiative could open up the aviation market gradually and on a reciprocal basis, while also guaranteeing equal and unprejudiced economic conditions to operators, I am happy to express my vote in favour of this agreement.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This agreement, which is intended to replace the bilateral agreements between the various Member States and Jordan, is emerging as a key element of the European neighbourhood policy because it advocates increased closeness between the EU and Jordan. Indeed, it is important to keep in mind that the European Union is currently Jordan’s second biggest trade partner, so it is committed to the process of affirming and consolidating democracy in this area. The Euro-Mediterranean Aviation Agreement between the European Union and its Member States and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan offers a suitable regulatory framework for enabling airlines to increase the number of air links between the two territories, whilst operating with great freedom. Essentially, what is being sought is greater market opening through the introduction of more equitable rules and of non-discrimination for economic operators, on the one hand, and the harmonisation of legislation relating to safety, security and air traffic management, on the other. It is estimated that, in the first year of application of the agreement, there will be 54 000 extra passengers with an overall economic benefit of EUR 30 million. I voted in favour for these reasons.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. Air services between the European Union and Jordan presently operate on the basis of bilateral agreements between individual Member States and Jordan. These bilateral agreements were brought into line with EU law by the conclusion of a horizontal aviation agreement with Jordan in 2008. The Commission recently negotiated a comprehensive agreement that is much more ambitious in its scope and replaces all the bilateral agreements by creating a Euro-Mediterranean aviation area between the EU and Jordan. The agreement establishes uniform standards for air carriers in all 27 Member States and allows them to benefit regardless of their national affiliation. Accordingly, EU-based air carriers will be able to operate services between any location in the EU and Jordan, something that was, until now, conditional upon, among other things, the existence of a bilateral agreement between the Member State concerned and Jordan. The agreement’s objectives are gradual market opening in terms of access to routes and capacity on a reciprocal basis; non-discrimination and a level playing field for economic operators, based on the principles laid down in the EU Treaties; and alignment of Jordan aviation legislation with EU legislation on issues such as safety, security and air traffic management.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I have voted in favour of this agreement because I believe it is very important to replace the mass of current bilateral pacts with a global one which is able to establish a Euro-Mediterranean aviation area between the EU and Jordan. In this way, it will be possible to obtain uniform standards for air carriers from the 27 Member States, bringing benefits to everyone, regardless of their nationality. EU air carriers will therefore be able to provide their services between any point in the EU and Jordan, whereas hitherto, the provision of these services was dictated by the bilateral agreements made between a given Member State and Jordan. Consequently, it will now be possible to open the market in terms of routes gradually and on a reciprocal basis, ensuring equal and unbiased economic conditions for operators founded on the principles of the EU Treaties.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The conclusion of a Euro-Mediterranean aviation agreement with Jordan has been a priority for the EU for a long time, and is an important element in the development of European neighbourhood policy. The agreement, which answers to the interests of European citizens and businesses, introduces uniform standards for air carriers from the 27 Member States that have Jordan on their itinerary in a way that conforms to European neighbourhood policy.

According to external studies conducted for the Commission, the Euro-Mediterranean aviation agreement with Jordan would generate an increase of at least 54 000 passengers, as well as guaranteed consumer benefits of at least EUR 30 million in the first year of market opening. This agreement follows a similar one negotiated with Morocco in 2006 which resulted in a significant increase in aviation services between the EU and Morocco.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The conclusion of this comprehensive agreement on opening up the Euro-Mediterranean aviation market is an important step towards deepening relations with neighbouring countries and towards the European neighbourhood policy. It is estimated that the number of passengers in the first year will be 54 000, generating around EUR 30 million. On the basis of this document, the air carriers of the 27 Member States have uniform and non-discriminatory conditions and are able to operate flights from any part of the EU. Moreover, the gradual opening up of the market has also led to alignment of Jordan’s legislation with EU legislation on issues such as safety, security and air traffic management. Once again, I am voting in favour, but I would re-emphasise the need for Parliament to be consulted and informed about the progress of negotiations as a party institution to the acquis communautaire.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) The bilateral aviation agreements between individual Member States and third countries are being combined into one agreement, in which the EU replaces the Member States as the party to the contract with the third countries. The aim is to gradually open up the market in terms of access to routes and capacity on a reciprocal basis and to guarantee that Jordanian aviation laws comply with EU legislation, in particular, with regard to safety regulations. External studies show that this will generate benefits for consumers amounting to EUR 30 million. The intention is also to create a common Euro-Mediterranean aviation area. I have voted in favour of the agreement.

  Artur Zasada (PPE), in writing. – (PL) I thank the rapporteur, Ms Sehnalová, for a very well prepared report. As rapporteur for the report on the aviation agreement between the United States and the European Union, I welcome the ambitious general agreement between the EU and Jordan. As in the case of the agreement with the US, the agreement introduces uniform conditions for air carriers in all 27 Member States and allows them to benefit regardless of their national affiliation. EU air carriers will be able to provide services between any point in the EU and Jordan. If the agreement had not been accepted by Parliament, there would have been a danger that the aircraft of Member States which do not have an agreement would not be able to operate flights from the territory of the European Union to Jordan. The added value of the agreement is the possibility of creating a common Euro-Mediterranean aviation area.

Recommendation: Thomas Ulmer (A7-0344/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report because it harmonises the already existing bilateral agreements with European Union law.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution on the Common Aviation Area Agreement between the European Union and Georgia. This agreement will regulate relations between the EU and its 27 Member States and Georgia in the field of aviation. The purpose of the agreement is to ensure the gradual establishment of an EU/Georgia common aviation area. The existing bilateral agreements on air traffic services between the two parties are to be superseded by the new agreement. The agreement is being concluded as part of the EU neighbourhood policy, one of the aims of which is to establish a common aviation area between the EU and its neighbours. I support the rapporteur’s position that applying the current rules on aviation safety, security and air traffic management to Georgia will open the markets of both parties and enable all economic operators to participate on a non-discriminatory basis. This means that, in future, air carriers in the EU and Georgia will be able to offer their services anywhere in the EU and Georgia. Reciprocal market opening will undoubtedly bring new participants into the market, will see the use of airports that have, until now, been under-used, and will consolidate EU air carriers. The Commission estimates that the gradual establishment of the EU/Georgia common aviation area will, in the first year alone, boost passenger numbers by 25 000 and generate benefits to consumers worth around EUR 17 million.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Relations between the EU and Georgia are framed by the European neighbourhood policy (ENP). Launched in 2004, the ENP aims to bridge the gap between the new Member States of the EU and their immediate neighbours and to improve the prosperity and stability of the region. By supporting this motion for a resolution, I undertake to ensure the application not only of one of the measures provided for by the ENP, namely, the enforcement of single market rules in Georgia, but also of the Treaty of Lisbon, which stipulates that the European Parliament must give its approval for the conclusion of international agreements by the Member States.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The intention of this agreement is to regulate relations in the area of aviation between the European Union, its 27 Member States and Georgia. Its purpose is the establishment of an EU-Georgia common aviation area, so extending to Georgia the rules of the single market in air transport in force in the European Union and creating a level playing field between all carriers from the EU and Georgia. Application to Georgia of current rules on aviation security and safety and air traffic management is the way to reciprocal market opening, meaning that in future, all air carriers in the Union and Georgia will be able to offer their services from anywhere in the Union to anywhere in Georgia. The gradual establishment of the EU-Georgia common aviation area will, in the first year alone, boost passenger numbers by 25 000 and generate benefits to consumers worth around EUR 17 million. For all the above reasons, I voted for this recommendation.

  Adam Bielan (ECR), in writing. – (PL) The agreement governing cooperation with Georgia in the field of air transport has as its purpose the establishment of an EU/Georgia common aviation area. Existing agreements between individual Member States and Georgia have not always conformed to practices accepted in the Union and, in addition, have often not brought tangible benefits to aviation undertakings, and this is something which always affects the frequency of connections. The Common Aviation Area Agreement is a good example of cooperation within the framework of neighbourhood policy. In view of the fact that negotiations are in progress on an association agreement with Georgia, the Common Aviation Area Agreement enables Georgia to enhance yet further its credibility in the European market.

The estimated growth in passenger numbers by 25 000 in the first year of operation of the agreement alone, along with the associated benefits, are, I think, a good sign for the future. The connection between Warsaw and Tbilisi, which has been operated for a year now by LOT Polish Airlines, is already enjoying great popularity in Poland. Other important matters are the rules on safety and the principle of non-discrimination – the equal share of all economic stakeholders in the common aviation area. I support the resolution.

  Jan Březina (PPE), in writing. – (CS) I supported the aviation agreement between the EU and Georgia, which will establish a uniform framework for all aviation undertakings in the EU and Georgia. Application to Georgia of the current legislation on aviation security and safety and air traffic management is the way to reciprocal market opening, enabling all economic stakeholders to participate in the common aviation area on a non-discriminatory basis. This means that, in future, all aviation undertakings in the EU and Georgia will be able to offer their services from anywhere in the EU to anywhere in Georgia. I firmly believe that reciprocal market opening will bring new participants into the market, entail the use of airports previously inadequately served and result in consolidation among EU aviation undertakings. I agree with the Commission’s estimate that the gradual establishment of the EU/Georgia common aviation area will, in the first year alone, boost passenger numbers by 25 000 and generate benefits to consumers worth around EUR 17 million.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for the Ulmer report on the Common Aviation Area Agreement between the EU and Georgia. This agreement is concluded as part of the neighbourhood policy and the creation of a common aviation area with neighbouring countries. It aims to establish uniform framework conditions for all aviation undertakings by allowing for gradual market opening through access to routes and capacity.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The EU-Georgia aviation agreement finally enables the application to Georgia of the rules of the single market in air transport in force in the European Union and creates a level playing field between all air carriers from the European Union and Georgia. This new agreement, for which I am voting, will be of benefit to both parties, enabling, in future, all air carriers in the Union and Georgia to offer their services from anywhere in the Union to anywhere in Georgia. It is estimated that the benefits to consumers of this new common aviation area will be worth around EUR 17 million in the first year alone. This reciprocal opening up will also enable the participation of new operators, as well as the use of airports that have been underexploited to date and the consolidation of the Union’s air carriers.

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report, since I believe these common aviation agreements come under the umbrella of a fairly important area of EU action, not just because it sets out joint rules with third countries, but also because it deepens the internal market. By way of example, I would stress that this report will make it possible to extend the rules of the single transport market to Georgia, so creating a common legislative framework that will bring increased transparency and a more level playing field between carriers from Europe and Georgia. I would also stress the timeliness of this agreement, in a wider context than that of improving relations with our neighbouring countries and at a time when we have approved the revision of the European neighbourhood policy, for which I am the European Parliament’s co-rapporteur.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) This report, which I voted for, concerns the agreement signed with Georgia, and is an integral part of the neighbourhood policy and of the EU’s common aviation area with neighbouring countries. The agreement aims to establish uniform framework conditions for all aviation undertakings by allowing for gradual market opening through access to routes and capacity.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this recommendation because it promotes the strengthening of our bilateral relations by supporting the reciprocal and generalised opening up of all economic agents of the aviation markets of both Georgia and the EU, without discrimination.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The EU-Georgia Common Aviation Area Agreement is intended to replace the bilateral agreements of the same kind, and to standardise common rules on air services within the EU. The agreement will enable the extension to Georgia of the rules of the single market in air transport, and will create a level playing field between all air carriers from the European Union and Georgia. Application to Georgia of the current legislation on aviation security and safety and air traffic management is the way to reciprocal market opening and to the non-discrimination of the various economic operators on the basis of nationality.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This recommendation, drafted by Mr Ulmer, concerns an international agreement whose purpose is to regulate relations in the area of aviation between the European Union, its Member States and Georgia. This agreement is intended to replace the bilateral agreements in force and is part of the European neighbourhood policy, whose goal is to create a common aviation area between the EU and its neighbouring countries. The Treaty of Lisbon, which entered into force on 1 December 2009, substantially changed the powers of several European institutions, particularly Parliament, which, in the new set-up, is called upon to rule on matters not previously under its jurisdiction, as in this case of an international agreement between the EU and Georgia on air services. I am voting for this recommendation because the reciprocal opening up of these markets will encourage their growth, thereby facilitating the appearance of new operators, and will improve standards of aviation security and safety and of air traffic management, by applying to Georgia the rules of the single market in air transport in force in the EU – this will benefit both European and Georgian citizens.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) This agreement is an international one, establishing relations in the field of aviation between the EU and its 27 Member States and Georgia. Its purpose is the establishment of an EU/Georgia common aviation area, replacing existing bilateral agreements on air traffic services between the two sides.

The Council signed the agreement on 2 December 2010, and it will be applied provisionally pending its entry into force. The agreement will extend to Georgia all the legislation and rules governing the EU single market in air transport and will establish uniform framework conditions for all aviation undertakings in the EU and Georgia. The agreement is the way to reciprocal market opening and will bring new participants into the market, entailing the greater use of airports and result in consolidation among EU aviation undertakings and the gradual establishment of the EU/Georgia common aviation area.

The conclusion of the agreement, however, is subject to the consent of the European Parliament. I firmly believe that it is right and necessary for the Committee on Transport and Tourism to give its approval for the conclusion of the agreement.

  Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I believe that this agreement will extend to Georgia the regulations governing the single market in air transport in force in the EU. Application to Georgia of the current legislation on aviation security and air traffic management will therefore lead to the reciprocal opening of markets without discrimination.

  Jim Higgins (PPE), in writing. – I welcome the work that has been done on this report. It is essential that we have our house in order when it comes to replacing the bilateral agreements with these new EU-wide agreements. The report will ensure that we avoid discrimination between EU air carriers; the traditional designation clauses, referring to air carriers of the Member State party to the bilateral agreement, are to be replaced by an EU designation clause, referring to all EU carriers. This is a more transparent and open system, and is to be welcomed.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed this international agreement because it establishes relations in the field of aviation between the EU and its 27 Member States and Georgia. The purpose of the agreement is to ensure the gradual establishment of an EU/Georgia common aviation area. The existing bilateral agreements on air traffic services will henceforth be replaced. The agreement is being concluded as part of the EU neighbourhood policy, one of the aims of which is to establish a common aviation area between the EU and its neighbours. The agreement will extend to Georgia all the legislation and rules governing the EU single market in air transport and will establish uniform conditions for all air carriers in the EU and Georgia. Application to Georgia of current rules on aviation safety, security and air traffic management will open the markets of both parties and enable all economic operators to participate on a non-discriminatory basis. This means that in future, air carriers in the EU and Georgia will be able to offer their services anywhere in the EU and Georgia. I believe that the reciprocal opening of markets will bring new participants into the market, will see the use of airports that have, until now, been under-used, and will consolidate EU air carriers. The Commission estimates that the gradual establishment of the EU/Georgia common aviation area will, in the first year alone, boost passenger numbers by 25 000 and generate benefits to consumers worth around EUR 17 million.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this agreement. This agreement is an international one establishing relations in the field of aviation between the EU and its 27 Member States and Georgia. Its purpose is the establishment of an EU/Georgia common aviation area. The existing bilateral agreements on air traffic services between the two sides are to be superseded by the new agreement. The agreement is being concluded as part of the EU neighbourhood policy, one of the aims of which is to establish a common aviation area between the EU and its neighbours.

  Iosif Matula (PPE), in writing. – The agreement put forth by the Committee on Transport and Tourism establishing relations in the field of aviation between the EU’s 27 Member States and Georgia is an important step in streamlining operations between countries. In a field such as aviation where safety, security and air traffic management are paramount, it is important that the bilateral agreements that exist between individual Member States and Georgia be consolidated into an agreement of a common aviation area. Additionally, the EU and Georgia should form this agreement to solidify common framework conditions. Moreover, reciprocal market opening will help broaden participation in the market which coincides with the objectives of the European neighbourhood policy. As a member of the Delegation to the Euronest Parliamentary Assembly, I see the EU-Georgia Common Aviation Area Agreement as a logical step in increasing Georgia’s involvement in activities that affect both Georgia and the EU. The EU must ensure its commitment to passenger safety and the efficient operation of air services while encouraging the participation of its neighbours in market-boosting pursuits.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) This recommendation is very important for achieving the goal of a shared airspace between the European Union and neighbouring countries. I welcome the fact that this agreement would bring about EUR 17 million of advantages for consumers. I am voting in favour.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. – I supported this agreement, which is an international one establishing relations in the field of aviation between the EU and its 27 Member States and Georgia. Its purpose is the establishment of an EU/Georgia common aviation area. The existing bilateral agreements on air traffic services are to be superseded by the new agreement which is being concluded as part of the EU neighbourhood policy, one of the aims of which is to establish a common aviation area between the EU and its neighbours. The agreement is being applied provisionally pending its entry into force.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The EU-Georgia air services agreement is very important for the future of relations between both parties. As such, and following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, Parliament needs to be fully informed and consulted about the work carried out by the joint committee and the entities involved. Any agreement to be concluded must be approved by Parliament, which will therefore need to be kept up-to-date with all negotiations, and it will also be important to hold regular meetings between MEPs and Members of the Georgian Parliament to discuss all issues relating to EU-Georgia aviation policy. This agreement is therefore an important step towards opening up the market to airlines from the EU and Georgia without any discrimination. This opening-up of the market will contribute to improving the services provided to passengers.

  Louis Michel (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Since Georgia gained its independence in 1992, the European Union has repeatedly manifested its desire to maintain close relationships with its Eastern neighbour. This Common Aviation Area Agreement is consistent with this desire to maintain enduring relationships on issues that are both varied and strategic. A common aviation area will guarantee security and efficiency, and the conclusion of this agreement will be a by-word for increased mobility for European citizens. Moreover, maintaining contact with Georgia on a wide range of issues will also enable us to address more easily certain economic and political aspects that will be crucial in the long term such as, for example, opening up the markets.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – If uniform framework conditions apply to all aviation undertakings in the EU and Georgia, including the current legislation on aviation security and safety and air traffic management in future, and if the overall purpose of the agreement is to facilitate a reciprocal market opening to all economic stakeholders on a non-discriminatory basis, I vote in favour.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of the conclusion of this agreement. It will facilitate the establishment of the EU/Georgia common aviation area, with Georgia gradually implementing high standards in the areas of aviation regulation and safety, including environmental protection. Moreover, it is a step towards establishing a common aviation area with the EU’s eastern neighbours. This agreement should, in the first year alone, boost passenger numbers by 25 000 and generate benefits to consumers worth around EUR 17 million. The agreement will increase the efficiency of transport, will facilitate interpersonal contacts, will have a positive impact on economic development and will promote technical cooperation. Common aviation area agreements, which create opportunities for mutual and fair participation in this market, are an example of, and incentive for, the further economic integration of partner countries and the EU. I hope for swift progress in the conclusion of agreements with Moldova, Ukraine and the remaining countries of the Southern Caucasus so that these Eastern Partnership countries can fully join the European common aviation area.

  Katarína Neveďalová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) Relations between the EU and Georgia are very important in many areas, and the aviation agreement represents a practical implementation of this in the area of transport. For reasons such as efficiency and cost-reduction – as is the case with Jordan – Member States including Slovakia have strongly supported the negotiations over this agreement. For states that are in regions directly adjacent to the continent of Europe – which also applies to Georgia – there is another important factor in relation to the development of the Single European Sky. In addition to all of the Member States, the EU is trying to incorporate neighbouring states into this common area as well. This increases the significance of the agreement all the more, and is also a reason why I fully support it.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcome this agreement between the EU and Georgia on the creation of a common aviation area because it is important not just for transport but also in the sense that it establishes a stronger basis for cooperation in the neighbourhood policy. It should be noted that, for carriers of both parties, this agreement will open up markets and create uniform, non-discriminatory operating conditions, while eliminating existing barriers. Thus, aviation undertakings in Europe and Georgia will be able to provide air services on a level playing field without any restrictions. I believe that this agreement will not only open up new opportunities and strengthen the position of carriers, but will also facilitate full use of airport infrastructure because, according to initial estimates, there should be a significant increase in the amount of passengers and cargo.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The intention of this international agreement is to regulate relations in the area of aviation between the European Union, its 27 Member States and Georgia. The goal of the aforementioned agreement is to create a common aviation area between the EU and Georgia. The bilateral agreements in force, which have regulated air services between the parties to date, should be replaced with this new agreement. This stage is part of the European neighbourhood policy, which also intends to create a common aviation area between the European Union and its neighbouring countries. I voted for this agreement for all these reasons.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) In response to the EU neighbourhood policy which anticipates the creation of common air space between the EU and its neighbours, and in consideration of the importance of aviation policy in the contingent context of Europe, the draft decision of the Council and the representatives of the governments of the EU Member States is an answer to ongoing needs. The establishment of the common aviation area between the EU and Georgia, to replace the 27 bilateral agreements of individual Member States, fits in with the framework of development represented by the reciprocal opening of markets, while ensuring the consolidation of EU aviation enterprises which are already in the market and the entry of new participants. Having considered the important economic aspect and the communitarian nature of the issue, and being satisfied with the work accomplished, I am expressing my vote in favour of the draft decision on the conclusion of the Common Aviation Area Agreement between the EU and its Member States, and Georgia.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The purpose of this report is to create an EU-Georgia common aviation area, which should come to replace the bilateral agreements that have been regulating air services between the parties to date. Part of the European neighbourhood policy, this agreement provides for all air carriers in the Union and Georgia being able, in future, to offer their services from anywhere in the Union to anywhere in Georgia. The Common Aviation Area Agreement between the European Union and its Member States and Georgia therefore offers a suitable regulatory framework for enabling airlines to increase the number of air links between the two territories, whilst operating with great freedom. It is estimated that, in the first year of application of the agreement, there will be 25 000 extra passengers with an overall economic benefit of EUR 17 million. I voted in favour for these reasons.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. This is an international agreement establishing relations in the field of aviation between the EU and its 27 Member States and Georgia. Its purpose is the establishment of an EU/Georgia common aviation area. The existing bilateral agreements on air traffic services between the two sides will be superseded by the new agreement. The agreement is being concluded as part of the EU neighbourhood policy, one of the aims of which is to establish a common aviation area between the EU and its neighbours. The Council signed the agreement on 2 December 2010. The agreement is being applied provisionally pending its entry into force.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of this international agreement because I believe it is capable of regulating aviation relationships between the European Union, its 27 Member States, and Georgia. In this way, common air space between the EU and Georgia will be created to replace the current bilateral agreements. The agreement will extend the regulations governing the single market in air transport currently in force to Georgia, and establish uniform framework conditions for all aviation enterprises of the EU and Georgia, taking us one step closer towards establishing an ever more solid and concrete neighbourhood relationship.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Some points of this agreement reprise a number of Georgian proposals and requests regarding rapprochement with the European Union; in my opinion, they go too far, bearing in mind both the status of the country, as part of the European neighbourhood policy (ENP), and its economic and political situation, where more progress is needed on democracy, the rule of law and the economy.

In particular, the resolution mentions the inclusion of a reference to Article 49 of the Treaty on European Union (membership) and acknowledges the European identity of the country. Given the impasse in which Europe now finds itself and the general discontent over many countries joining in the latest enlargements of 2004 and 2007, hinting at further enlargement – even in the long term – seems like a bad idea to me at this moment in time. Such an initiative would also create a point of difference with other eastern and Mediterranean countries participating in the ENP, damaging its unity.

In terms of the desire to open trade negotiations for the creation of a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area (DCFTA), the conclusions of the Foreign Affairs Council meeting in June stated that negotiations can begin before the end of the year, as long as enough progress is made on implementing the remaining preconditions specified by the Commission.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This EU-Georgia aviation agreement will enable the regulation of the air transport market at the level of the Twenty-Seven. Through this document, Georgia, as a member of the European neighbourhood policy, and the EU are enacting the gradual opening up of the market by incorporating European legislation into the national law of the country in question. As with other aviation agreements, both economies will benefit, since more airlines will have the opportunity to open new routes in the various Member States. It is therefore estimated that, in the first year, there will be 25 000 passengers with an overall economic benefit of some EUR 17 million. While I agree with the conclusion of these aviation agreements, I would once again stress that the European Parliament should be consulted over the course of negotiations concerning the various international agreements, rather than simply issuing a non-binding opinion.

  Thomas Ulmer (PPE), in writing. – (DE) This report concerns the current air traffic situation and proposes a large number of simplifications and improvements in future to allow air traffic between the Member States of the EU and Georgia to develop and grow significantly. As the rapporteur, I would like to thank all the employees and shadow rapporteurs who have helped me.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) The reciprocal opening of the market will allow air carriers to participate in the aviation area on a non-discriminatory basis. In future, all airlines will be able to make their services available in the EU and in Georgia. External studies show that this will generate benefits for consumers amounting to around EUR 17 million. I have voted in favour.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I have voted in favour of the agreement on a common aviation area between the 27 Member States and Georgia. This international agreement is part of the EU’s neighbourhood policy, which has already been ratified by a series of agreements similar to the one put to the vote today, and aims to establish a safer aviation area for the citizens of Europe and their ‘neighbours’.

Report: Danuta Maria Hübner (A7-0357/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report. As I come from one of the outermost regions, I am well aware of the permanent constraints on this type of region, and it is important to study the possibility of expanding these provisions to the outermost regions of the Azores and Madeira.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution on temporarily suspending autonomous common customs tariff duties on imports of certain industrial products into the Canary Islands. The Kingdom of Spain has submitted a request to the European Commission, on behalf of the authorities of the Autonomous Community of the Canary Islands, for the temporary suspension of common customs tariff duties on certain industrial products imported into the Canary Islands, so as to strengthen the competitive position of local economic operators and stabilise employment in these outermost regions of the Union. However, in order to ensure that the goods imported, be they raw materials, parts, components or duty-free capital goods, do not distort competition, they will be subject to end-use controls ensuring their use by local companies on the islands. As regards capital goods, they will have to be used by local companies on the islands for a period of at least two years before they can be sold freely to companies situated in other parts of the Union. I agree with the rapporteur that the proposed suspension will help local SMEs and farmers in the Canary Islands to invest and generate jobs in this outermost region of the Union.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. – (ES) I support this report on the temporary suspension of autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on imports of certain industrial products from the Canary Islands in order to make local economic operators more competitive and stabilise employment in this ultra-peripheral region of the European Union.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Kingdom of Spain has requested the temporary suspension of autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on imports of a certain number of industrial products to the Canary Islands, with a view to strengthening the competitive position of local economic operators and ensuring more stable employment in these regions. Given this, I voted for this report, since this suspension will only affect the regions in question and will contribute to helping the economic development of local small and medium-sized enterprises and farmers, and creating jobs in this region. It is also important to consider that, in the context of the current economic crisis, taking specific measures to stimulate economic activity and stabilise jobs in the medium term is also part of the plan for the recovery of the European economy.

  Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the temporary suspension of Common Customs Tariff duties on imports of certain industrial products into the Canary Islands in order to support Spain’s efforts to increase the competitiveness of local economic operators and stabilise employment in these outermost regions of the European Union. In order to guarantee that the goods imported duty-free do not distort competition, they must be subject to end-use controls to ensure their use by local companies on the islands. I think that measures of this kind, which are beneficial to local SMEs and farmers, who are encouraged to invest and generate jobs, must also be considered in other outermost regions of the European Union.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I regard it as useful that the European Union has acknowledged the particular, specific problems of the Canary Islands, as well as their implications for EU integration.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the report on temporarily suspending autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on imports of certain industrial products into the Canary Islands because I think, in the current context of economic crisis, that it will contribute to strengthening the competitiveness of local economic operators and to generating stable employment in this outermost region.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Kingdom of Spain has requested, on behalf of the Autonomous Community of the Canary Islands, the temporary suspension of the Common Customs Tariff duties on certain industrial products, so as to strengthen the competitive position of local businesses and stabilise employment in this outermost region. In order to ensure that the goods imported do not distort competition and that they will be used by local companies, they will be subject to periodic checks confirming that they will not be sold in other regions of the Union until two years have passed. Like the Canary Islands, several other of Europe’s outermost regions confront problems resulting from their isolation from main lines and means of supply, which are being exacerbated by the present economic and financial crisis. This justifies positive discrimination in their favour.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Article 349 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides for special support measures for the outermost regions of the EU as a means of overcoming the economic disadvantages resulting from their geographic location. The Canary Islands are amongst the regions considered ‘outermost’. The Autonomous Community of the Canary Islands, through the government of the Kingdom of Spain, has requested the extension of the current temporary suspension of autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on imports of a certain number of industrial products into the Canary Islands as a means of keeping the population employed and ensuring the competitiveness of local businesses. Taking account of the global financial crisis, this measure could help the region’s small and medium-sized enterprises and farmers to keep their economy stable and create jobs, so combating the recession being experienced in almost all the Member States of the EU. Given the socio-economic importance of this measure of temporary suspension of autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties, I voted for this report, drafted by Ms Hübner, and I hope that the economy of the Autonomous Community of the Canary Islands will recover quickly.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The Spanish Government has requested, on behalf of the authorities of the Autonomous Community of the Canary Islands, the extension of the current temporary suspension of tariffs on imports of certain industrial products. As has already happened in the Portuguese outermost regions, the Azores and Madeira, these measures are intended to secure and strengthen productivity and employment in regions whose specific conditions mean they are faced with a series of permanent constraints and difficulties: economic and social inequalities, geographic location, conditions of insularity, and natural disadvantages.

Non-payment of tariff duties on certain imported products is a measure that could contribute to overcoming some of these constraints and help to promote regional development. This is a measure from which the region’s small and medium-sized enterprises, farmers and producers could benefit. That is why we voted in favour.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) It is normal that the Spanish Government should request, on behalf of the authorities of the Autonomous Community of the Canary Islands, the extension of the current temporary suspension of tariffs on imports of certain industrial products. As has already happened in the Portuguese outermost regions, the Azores and Madeira, these measures are intended to secure and strengthen productivity and employment in regions whose specific conditions mean they are faced with a series of permanent constraints and difficulties: economic and social inequalities, geographic location, conditions of insularity, and natural disadvantages. Non-payment of tariff duties on certain imported products is a measure that could contribute to overcoming some of these constraints and help to promote regional development, specifically that of the region’s small and medium-sized enterprises, and local farmers and producers. That is why we voted in favour.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) In September 2010, the Spanish Government requested, on behalf of the government of the Canary Islands, an extension of the suspension of autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on certain products, stating in the justification that, in view of the remoteness of the islands, businesses face extremely unfavourable economic and commercial disadvantages which have a negative impact on demographic trends, employment, and social and economic development.

The recent economic crisis has seriously affected industry and the construction sector in the Canary Islands, and the unfavourable financial conditions have had a serious impact on many areas of business. In addition to this, the sharp growth in unemployment in Spain has further dampened domestic demand, including demand for industrial products. It is necessary to ensure, however, that these customs measures are made use of only by businesses based in the Canary Islands. It would be appropriate to transfer the implementing powers to the Commission in order to allow any necessary temporary withdrawal of the suspension where there is disruption to trade, and in order to ensure unified conditions for the implementation of the regulation.

In any case, however, I believe that it is justified to extend the period of complete suspension of autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties for certain types of product for the Canary Islands, in an attempt to bolster the competitive position of local businesses and stabilise employment.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) The Kingdom of Spain has submitted a request, on behalf of the authorities of the Autonomous Community of the Canary Islands, for the temporary suspension of common customs tariff duties on certain industrial products imported into the Canary Islands, so as to strengthen the competitive position of local economic operators and stabilise employment in these outermost regions of the Union. In order to ensure that the goods imported, be they raw materials, parts, components or duty-free capital goods, do not distort competition, they will be subject to end-use controls ensuring their use by local companies on the islands. As regards capital goods, they will have to be used by local companies on the islands for a period of at least two years before they can be sold freely to companies situated in other parts of the Union. Moreover, raw materials, parts and components will have to be used for industrial transformation and maintenance in the Canary Islands in order to benefit from the duty suspension. An evaluation of the impact of these measures is not possible as they are an integral part of a series of measures adapted to the specific problems of these islands. However, the measures will have an impact on the own resources and revenue of the Union. I welcomed this document because, in the present economic downturn, the need to take specific measures to stimulate economic activity and stabilise employment over the medium term may be seen to fit well with the European economic recovery plan and the measures required to meet the special problems of the outermost regions of the Union.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – Spain has requested the temporary suspension of the Common Customs Tariff duties on certain industrial products into the Canary Islands, so as to strengthen the competitive position of the local economic operators and stabilise employment. In order to ensure that the goods imported, be they raw materials, do not distort competition, they will be subject to end-use controls ensuring their use by local companies on the islands. Regarding capital goods, they will have to be used by local companies on the islands for a period of at least two years before they can be sold freely to companies situated in other parts of the Union. Moreover, raw materials, parts and components will have to be used for industrial transformation and maintenance in the Canary Islands in order to benefit from the duty suspension. These specific measures to stimulate economic activity and stabilise employment over the medium term may be seen to fit well with the European economic recovery plan. In view of the above, and the necessity to take all measures likely to assist economic recovery, I support this proposal be adopted without amendment.

  Jiří Maštálka (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (CS) As I have already pointed on other occasions, it is necessary to set up high-quality control mechanisms which make it possible to operate transparently and effectively. The advantages stemming from the temporary suspension of the general tariff on imports of a specific type of goods should stimulate the growth of the local economy and strengthen competitiveness. The application of control regimes should be a protective element, so that use can be made of these advantages throughout the agreed period. The situation should not arise where these favoured types of goods become the subject of illegal commerce or other speculative activities beyond the original aim. In my opinion, experience drawn from the previous period with monitoring the end use of this type of goods will help to enhance the process in the coming years.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) There is no denying that this suspension will have a number of effects, though these will not necessarily be good for the EU’s resources. However, it is a necessary step in order to create jobs in a region on the very edge of the European Union. I therefore voted in favour.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. – I supported this report that seeks to strengthen the competitive position of the local economic operators and stabilise employment in these outermost regions of the European Union.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) With the adoption of the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on imports of certain industrial products into the Canary Islands, we have contributed to helping local small and medium-sized enterprises and farmers to invest and create jobs in this outermost region of the Union. In the context of the current economic crisis, the need to take specific measures to stimulate economic activity and stabilise jobs in the medium term can be viewed as fitting adequately into the plan for the recovery of the European economy, and into the measures needed to respond to the specific problems of the Union’s outermost regions.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The Canary Islands belong to the outermost regions. To overcome their handicaps (e.g. small internal market, great distance from the mainland), special measures may be envisaged. Due to the economic and financial crisis, the industrial sector of the Autonomous Community of the Canary Islands has deteriorated and unemployment has risen. Tariff suspensions on imports of certain industrial products are aimed at strengthening the competitiveness of the local economic operators. Therefore, there are no reasons to disagree with the report of Ms Hübner. I am in favour.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) For some time, the economy of the Autonomous Community of the Canary Islands has been suffering a serious downturn. By temporarily suspending autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on imports to the Canary Islands, the European Union and the islands are hoping to increase the competitiveness of the local economic operators and to stabilise the employment situation. End-use controls will be imposed to ensure that the duty-free imported goods really are used by local companies on the islands and that, as a result, they do not distort competition. In addition, raw materials, parts and components intended for industrial processing and maintenance must be used on the islands themselves. Without the help of the European Union, it is unlikely that the difficult economic situation in the Canary Islands will be resolved.

A concession in the form of a temporary suspension of autonomous customs duties is in line with the measures laid down in the European economic recovery plan and is a tried-and-tested means of providing the Canary Islands with economic assistance. However, it will also have an impact on the revenue of the European Union and it is not yet possible to estimate the extent of this. On account of these considerations, I have abstained from voting.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Kingdom of Spain has requested, on behalf of the authorities of the Autonomous Community of the Canary Islands, the temporary suspension of the Common Customs Tariff duties on certain industrial products imported into the Canary Islands, so as to strengthen the competitive position of the local economic operators and stabilise employment in these outermost regions of the Union. In order to ensure that the goods imported, be they raw materials, parts, components or capital goods, do not distort competition, they will be subject to end-use controls ensuring their use by local companies on the islands. Regarding capital goods, they will have to be used by local companies on the islands for a period of at least two years before they can be sold freely to companies situated in other parts of the Union. Moreover, raw materials, parts and components will have to be used for industrial transformation and maintenance in the Canary Islands in order to benefit from the duty suspension. The effects of this proposed suspension will be limited to the regions concerned and, in the current context of the economic crisis, will help local small and medium-sized enterprises and farmers to invest and generate jobs in this outermost region of the Union. I voted for this resolution for these reasons.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) For the purpose of aiding local development, employment and business competitiveness, this proposal for a regulation provides for a temporary suspension of Common Customs Tariff duties on imports of certain industrial products into the Canary Islands. This policy will have rapid effects on the regions involved and help small and medium-sized enterprises and local farmers to invest and create jobs. Even though it is impossible to evaluate the impact of these measures overall, they will, in any case, have an impact on the own resources/revenue of the Union.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) It is not uncommon for the outermost regions to suffer specific problems requiring different treatment in certain cases. In this case, the suspension of Common Customs Tariff duties for the Canary Islands is justified, relating to raw materials, parts, components and capital goods used by local companies. This is conditional, however, on their use for industrial purposes for a minimum of two years. As this is a measure justified by the specific context of this region, I voted in favour.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. In its explanatory memorandum, the European Commission informs the Council and Parliament that the Kingdom of Spain has requested, on behalf of the authorities of the Autonomous Community of the Canary Islands, the temporary suspension of the Common Customs Tariff duties on certain industrial products into the Canary Islands, so as to strengthen the competitive position of the local economic operators and stabilise employment in these outermost regions of the Union. In order to ensure that the goods imported – be they raw materials, parts, components or duty-free capital goods – do not distort competition, they will be subject to end-use controls ensuring their use by local companies on the islands. Capital goods will have to be used by local companies on the islands for a period of at least two years before they can be sold freely to companies situated in other parts of the Union. Moreover, raw materials, parts and components will have to be used for industrial transformation and maintenance in the Canary Islands in order to benefit from the duty suspension.

  Nicole Sinclaire (NI), in writing. – I am opposed to trade tariffs, and this request for suspension of the Common Customs Tariffs in order to help producers in the Canary Islands proves that they are bad for business. However, I cannot support this request. If a state wishes to be in the EU, then it should accept that it will be subject to the same damaging legislation as everybody else. Why should the producers of the Canary Islands be exempt from the taxes that are crippling businesses in my country? Lift the tariffs completely, not selectively.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The outermost regions of the European Union experience constraints relating to their isolation, their insularity, and their difficult terrain and climate, which amount to a structural limitation on their economic and social situation, as set out in Article 349 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). This specific statute permits the adaptation of the provisions of the TFEU and, consequently, the adoption of European-level measures relating to the needs of these regions in particular. That is the context of the report voted on today in the European Parliament, whose purpose is the temporary suspension of autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on imports of certain industrial products into the Canary Islands. Such measures have already been approved for other outermost regions, like Madeira and the Azores, and are intended to make economic operators in these regions more competitive.

  Oldřich Vlasák (ECR), in writing. – (CS) The Spanish Government has, on behalf of the self-governing area of the Canary Islands, requested an extension of the current regime, which provides for a suspension of tariffs on imports of certain industrial products. These measures have the explicit aim of boosting the competitiveness of local businesses, and thereby ensuring more stable employment on the islands. I have not supported the report because I am against the establishment of tariff exemptions in the EU. Competitiveness and employment can be boosted through the European Regional Development Fund and the European Social Fund. I would like to say at the same time that suspension of tariffs leads to loss of revenue from the EU’s own resources, which the European Parliament, contrary to this, is trying to increase through proposals for various taxes on financial transactions and the like.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) At Spain’s request, the Common Customs Tariff duties on imports of certain industrial products into the Canary Islands are to be temporarily suspended. The objective is to strengthen the competitive position of local economic operators and stabilise employment in these outermost regions of Europe, as provided for in the European economic recovery plan. In order to prevent goods imported without duties from distorting competition, they must be subject to end-use controls, which means that checks must be carried out to ensure that they really are used by local companies on the islands. I have voted in favour.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) In view of the current international context, I think it is important not to neglect the peripheral and the outermost areas of the European Union, which are suffering the effects of the economic crisis more than others.

The proposed suspension of tariff duties on certain products in the Canary Islands will help small and medium-sized enterprises and local farmers to invest and create jobs in a region which, following the crisis and a drop in tourist flows, finds itself close to recession.

I am therefore in favour of adopting the measures designed to incentivise business and consolidate employment in the medium term, contributing to economic recovery in the outlying areas of the EU. I voted in favour for these very reasons.

Report: Jan Březina (A7-0358/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this legislative package, since it continues to lay particular emphasis on research and development, in the context of the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community for 2007-2011, by extending it until the end of the multiannual financial framework in 2013.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Nuclear energy is critical for a number of Member States, including France, and enables them to reduce their energy dependence. However, the Fukushima disaster has shown how important it is for nuclear energy to be subject to strict controls. I therefore voted in favour of the report by Jan Březina, which supports nuclear energy research activities such as the completion of the construction of the ITER reactor and sustainable waste management, but also research into security.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) How and to what extent should we fund ITER? The issue is regularly on the agenda of the European Parliament. It has come up again in the vote on extending the Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM). Continuing nuclear research is fine, but the research budget should not be committed entirely to nuclear energy. There is a need to diversify, especially since, with the cost of the ITER programme having increased exponentially since its launch in 2006, rising from EUR 6 to 16 billion, I think that the project should continue with the means available. While research into both nuclear fusion and fission is a good thing (although it should be diversified), I very much regret the increase in appropriations (a further EUR 700 000 in 2012) as well as the anticipated financial tinkering, which would result in earmarking part of the European research budget just to fund ITER, not to mention the fact that budgetary cuts are planned in the field of research, which will only exacerbate the imbalance between research expenditure on nuclear energy and that devoted to developing renewable energy. For these reasons, I voted against the Březina reports on the EURATOM Framework Research Programme.

  Antonio Cancian (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of Mr Březina’s report on the Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community because I believe that cofinanced research is a fundamentally important way to develop increasingly safe and efficient technology for the production of nuclear energy. The programme makes a major contribution to the Union’s innovation initiative, financing pre-commercial research and easing the technology transfer processes between the academic and industrial spheres. Moreover, significantly increasing the general level of nuclear energy sustainability would help reach the energy resource efficiency objective that Europe has made a priority. Indeed, nuclear energy plays an important role in achieving the goals laid down in the European Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SET-Plan) and especially in terms of reduced carbon emissions, greater supply security, lower dependence on suppliers of energy sources from politically unstable parts of the world and greater industrial competitiveness. I therefore share the stance put forward in this document, which highlights the need to support research and development activities with adequate funding in order to succeed in improving the security and efficiency of the nuclear energy generation sector.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I welcome these proposals intended to continue and extend the Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom FP) for nuclear research to the years 2012 and 2013, in line with the financial perspective. The Euratom FP concerns research activities into nuclear energy and radiation protection. This programme’s legislative acts are draft decisions on its implementation through direct and indirect actions, and on laying down the rules for the participation of undertakings, research centres and universities in indirect actions.

  Derek Roland Clark (EFD), in writing. – I am on record as promoting the development of nuclear fusion as a means of providing adequate electricity supplies. Universities and commercial operators may need support from national governments but not from the EU.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I identify with those who have profound doubts about nuclear energy: about its cost, about what to do with its radioactive waste, and about the security of its facilities from accidents in house, from terrorist attacks or other criminal acts or from natural disasters like those that occurred in Fukushima, Japan. I am therefore ambivalent about the reports by Mr Březina. I acknowledge that some avenues of research could even be positive because they have an impact on increasing the safety and protection of the public, but others are clearly intended to pursue the investments of an industry that is being phased out in a number of European countries.

That is why I have decided to abstain in the final votes on the reports concerning the implementation of the Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom FP) for nuclear research and training activities, for both direct and indirect actions, and on that concerning the rules for the participation of undertakings, research centres and universities in indirect actions under the Euratom FP and for the dissemination of research results.

  Lara Comi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the proposal for a decision on the future atomic programme and nuclear research and training activities. I think further investigation is needed, as well as research and development by European university research centres. Through the framework programme, Euratom will promote various research projects on nuclear energy (fusion and fission) and on protection against radiation. The funds shall finance ITER (the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor), which will make it possible to show the scientific basis and practicality of fusion energy. I would personally like to emphasise that these activities are in line with the objectives of improving the safety of nuclear fission and other questions on the radiation emitted in industry and medicine.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the report on implementing the Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community for nuclear research and training activities by indirect actions because it is part of a legislative ‘package’ intended to continue supporting research and development activities in the context of the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community for 2007-2011 by adapting it to the current multiannual financial framework until 2013.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Coordination on atomic energy is one of the origins of the current process of European integration. From the start of this process, it has been shown that there is a need to seek to work together on researching and developing technology that has enabled Europe to keep up with the development and use of such energy. Atomic energy currently forms part of the ‘energy mix’ of some European Union Member States, so allocating sufficient funds to the European Coal and Steel Community for it to pursue these goals could enable it to contribute to ensuring safer and cleaner nuclear energy for the public, whilst it is still in use. This resolution is one of the measures intended to ensure that this will happen, in this case by implementing the Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community by means of indirect actions.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report, by Mr Březina, concerns the proposal for a Council decision concerning the specific programme implementing the Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community for nuclear research and training activities (2012-2013), to be carried out by means of indirect actions by the Joint Research Centre. Despite the disasters in Chernobyl and, recently, in Fukushima, the nuclear issue remains very current, not just because of the need to monitor the decommissioning of obsolete nuclear plants, ensuring the safe management of waste, but also, and fundamentally, because of an issue of scientific and technological modernisation, as regards both energy production and medicine. Over the last few years, the European Union has been contributing decisively to progress in this area by supporting a number of programmes and, in particular, the ITER project, more than 50% of whose funding comes from the EU. Despite the economic and financial crisis, I believe the EU should remain at the forefront of research into this area so as not to lose its leading position or threaten all the know-how acquired over the years. That is why I am voting for this motion for a resolution.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) It is important to continue the debate about the option of nuclear for supplying energy because of its limits, potential and dangers, but, irrespective of that, we believe there is a need for training and research in this area, which has many applications beyond those mentioned above. Every country needs to train specialist experts and researchers in this field and have a body of research, monitoring and control infrastructure, whether or not nuclear is one of its energy choices.

That is also the case for Portugal, where the current government has plans to abolish the Nuclear Technology Institute, to which experts and researchers have rightly been objecting.

As regards the content of the report, we have reservations about some of its premises, particularly those that end up promoting nuclear energy. The way in which it does this does not fit with the debate that needs to take place about the well-known risks and consequences for the public and the environment, which recent accidents of alarming proportions have amply demonstrated.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The structure of the framework programme, which is to be implemented through indirect actions and which implements the Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community for nuclear research and training activities (2012-2013) consists of two kinds of activities: indirect actions in the area of research into nuclear fusion and research into nuclear fission and radiation protection, and direct actions for the activities of the Joint Research Centre in the field of nuclear energy. The indirect actions should be implemented by this specific programme.

The EU has concluded many international agreements in the field of nuclear research, and it is necessary to continue efforts at strengthening international research cooperation. This bilateral international cooperation is based on a solid legal framework of cooperation agreements between the EU and third countries, and the framework programme in question is key to the implementation of these agreements. The programme relates to research in the field of nuclear fusion, nuclear fission and radiation protection. The basic aim is to ensure the continuation of research funded from EU sources in these fields for another two years in accordance with the activities successfully carried out in the 2007-2011 period.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed this programme because it concerns research in fusion, fission and radiation protection. The principal aim is to ensure the continuation of EU-funded research in these fields for a further two years in line with the activities carried out successfully during 2007-2011. To this end, the proposal explains in more detail the scope of the research and development activities. This specific programme for indirect actions covers the following two thematic priorities: fusion energy research and nuclear fission and radiation protection. The aim of the work carried out under the first thematic priority is to develop safe, sustainable, environmentally friendly and economically viable prototype reactors for power stations, to create the necessary knowledge base and implement ITER as a major step towards this. The objectives of the second thematic priority are to establish a sound scientific and technical basis in order to accelerate practical developments for the safer management of long-lived radioactive waste, to enhance, in particular, the safety, resource efficiency and cost-effectiveness of nuclear energy and to ensure a robust and socially acceptable system for protecting people and the environment against the effects of ionising radiation. I believe these are particularly important areas for energy independence, safety and resource efficiency.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this resolution and, in particular, to amend it to say ‘the design and implementation of the Framework Programme (2012-2013) should be based on the principles of simplicity, stability, transparency, legal certainty, consistency, excellence and trust following the recommendations of the European Parliament in its report on simplifying the implementation of the Research Framework Programmes’.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of Mr Březina’s report. I agree with the amendments put forward by the Commission proposal. It is right to emphasise and demand application of the principles of simplicity, stability, transparency, legal certainty, consistency, excellence and trust.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) At times of crisis, we need to ensure that the framework programmes of the various EU entities are properly implemented. In the specific case of the Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community, it is important that funds be spent properly on safeguarding against potential safety risks, as well as on research to discover a cleaner and more environmentally friendly form of atomic energy.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – Euratom’s programme aims at the generalisation and development of knowledge in the nuclear field, an increase in the scientific-technical qualifications of specialists, and the improvement of technologies from the point of view of their reliability, safety, cost-effectiveness and sustainable development. I would like to be confident that the results of research will be accessible to all EU citizens for free in future. I am in favour.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) The management of the ITER nuclear research reactor indicated as early as 2009 that the costs of the ITER reactor could rise by as much as 100%. The original Euratom funding provided as part of the Seventh EU Research Framework Programme would not have been sufficient for the ITER reactor. Estimates indicate that the construction costs for ITER will amount to EUR 6.6 billion. According to these estimates, the contribution from the Euratom budget would be around EUR 5.3 billion and France would provide about EUR 1.3 billion.

Therefore, in order to accommodate the current disparity of EUR 2.15 billion, the Euratom budget must be increased by around EUR 3.15 billion to make a total of approximately EUR 5.3 billion. The extent to which cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) should be increased is extremely dubious, given its proposals for Fukushima, which involved, for example, lowering the radiation figures. Furthermore, there are no future-proof nuclear power plants. Therefore, I am forced to reject this report in the strongest possible terms.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) As events this year in Japan show, nuclear safety remains a particularly relevant issue both in the European Union and beyond. This is particularly important in Lithuania, near whose borders there are plans to build two nuclear power plants. In the event of accidents at these plants, the whole of Vilnius – the capital of an EU Member State – would have to be evacuated. The potential for EU scientists in this area is huge. I therefore particularly welcome the position relating to the strengthening of research in the field of radiation protection. Such knowledge would help to establish the highest standards of nuclear security and would offer better protection from the negative impact of radiation on the environment and human health.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcome this resolution because it is particularly important to ensure the successful continuation of research into fusion, fission and radiation protection. Moreover, given the successful results of these activities, we must ensure that the design and implementation of the new Framework Programme is based on the principles of simplicity, stability, transparency, legal certainty, consistency, excellence and trust. I believe that only through joint efforts can we ensure that nuclear energy is used in a safer, more cost-effective and resource-efficient manner, guaranteeing a strong and socially acceptable system for protecting people and the environment from ionising radiation. Particular attention should be paid to contractual arrangements that reduce the risk of failure to perform as well as the reallocation of risks and costs over time.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report on the proposal for a Council decision concerning the specific programme, to be carried out by means of indirect actions, implementing the Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community for nuclear research and training activities (2012-2013). This proposal concerns research into fusion, fission and radiation protection. Its main purpose is to ensure EU-financed research activities in these areas over a period of more than two years, taking into account the activities successfully undertaken in the 2007-2011 period. To this end, the proposal describes the area of research and development activities in detail.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I have understood the fundamental aspects of the proposal for a decision, such as the composition of the committee in such a way as to ensure a reasonable balance between women and men and between the Member States undertaking research and training activities in the nuclear sector, as well as the attention given to the development of contractual arrangements that reduce the risk of failure to perform and the reallocation of risks and costs over time. Moreover, I am in favour of the initiative to plan a new satellite experiment under the Eighth Framework Programme with a view to ensuring the facilities required while limiting risks and operational costs. I am therefore expressing my vote in favour of the abovementioned proposal for a Council decision concerning the specific programme, to be carried out by means of indirect actions, implementing the Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community for nuclear research and training activities (2012-2013).

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Following the analysis of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, I voted for the proposal for a Council decision concerning the specific programme implementing the Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community for nuclear research and training activities, to be carried out by means of indirect actions, because I believe it is in line with the goals of EU energy policy.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. – (IT) The proposal that accompanies this report is directed towards the adoption of a Council decision regarding the specific programme, to be carried out by indirect actions, implementing the Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Committee for nuclear research and training activities (2012-2013). This relates to research in the fields of fusion, fission and radiation protection. The main aim consists of guaranteeing the continuation of research financed by the EU in the fields mentioned above for a further two years, in line with the activities carried out successfully between 2007 and 2011. To this end, the proposal illustrates the scope of R&D activities in greater detail.

  Michèle Striffler (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Mr Březina’s report concerns the Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community for nuclear research and training activities (fusion, fission and radiation protection). The programme’s main goal is to ensure that the EU-funded research in these fields continues, along the path these activities have taken in the period 2007-2011. Whilst I would vigorously defend substantial financial support for research and development, actions relating to nuclear energy merit particular attention as regards their final objective. There must be no construction of new nuclear power stations that runs counter to the safety standards that are essential to our fellow citizens. Research and development efforts must also be agreed in the field of renewable energies, which contribute to job creation and provide a high level of environmental protection. That is why I abstained from voting on this report.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Seventh Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom FP) 2007-2011 is made up of two specific programmes – one of ‘indirect actions’ and another of ‘direct actions’ – and finishes at the end of this year. The European Commission has tabled a proposal tackling the ‘indirect actions’, such as research into energy from nuclear fusion and fission, and radiation protection; the intention is to extend the programme created specifically for the purpose for a further two years. I am voting for this Commission initiative because I believe it is important for the European Union to adopt measures intended to continue the activities being undertaken, and to start implementing the European Strategic Energy Technology Plan endorsed by the Council in March 2008. Finally, I believe the new Euratom FP for 2012-2013 should be simpler and have less of a bureaucratic burden, by adopting increasing transparency and legal certainty in line with the European Parliament’s suggestions as regards the implementation of the research framework programmes.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this proposal for a decision as I think that it is important to continue the research funded by the EU in two of the programme’s priority areas: research on nuclear fusion and fission energy and protection against radiation. I think that it is important for the EU’s future energy mix to develop the ITER knowledge base and implement ITER as a main step forward towards creating reactor prototypes for power plants which will be secure, durable, green and economically viable.

It is important that, as part of the second priority ‘Nuclear fission and radiation protection’, practical developments towards safer management of long-lived radioactive waste gather momentum in order to increase, in particular, safety and resource efficiency. I called for particular attention to be paid to the development of contractual arrangements which reduce the failure to perform as well as the reallocation of risks over time. I think that, when forming committees dealing with fission and fusion aspects, it is important to ensure a reasonable gender balance and a balance between Member States undertaking nuclear research and training.

  Dominique Vlasto (PPE), in writing. – (FR) At a time of global warming and on the eve of an unprecedented oil peak, electricity from nuclear power seems more than ever to be the energy of the future. Wind power and solar panels alone will be unable to meet our growing need for electricity. Nuclear energy will therefore have a key role to play, despite the positions taken recently by some parties. Categorical opposition to nuclear energy in favour of supposedly cleaner energy sources will result, in the immediate term, as demonstrated in Germany, in promoting the use of coal as a source of electricity. Where, then, is the environmental benefit? Rather than challenging an energy that has been developing since the inception of the EU, we must dedicate ourselves, as does this report, to proposing improved methods to manage the risks relating to nuclear power. It is precisely because we expect nuclear power to progress towards zero risk that we must give research the time and resources to achieve this ambition. I refer, in particular, to ITER, which is ultimately aiming to produce clean nuclear energy at four times the productivity level and which is nonetheless constantly criticised and threatened by the ecologists, who always vote against the European funds needed for this project.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) Criteria have been specified for the 2012-2013 work programme of the European Atomic Energy Community which will allow proposals for indirect measures to be evaluated and projects to be selected. All the activities must be based on the principles of transparency, consistency and legal certainty. The proposal also covers safety, performance, the efficient use of resources and objectives for the uses of radiation in industry and medicine, together with issues relating to the safety of nuclear plants and the disposal of radioactive waste. As I am opposed to nuclear power in principle, and as this proposal refers specifically to the ITER nuclear fusion project and highlights its new European dimension, I have voted against the report.

Report: Klaus-Heiner Lehne (A7-0355/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting in favour of this report, and would highlight the achievements the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament has made. It is always worth stressing the importance of a Europe that defends the welfare state so as to protect the weakest; changes to labour laws should not jeopardise workers’ rights, particularly in insolvency proceedings.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. – The persisting disparities between national insolvency laws create difficulties for companies with cross-border activities and are an obstacle to a successful restructuring of insolvent companies. I am fully in favour of this report which identifies areas in national insolvency laws that are accessible and eligible for harmonisation and issues that should be revised in the Insolvency Regulation. I am in favour of this report which invites the Commission to incorporate the following recommendations into future legislative proposals on an EU corporate insolvency framework: harmonise the opening of insolvency proceedings, revise the Insolvency Regulation with regard to its scope and certain definitions (e.g. ‘centre of main interest’, ‘establishment’ in the context of secondary proceedings) and make the communication between the relevant courts obligatory, improve the cooperation of liquidators and cooperation in general on administrative level in cases where enterprises that are part of a group of companies become insolvent and create an EU Registry for insolvency cases.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) At a time of economic crisis, insolvency proceedings increase in number. It is therefore important that they are well regulated. In his own-initiative report, Klaus Heiner Lehne favours rescuing companies declared insolvent as an alternative to liquidation, the latter being a last resort. As these proceedings differ from one Member State to the next, the report recommends that they be harmonised in order to avoid penalising companies with cross-border activities. As I favour the convergence of the rules to which European companies are subject, I therefore supported this report.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of the report as I feel that insolvency procedures need to be harmonised. The Insolvency Regulation’s area of application should be extended. Insolvency entails adverse consequences for the economies of Member States. It can create difficulties for companies involved in cross-border activities. At the same time, disparities between national legislations in this area affect competitiveness.

Insolvency of a group of companies may lead to multiple insolvency proceedings. However, I should point out that there are no legislative provisions at EU level on the insolvency of groups of companies. This shortcoming may have major adverse consequences. Differences in the main procedures should be avoided. Suitable procedural guarantees need to be introduced. At the same time, the balance needs to be reinforced between the interest of the entrepreneur in looking to save his or her company and the interest of the creditors in protecting their debts. I welcome the idea of creating an EU-level insolvency registry.

  George Becali (NI), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of this report. The differences between national legislations on insolvency create major problems for companies, give rise to abuses, and affect Member States’ economies. I also support the recommendations made in the report’s annex, especially those concerning the prompt initiation of insolvency proceedings by all companies where insolvency is temporary and those concerning claims, avoidance actions, liquidators’ qualifications, restructuring plans and so on.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because I agree that we urgently need to establish as far as possible a better legal environment for business and eliminate barriers that have a negative impact on competitiveness in the European Union. Indeed, disparities between national insolvency laws create difficulties for companies with cross-border activities which might hamper the successful restructuring of insolvent companies. In this document, the European Parliament sets out its recommendations on areas of insolvency law which may be harmonised at EU level and which could help in drawing up legislative initiatives on this issue in future. Parliament thus proposes harmonising certain aspects of the initiation of insolvency proceedings, as well as procedures for the submission of claims, and puts forward recommendations on the harmonisation of aspects of avoidance actions, requirements for the qualification and work of liquidators and the establishment of restructuring plans. The European Parliament has also proposed the creation of an EU registry for insolvency cases which would contain every cross-border insolvency case opened and to which it would be compulsory for courts to transmit data.

  Jan Březina (PPE), in writing. – (CS) In my opinion, when revising the regulation on insolvency proceedings, the Commission ought to focus on certain important aspects, such as widening the scope of the regulation to include those procedures in which the management remains in control of the company, as this would afford the debtor in possession a number of mechanisms to restructure his business. The centre of main interests (COMI) is the most important concept, in my opinion, since the Insolvency Regulation’s principal jurisdictional role – that of determining which court is competent to open the main proceedings and which will be the applicable law – depends on the definition of the COMI. This concept is not defined, however, and this gives rise to uncertainty. In my opinion, the definition of an establishment should include services, and not just human means and goods. Finally, the duty of communication and cooperation enshrined in the regulation should not only affect liquidators but also courts.

  Marielle De Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Insolvency proceedings are very different among the 27 Member States of the Union. Regulation at EU level therefore aims to prevent parties from being encouraged to transfer their assets or to relocate judicial proceedings from one Member State to another to benefit from the most advantageous jurisdiction. In recent years, the phenomenon of groups of companies has increased. This is likely to result in the commencement of several separate proceedings in different jurisdictions with respect to each of the insolvent group members, with the risk that the group may be broken into its constituent parts rather than reorganised. Future regulation should therefore relate to groups of companies and stipulate that proceedings should be opened in the Member State where the operational headquarters of the group are located. The interests of workers should not be forgotten, which is why it is necessary to increase the priority of employees’ claims relative to other creditors’ claims.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported the adoption of this own-initiative report by Mr Lehne, which aims to harmonise the insolvency proceedings of European companies. The European Union should support our companies in difficulty by simplifying administrative burdens and by strengthening communication between the different intra-Community jurisdictions.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report on insolvency proceedings in the context of EU company law, since the intention is to hold a useful debate on harmonising insolvency procedures in the various EU countries. This harmonisation, undertaken at a number of levels, would be positive for Europe, since it would make a major contribution to strengthening the single market and European integration.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This recommendation follows in the wake of a study prepared by this Parliament on an attempt to identify specific areas relating to insolvency amongst the various bodies of national law that could be harmonised. There is, without a doubt, a clear interest in exploring the conclusions presented therein, as well as in the proposals subsequently drafted by the rapporteur. However, I should like to stress that, while such harmonisation resolves potential conflicts on international insolvency law, it is not enough on its own. As such, there needs to be an improved EU coordinated approach and an agreement between the Member States enabling more efficient mechanisms for coordinating processes.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The current financial and economic crisis is obliging society in general to reflect on all administrative and legal procedures involving economic activity. One of the problems affecting modern societies is companies being in business: when growing, these generate wealth and create jobs; when in recession, they throw millions of workers into unemployment, with social consequences of which we are all aware. One of the causes of unemployment is companies going out of business, often through insolvency. Currently, every Member State has its own legislation on this subject, so it is crucial to harmonise insolvency procedures at EU level in the spirit governing the workings of the single market. The recommendations of this report, drafted by Mr Lehne, which will serve as guidelines for the Commission, come under four headings: harmonisation, wherever possible; revision – and improvement, where possible – of the Insolvency Regulation; improved cooperation from liquidators and in general; and creation of an EU insolvency register. I voted for this report because I believe it will contribute to making EU companies run more smoothly.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The rapporteur makes some positive proposals. The most significant of these is the attention given to workers, clear in opportune statements such as ‘although employment law is the responsibility of the Member States, insolvency law can have an impact on employment law’; ‘in the context of increasing globalisation and indeed of the economic crisis, the issue of insolvency needs to be considered from an employment-law perspective, as differing definitions of ‘employment’ and ‘employee’ in Member States should not undermine the rights of employees in the event of insolvency’; and ‘it is necessary to increase the priority of employees’ claims relative to other creditors’ claims’.

However, the report is not free of contradictions, the most important of which is the attempt to harmonise the conditions under which insolvency proceedings may be opened. Moreover, the interests of small and medium-sized enterprises are not always secured. Although there are some positive points in the opening of proceedings, it is always the most powerful who will benefit most.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) There are a number of contradictions in this report, including, in fact, the attempt to harmonise the conditions under which insolvency proceedings may be opened. The rapporteur points to some positive issues regarding the opening of proceedings, but the interests of small and medium-sized enterprises will not always be safeguarded. In general, it is always the most powerful who will benefit from proceedings.

However, this report has positive aspects. Particular attention has been given to workers, as can be seen, for example, from the following statements:

‘although employment law is the responsibility of the Member States, insolvency law can have an impact on employment law’; and ‘in the context of increasing globalisation and indeed of the economic crisis, the issue of insolvency needs to be considered from an employment-law perspective, as differing definitions of ‘employment’ and ‘employee’ in Member States should not undermine the rights of employees in the event of insolvency’.

It also considers it ‘necessary to increase the priority of employees’ claims relative to other creditors’ claims’.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) Disparities between national insolvency laws create competitive advantages or disadvantages and difficulties for companies with cross-border activities, which could become obstacles to the successful restructuring of insolvent companies. Even if the creation of a body of substantive insolvency law at EU level is not possible, there are certain areas of insolvency law where harmonisation is achievable. Insolvency law should be a tool for rescuing companies at Union level, to the benefit of the debtor, the creditors and the employees whenever possible.

I also believe that a legal framework should be established that better suits cases of companies which are temporarily insolvent. In each specific case, the reasons for the insolvency of a business must be investigated, and it must be ascertained whether the business’s financial difficulties are merely transient or whether the business is completely insolvent. The interlinking of national insolvency registers, leading to the creation of a generally accessible and comprehensive EU database of insolvency proceedings, would allow creditors, shareholders, employees and courts to determine whether insolvency proceedings have been opened in another Member State and to ascertain the deadlines and details for the presentation of claims. Such steps would promote cost-effective administration and increase transparency, while respecting data protection.

  Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), in writing. – (IT) Mr Lehne’s report suggests to me that the new proposals should introduce a number of very positive elements with regard to the topic of insolvency, such as the creation of a European insolvency register, and they should, above all, increase the level of harmonisation and protection for creditors. For this reason, I voted in favour.

  Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (S&D), in writing. – (PL) I fully endorse the initiative to revise the Insolvency Regulation of 29 May 2000. Since it came into force, many changes have taken place, 15 new Member States have joined the Union and the phenomenon of groups of companies has increased enormously. Looked at today, the measures proposed in the regulation of 11 years ago already seem anachronistic. Particular attention should be given to the need to formulate a clear definition of the centre of main interests, or COMI, of a debtor to enable the correct establishment of jurisdiction for insolvency proceedings. Incorrect interpretation of the concept of the COMI is a source of misunderstandings when filing for the bankruptcy of foreign companies. The location of the COMI determines the competence of a court to open insolvency proceedings. The basic factor which determines location is identification of the place where the debtor’s business operations are conducted and if this is ascertainable by third parties. Difficulties may arise here, when a foreign court, in publishing a bankruptcy decision relating to a company from another country, considers that that company has its COMI in another Member State because real control of the company is exercised there. The attempt to resolve this dilemma made by the European Court of Justice in its judgment of 2 May 2006 in the case of Eurofood IFSC Limited unfortunately did not completely solve the problem, which confirms the need for a clearer definition.

I would also like to emphasise the need to interpret the regulation in accordance with Directive 2008/94/EC on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer. The Member States should not undermine the rights of employees in the insolvency procedure. I support the proposal to introduce a ranking of creditors in which priority would be given to employees, with a guarantee of at least the minimum standards of protection irrespective of the different national legal definitions.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. – This report quite rightly emphasises the need to respect the principle of subsidiarity in relation to any EU proposals relating to insolvency. This is particularly necessary within the UK, where the law on insolvency is fundamentally different in Scotland and the other countries making up the current Member State.

  Filiz Hakaeva Hyusmenovа (ALDE), in writing. – (BG) Insolvency legislation varies greatly between individual Member States. This is why I think that the report containing recommendations to the Commission on insolvency proceedings in the context of EU company law is of paramount importance to its harmonisation at European Union level.

The Insolvency Regulation stipulates that the state where proceedings are opened will determine the conditions, more specifically by establishing against which debtors insolvency proceedings may be brought, what assets form part of the estate, and the way in which assets are treated.

I share the view of the rapporteur that a legislative initiative is required to harmonise these aspects so that there is greater legal certainty right from the start of proceedings. According to the Insolvency Regulation, the lodging, verification and admission of claims are determined by the law of the state where proceedings are opened, which will also apply to claims that are accepted as insolvency claims. I support the view that such harmonisation of claims would increase the legal certainty for creditors. I concur that the creation of an EU Registry is needed so that creditors and courts can determine whether insolvency proceedings are opened in another Member State, as well as their deadlines and other details of the claims which have been lodged.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed this proposal because disparities between national insolvency laws create competitive advantages or disadvantages and difficulties for companies with cross-border activities which might hamper the successful restructuring of insolvent companies. These disparities favour forum-shopping. I believe that it would be beneficial for the internal market if all companies enjoyed a level playing field and competition was not distorted. The Commission is therefore requested to submit to Parliament one or more legislative proposals relating to an EU corporate insolvency framework, in line with the detailed recommendations set out in the annex of this proposal, in order to ensure a level playing field based on a detailed analysis of all viable alternatives.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this resolution which calls for, in the case of insolvency proceedings, a four-fold structure of future legislative initiatives: (1) harmonisation where possible, (2) revision of the Insolvency Regulation where it will remain – in addition to harmonisation – relevant and where the practice has proven that improvement can be made, (3) improvement of the cooperation of liquidators and cooperation in general on administrative level in cases where enterprises that are part of a group of companies become insolvent and (4) creation of an EU Registry for insolvency cases.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) It is important to emphasise that the recommendations must respect the principle of subsidiarity and the fundamental rights of citizens. Furthermore, the financial implications of the proposal put forward must be covered by suitable budget appropriations. The report by Mr Lehne follows this path and I am therefore voting in favour.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. – I welcome the recommendations to the Commission on insolvency proceedings in the context of EU company law contained in this own-initiative report.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Legislation on insolvency proceedings needs to be improved. In this climate of crisis, the number of insolvencies is ever increasing and there is a need to speed up proceedings. There were also loopholes in the old legislation that needed to be closed, not least as regards the insolvency of groups of companies. The Insolvency Regulation only applies to single companies and there is no legislation at EU level on the insolvency of groups of companies, despite groups being a very common form of business model in economic life. This omission has important negative consequences. It is important to be aware of the great variety of different group structures and relationships between companies belonging to the same group and, therefore, of the fact that the same solution cannot be applied to all kinds of groups, at least given the current state of insolvency laws in the Union. Ideally, the insolvency of groups of companies should be managed by a single court applying its own insolvency law. This solution facilitates coordination and the transmission of information, saves costs, maximises asset value, and facilitates recovery.

  Louis Michel (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) In Belgium, 2010 was synonymous with an unprecedented pensioner boom. More than 100 000 workers qualified for a pension. I welcome the invitation this report extends to the Member States to recognise the importance of integrating migrants. Immigration is a natural phenomenon. The history of mankind is a history of migration. Zero immigration does not exist, has never existed, and will never exist. In this day and age, it is no longer possible to go without an in-depth reflection on the problem of migration. All countries are affected by the movement of people, whether as origin, transit or receiving countries. Migration is a positive reality. It enriches not only the economy but also the culture and the society of the transit and destination countries. The migratory phenomenon is a natural phenomenon, which must be supported, shaped and portrayed positively. In a Europe where the regions are becoming increasingly important, it is also important to point out that the Structural Funds allocated to them can be used to achieve such an objective. Unfortunately, this is far from the case at present, as only 9% of appropriations have been used.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – This report asks the Commission to come up with one or more legislative initiatives relating to an EU corporate insolvency framework. The S&D achieved two objectives: firstly, it adopted in the Committee on Legal Affairs technical amendments whereby we ask the Commission to come up with a clear definition of ‘COMI’ (centre of main interest) for groups of companies and, in relation to that, rules for a shift in COMI or substantive consolidation, in order to identify the legitimate jurisdiction for main and secondary proceedings. Secondly, it provided a bridge between Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 and Directive 2008/94/EC on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employers. I totally support the report because in it, Parliament calls on the Commission to introduce a ranking of creditors that should give precedence to employees and set minimum standards of protection irrespective of different legal definitions for the categories concerned and substantive national laws.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcome this resolution because, owing to differences in national legislation, many companies find themselves at a competitive disadvantage and find it difficult to operate. The restructuring of insolvent companies is also hampered. It should be noted that a single and effective insolvency framework is a very important instrument of the market economy. It not only helps to sustain business and production capacities, but encourages change, and the speedy redistribution of resources also plays a particularly important role in the area of credit and investment. I therefore believe that the insolvency framework must function as a tool within a European crisis management framework. Consequently, insolvency requirements and the conditions under which insolvency proceedings may be opened should be harmonised at EU level, as should certain aspects of avoidance actions and other requirements. Only by implementing these measures will an effectively functioning competitive environment be created for businesses, along with opportunities to sustain businesses that face temporary financial difficulties.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) On 23 March 2011, the Committee on Legal Affairs held a workshop on ‘Harmonisation of insolvency proceedings at EU level’. The aim was to identify areas in national insolvency laws that are eligible for harmonisation. In preparation for the hearing, the Committee on Legal Affairs commissioned a study on ‘Harmonisation of Insolvency Law at EU level’. The recommendations of this report take into account the ideas that experts expounded in the aforementioned study and during the hearing, and that were further explained in the accompanying documentation. This report therefore includes recommendations to the Commission on insolvency proceedings in the context of EU company law, and explains the actions that should be taken in future legislative processes. As this is a process with constructive measures in an area in which harmonisation could bring benefits, I voted for this report.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) At a time of considerable financial instability, short selling could aggravate the downward spiral in the prices of shares, notably in financial institutions, in a way which could ultimately threaten their viability and create systemic risks. Therefore, the measure put forward in 2008 to restrict or ban short selling in some or all securities appears necessary. In the absence of a European legislative framework, this regulation led to the creation of different laws in the 27 Member States. However, we have to consider that in order to guarantee the functioning of the internal market, improving the conditions in which it operates and ensuring a high level of protection of investors and consumers, it is worthwhile establishing a common legislative framework of laws and relevant powers with regard to short selling and credit default swaps. In light of this, I voted in favour of the proposal for a regulation.

  Rovana Plumb (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The freedom of establishment and the increased mobility of companies between Member States have highlighted the need for better coordination and a greater degree of harmonisation of insolvency law in order to combat the adverse impact of ‘insolvency tourism’ on employees. Even though employment law is the responsibility of Member States, insolvency law can have an impact on employment law and, in the context of increased globalisation and, indeed, of the economic crisis, the issue of insolvency needs to be considered from an employment law perspective.

I am concerned to note the growing number of workers, especially women and people over the age of 45, affected by insolvency procedures. This situation can be attributed to the very severe economic and social impact the financial and economic crisis is having, and the nature of systemically-relevant, cross-border financial institutions increases their role in this area. I welcome the fact that Directive 2008/94/EC on the protection of employees in the event of their employer becoming insolvent explicitly includes in its scope part-time employees, employees on fixed-term contracts and employees in a temporary employment relationship. Nevertheless, I feel it is necessary to increase the protection afforded in the event of insolvency, even for workers on non-standard contracts.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The insolvency system remains one of the areas of law in which there are significant differences between the Member States’ legislation. However, this is an extremely important area in which there is justification for bringing the various Member States’ bodies of law closer together: in the final analysis, the satisfaction of a company’s claims depends on how the insolvency procedure is structured; it is also a company’s last chance for economic recovery. I therefore voted in favour.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. On 23 March 2011, the Legal Affairs Committee held a workshop on ‘harmonisation of insolvency proceedings at EU level’. The aim was to identify areas in national insolvency laws that are accessible and eligible for harmonisation. In preparation of the hearing, the Legal Affairs Committee commissioned a study on ‘Harmonisation of Insolvency Law at EU level’. The recommendations of this report take into account the ideas that experts elaborated in the aforementioned study and during the hearing and that were further explained in the accompanying documentation.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Disparities between national insolvency laws often create competitive advantages or disadvantages and difficulties for companies with cross-border activities, which could become obstacles to a successful restructuring of insolvent companies.

It would therefore be prudent to harmonise across Europe the conditions under which insolvency proceedings can be opened. The Committee on Legal Affairs has quite rightly identified four points for future legislative initiatives. In addition to harmonisation, where possible, it would be good to see a revision of the Insolvency Regulation, where still necessary, and where practice has proven that improvements can be made.

Thirdly, it would also be a good idea to improve cooperation among liquidators and cooperation in general on the administrative level in cases where enterprises that are part of a group of companies become insolvent. Lastly, the creation of an EU Registry for insolvency cases was suggested. The recommendations are designed to serve as guidelines for the Commission to reform the issue, ending differences between national legislation.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) At the time of the adoption of the Insolvency Regulation at EU level, in 2000, certain important issues were not properly included, and there is now a need to give them particular emphasis. As such, the disparity between national legal systems as regards insolvency proceedings requires harmonisation, so as to enable a better restructuring of Europe’s various companies, which should consist of the following legislative proposals. The various points considered include harmonisation of the conditions under which insolvency proceedings may be opened, revision of certain definitions included in the regulation and its scope, improved promotion of cooperation between liquidators and administrative entities, and creation of an EU registry of cases.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) Following a detailed analysis of the insolvency regulations of the individual Member States, the areas where harmonisation would be both sensible and viable have been categorised. In addition, the proposal includes suggestions for increasing the cooperation between the administrative bodies and the creation of an insolvency register at a European level. I have voted in favour.

Report: Kerstin Westphal (A7-0350/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report, and would draw attention to the fact that demographic change is a factor that should be taken into account when setting out policies, especially for the outermost regions and for the weakest regions supported by the ‘Convergence’ objective.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. – I am in favour of this report which depicts how demographic change clearly impacts the provision of social infrastructure, such as pension systems, nursing care and health care, and calls for proactive measures to prevent its negative consequences. Demographic change is producing new challenges in many regions of the EU. As demographic change can bring both risks and opportunities, it is imperative that each region has its own strategy. As such, Members call on the Commission to include demographic change as a horizontal objective in the future cohesion policy and also encourages the regions to use Structural Funds to help address demographic challenges and to improve access to social and administrative services. As Europe will, for demographic reasons, remain dependent on migration for skilled labour, this report calls for Member States to recognise the integration of migrants as a strategically important policy measure.

It also believes that the regions should use ESF funds in a decisive manner to combat youth unemployment by supporting training measures for young people, while continuing support to raise the female employment rate. Lastly, the report considers that demographic developments in the regions should be statistically measured so that data can be evaluated at European level.

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) We are facing a challenge, namely, to tackle demographic change in a practical way, through targeted policies and good allocation of financial resources. Unfortunately, we are witnessing the ageing of the European population. Our population growth rate is among the lowest in the world, while the birth rate is below the replacement level of an average of 2.1 children per woman.

Demographic change will drastically change the political, social and economic situation in Europe, especially due to the crisis, the retirement age and the considerable migratory flows to which Europe’s borders are subject. Furthermore, the cities will have to deal with a population influx, while according to estimates, the population of around 20 regions will fall by more than 10%. There is no time to lose. We need targeted policies, concrete and visible efforts and progress within a short time, tackling female and youth employment, for example, and the integration of people with disabilities.

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Europe has the oldest population in the world, and it also has the lowest population growth rate. This is a situation which ought to alarm us and make us aware that demographic change affects numerous areas. Joint solutions and synergies can be found by implementing EU policies for the main sensitive issues raised by demographic change. Therefore, the Structural Funds must be better adapted to the challenges posed by these changes, depopulation and the social isolation of elderly people must be prevented, and town planning needs to be adapted. Furthermore, the rise in the employment rate of women plays a key role in combating this problem. Last but not least, coordination needs to be improved between the relevant authorities at every level, and exchanges of good practices must be encouraged. I take this opportunity to call on Member States to take into account the different levels of development of the regions where the allocation and distribution of the EU Structural Funds are concerned, as well as the definition of impact indicators.

  Pino Arlacchi (S&D), in writing. – I voted in favour of this report because demographic change is creating new possibilities for some regions in the world and, instead of being viewed purely as a threat, it should also be seen as an opportunity. The support provided by the cohesion policy instruments should be carefully examined and exploited in an appropriate manner. The impact of demographic change varies substantially from region to region, depending on whether it is rapid or slow, and whether the region concerned is a region of net immigration or of shrinking population.

For this reason, this text calls on the Member States and regions to consider the divergent development levels of the regions and take into account demographic indicators when allocating and distributing EU Structural Funds and defining impact indicators. Furthermore, demographic developments in the regions should be made comparable, and exchanges of best practices between Member States, regions and local communities should be encouraged.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The EU faces two demographic challenges: the ageing of its population and a low birth rate. A slowdown in the population growth rate impacts negatively on the economy and increases the risk of dependence. These trends are more pronounced in regions where the exodus of young people to attractive urban centres is more marked. The EU must find ways to manage these developments in a sustainable manner, notably through cohesion policy. As I am committed to the principle of social cohesion, which is at the heart of EU regional policy, I voted in favour of Kerstin Wetphal’s own-initiative report, which proposes that demographic change should become one of the priorities of this policy.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Demographic change is a reality in the European Union. Europe’s population is ageing: it has the oldest population and the lowest population growth rate in the world. Demographic change is therefore considered the major trend of the 21st century, and it will drastically change the political, social, societal and economic situation in Europe. This report, for which I voted, identifies the following priorities: better adapting the Structural Funds to the challenges of demographic change; preventing depopulation and the social exclusion of the elderly; combating unemployment amongst women and young people; and making use of the knowledge and experience of older people. In order for Europe to achieve an adequate response to demographic change, it is important, firstly, that it be possible to determine these changes in adequate statistical terms, and, secondly, that there be better coordination between the responsible entities at all levels and an exchange of best practices.

  George Becali (NI), in writing. – (RO) Europe has two important features nowadays: an ageing population and migration flows both from within and outside the EU. During the current financial year, Member States have allocated EUR 30 billion from the Structural Funds to measures relating to demographic change. I find interesting the idea of treating demographic change also as an opportunity, rather than only as a threat. This can be achieved by dealing with the problem at regional level.

The Commission has proposed support for young families provided by high-quality child care and educational institutions, as well as through solutions for the generation in the middle and the elderly. Therefore, it is right for us to aim to adapt the Structural Funds better to these challenges. Towns and villages must be attractive to their inhabitants, have the necessary infrastructure to support children and families, and provide multi-generational housing. A reduction in youth unemployment is desirable through projects financed by the ESF.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Demographic change in the European Union is a fact today. Europe’s population is ageing and it has the lowest population growth rate in the world. Handling this change is an issue of varying importance in our regions, depending on their demographic growth and their migratory pull. This own-initiative report puts forward numerous proposals for responding to the differing expectations of our regions in terms of services, infrastructures and social policy in this context of demographic change. It is essential to support the efforts already under way to ensure the adequate, universal provision of high-quality basic services of general interest. The future cohesion policy must therefore play its key role through better coordination of the European Structural Funds.

In order to stem the negative impact of demographic change, Europe will need labour immigration, especially highly qualified labour. The Member States must recognise that the integration of migrants is a strategically important policy measure which must be integrated into the future cohesion policy. Ageing and immigration, as highlighted by this quality report, must become opportunities for the Europe of tomorrow.

  Sergio Berlato (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Demographic change in the European Union is a fact. The way it is handled will have a decisive influence on the political, social and economic situation in Europe, and handling it will certainly be one of the central tasks of the future. Europe has the oldest population and the lowest population growth in the world. Furthermore, it should be noted that in the majority of Member States, the birth rate lies below the replacement level of 2.1 children for every woman and, in some cases, even continues to diminish in the face of increased life expectancy.

Regional policy, in my opinion, is an essential instrument in confronting demographic change. The Member States and regions should be positioned to make greater use of Structural Funds in order to develop strategies to tackle the challenges posed by demographic change successfully.

The Commission, in the conclusions of the Fifth Report on cohesion, underlines the importance of demographic change. However, the Commission should regard this change as an essential priority for the development of Europe and, in the meantime, the Member States and regions should henceforth recognise these problems as a horizontal priority to be included in their own operational programmes.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because demographic change is producing new challenges in many regions of the EU. Not all EU regions have realised that demographic change can bring risks, but they now have to understand that each region and each urban area needs its own strategy. In principle, this is the Member States’ responsibility, but the regions themselves must be proactive and, at the same time, they need guidance and prospects for the future. Demographic change, especially population ageing, has a clear impact on the provision of social infrastructure, such as pension systems, nursing care and health care, with regional authorities having to meet changing demand from various population groups. Moreover, the impact of demographic change varies substantially from region to region, depending on whether it is rapid or slow and whether the region concerned is a region of net immigration or of shrinking population and therefore requires a different adjustment strategy, and must be tackled in a coordinated way by all European, national and regional authorities. Attention should be drawn to the fact that in regions of shrinking population, particularly rural regions, quality of life is defined differently from the way it is in regions with a growing population, and therefore different support strategies are needed.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I offer my congratulations for the work carried out by the rapporteur, for which I voted in favour. Demographic change, now established in the European Union, and its handling are among the most pressing tasks in the immediate future. The population of Europe continues to age and demographic growth is the lowest in the world. In the majority of Member States the birth rate is below the replacement level, equal to 2.1 children per woman.

Regional policy should therefore become an essential instrument in confronting demographic change. Structural Funds should be better adapted to the challenges posed by demographic change, in particular, by also making use of demographic indicators when allocating funds. Moreover, in response to these challenges, it is necessary to focus efforts on increasing the employment rate for women and fighting youth unemployment.

Finally, it is necessary to ascertain adequately the demographic trend from a statistical point of view, thereby improving coordination between relevant services at every level, including through exchange of good practices. Handled effectively, demographic change could present opportunities for Europe itself, and no longer be considered a threat.

  Jan Březina (PPE), in writing. – (CS) I firmly believe that the Structural Funds must be better adapted to the challenges of demographic change. The Commission should consider this change a key priority for European development. At the same time, Member States and regions should take more account of this topic than previously, and consider it a horizontal priority in their operational programmes. In the distribution of resources from the Structural Funds at regional level, account should be taken of demographic indicators. We are confronting significant challenges with infrastructure, not only in rural areas, but also in the cities. We must prevent an exodus of citizens and the social exclusion of old people, and we must also make changes to town planning. The Structural Funds can play a supporting role here. Towns and villages must be attractive to citizens, and this includes infrastructure that is of benefit to children and families, as well as good public transport over short distances. In view of the fact that demographic changes mainly affect old people, children and families, it is necessary for resources from the European Regional Development Fund to be directed to supporting loans at favourable interest rates that can help with the construction of flats that are suitable for old people or with supporting multigenerational housing. It is essential to have comprehensive health care, sufficient nursing staff and payment-free, all-day child care, which can be supported by cohesion policy.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the Westphal report on the consequences of demographic change for the future cohesion policy. This report considers that Member States and their regions should take more account of demographic change and recognise it as a cross-cutting priority in their operational programmes. It also emphasises the role of the Structural Funds in preventing depopulation and the exclusion of the elderly, as well as the importance of infrastructures in making regions attractive for families.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Europe’s populations are ageing, life expectancy is increasing and demographic change is increasingly becoming a reality, which is consequently having a social and economic impact on both social security and migratory pressure. It is important to start now on tackling the challenges associated with demographic change, which vary a great deal from region to region, so as to reverse the flow of young people abandoning rural areas for the cities. If not, there will be an alarming population decline of 10% in around 20 regions of the EU.

Demographic change has undoubtedly been affecting older people, children and families. Therefore, we need measures intended to reorganise urban planning, particularly as regards better quality public transport; the granting of funds from the European Regional Development Fund, with the intention of offering loans at lower interest rates so that beneficiaries can adapt their houses to the needs of older people; increased medical care cover; and making better use of older people’s knowledge and experience as regards advice, in order to prevent their exclusion and depopulation.

  Lara Comi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of this report on the initiative as I believe that demographic change should not be considered as a problem, but rather as a great opportunity for Member States to carry out reforms. The increase in life expectancy and the ageing of the population present two of today’s great challenges in the field of demographic change and have an impact on the political, social and economic circumstances of every country. To this end, structural policy should take up these challenges, concentrating on the needs of the elderly, children and families, on the necessity to employ skilled labour, focusing on increasing the inclusion of women in the labour market as well as on the use of Structural Funds to adapt to different regional scenarios. Furthermore, I believe that it is very important to strengthen aid to regions characterised by depopulation and by population ageing in order to guarantee that these regions are in a position to benefit from Structural Funds. To this effect, it could be useful to promote the importance of entrepreneurship and innovation, of social infrastructures and integrated urban development. I hope that all Member States will be able to adopt their own support strategies which are nevertheless coordinated by the various relevant authorities. In order to distribute Structural Funds, it is certainly necessary to bear in mind the different levels of development between regions.

  Andrea Cozzolino (S&D), in writing. – (IT) Demographic change, as underlined in the Fifth Report on cohesion, poses one of the central challenges for the future of the European socio-economic system, and it is a challenge with a wide territorial context that cuts deeply into the management of services and infrastructures.

Without in any way detracting from the task of individual Member States, this challenge, which could also become an opportunity, directly implicates European institutions and, in particular, regional development policies. These policies are characterised by different strategies that are adapted to guaranteeing the demands and needs, respectively, of areas with populations on the rise and in decline, as well as the varying needs of urban and rural areas.

In response to these challenges, European Funds (both the ERDF and the ESF) can be used comprehensively to ensure that equilibrium is restored to demands and, to this end, we should welcome the prospect of also making use of specific demographic indicators to assign European funds as well as to redistribute finances at the level of individual States.

I express my vote in favour in the hope for policies capable of correlating the effects of demographic change with the fight against old and new poverty.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The European Union must take into account current demographic changes at Member State level to identify how the EU strategies intended for this area can be adapted according to the problems pinpointed by local and regional authorities. The current crisis must not affect urban and regional development projects, which must be correlated with functional changes to the infrastructure, including through revitalising and redeveloping city centre areas, and with the possibility that, in the future, smaller or larger cities will be developed which are better suited to the elderly and their mobility.

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Europe’s demographic structure is changing radically. That is an unavoidable fact. Apart from the ageing of the population and lower birth rates at global level, demographic change in a number of regions of the European Union is bringing new challenges that should be considered objectively in future EU cohesion policy. In certain regions, there is depopulation; in others, considerable influxes of people. I therefore consider it absolutely essential to set out and implement an adequate infrastructure policy, adapted to the needs of each area. The Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund play a key role here. As such, there is a need to develop specific policies for the rural areas suffering depopulation, on the one hand, and specific policies for the urban areas receiving significant influxes of population, on the other. The report gives good examples of what should be done. I voted for this report, since I believe it makes pertinent, objective, clear and easily understood contributions to the debate that has recently started on the future of EU regional policy.

  Luigi Ciriaco De Mita (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Different rates of development and the changes in the ways of life that exist in our societies have led to profound variations in the demographic pyramid. If higher life expectancy is a positive aspect of these changes, the same could not be said for others, in particular, for those that concern young people and women. With regard to these categories of the population, elements that have been shown to be inadequate include work policies that have put a strain both on training (including at university and post university), in favour of a more pronounced trend towards entering the world of work, and on accompanying policies concerning remaining in work, with a view to greater fulfilment of family needs. To this end, among the initiatives to be reinforced by more profitable use of Structural Funds, one could, on the one hand, include the provision of services in support of guidance and of satisfying the demand for work with job offers, whereby these services are adequate, operational and easily accessible to those who require them. On the other hand, one could intervene by strengthening policies in support of the family (including greater diffusion of public or private nurseries and organisation of flexible work). I believe that the approved report leads in this direction.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report recommending improved allocation of cohesion policy resources in order to give local authorities the resources to mitigate the impact of Europe’s ageing population. It has become essential to counteract the exodus of young people from the less-favoured regions, and to develop care infrastructures for the elderly, if we are to prevent these people from becoming excluded.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Demographic change, both at European and international level, is one of the major challenges that the public authorities have to tackle. An ageing population, significant migratory flows, the exodus from rural regions to urban regions. These demographic upheavals constitute one of the main challenges for the future. The report for which I voted today invites the Commission, in particular, to perfect its ‘demographic vulnerability index’ and to recalculate it every five years in order to better identify the regions of Europe that are particularly exposed to demographic change. It is just a first step in the management of these inexorable developments.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report because it argues that gender equality policies could contribute significantly to tackling demographic change. In addition to measures intended to increase women’s employability, particular attention should be paid to incentives for employers’ associations that promote the reconciliation of professional and private life.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Demographic change is obvious in a European Union that is increasingly old and incapable of reproducing itself from one generation to the next. This situation cannot fail to concern specialists, as well as political decision makers, who will be unable to avoid the blame for the negative consequences of their societies’ loss of vitality, and who will instead have to seek ways of minimising the resulting problems and adapting the welfare state to the new reality. The ageing of the population is no bad thing in and of itself, but rather demonstrates how average life expectancy has increased. However, the low birth rate should be worthy of our taking a closer look at support for reconciling personal and family life, and at adopting family friendly public policies.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report, drafted by Ms Westphal, tackles a subject of extreme importance for the future of Europe. Indeed, we cannot be insensitive to the demographic change that has been occurring, essentially over the last three decades. The sharp drop in the birth rate, increased life expectancy, the depopulation of rural areas and migratory flows are some of the phenomena about which the European Union needs to reflect, and which it must include in future cohesion policy. Demographic change is ‘the major trend of the 21st century, as it will drastically change the political, social, societal and economic situation in Europe’, so it is essential that the Structural Funds be channelled into alleviating the negative effects of this change: investment in rural areas to prevent depopulation; urban child care facilities; benefits for older people, children and families; increased rate of employment for women; and a new policy for integrating qualified immigrant women. I therefore welcome the rapporteur’s view of not considering demographic change a problem, but rather an opportunity for confronting the ageing of Europe’s population, as well as the adoption of this report, which includes a proactive vision of demographic change.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) Demographic change in Europe is partly the expression of civilisation’s achievements, like increased average life expectancy, but also of worrying aspects like the low birth rate, which is of particular concern in certain countries, like Portugal. The rapporteur’s intention is to examine and explore these developments, from the point of view of the opportunities and consequences of demographic change. As we stated during the debate, it concerns us that this debate is frequently used, in some ways that are more disguised than others, to pave the way for enforcing measures that threaten the fundamental rights and victories of the workers and peoples, like social security systems; for increasing the retirement age and reducing pension values, for overloading and damaging social infrastructure, and for abolishing rights to health care.

All this has been happening with the implementation of so-called austerity measures. If demographic change is not to represent a step backwards for society or jeopardise economic and social cohesion, public services must be universal and of high quality, adapted and reinforced according to new requirements resulting from demographic change, and publicly owned. Changes to the policies that have been leading to the low birth rate must also be implemented.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) Scientific and technical development, and civilisation’s achievements over the last century, enable progress that poses us a series of new possibilities and challenges. However, at the level of the EU institutions, this progress has been used as a pretext for imposing steps backwards; in other words, to threaten the rights and victories of the workers and peoples, like public and universal social security systems. Many of the challenges have gone without the proper response, whether at the level of cohesion policy, of regional development, of combating desertification, or of strengthening and diversifying public services.

This report tackles the important issue of using the Structural Funds – specifically, the European Regional Development Fund and the European Social Fund – to confront some of these challenges, particularly in the countries and regions suffering most from ageing and depopulation. Increasing the absorption of these EU funds is all the more important when we realise that many of these countries and regions are confronted with unacceptable programmes of so-called austerity, which are squeezing investment levels to the point of penury, so preventing the full use of these funds by those who need them most and at a time when they are most needed.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The European population is the oldest in the world and, as a result, managing demographic change is one of the core tasks for the future. Demographic change has different impacts on different regions, depending on a range of factors.

The right solution to this problem requires different adaptation strategies. It is clear, for example, that quality of life in regions with a declining population – particularly in rural areas – is defined differently than in regions with a growing population. I firmly believe, however, that in seeking an optimal solution, it is essential in all circumstances to take account of the individual needs of different population groups.

In order to find answers to the challenges posed by demographic change, it is important to try and create the sort of conditions that will allow EU Member State citizens to balance work, family and private life.

It is also important to improve coordination between the competent authorities at all levels so as to allow positive advances to be made, for example, through the sharing of experience and proven approaches to a given problem. If we make the necessary effort for suitable guidance on demographic change and find a response at European, national and regional level, it will not be a threat for Europe but, on the contrary, an opportunity.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. – (FR) The difficulty is not knowing whether, and to what extent, EU regional policy should take account of the extremely worrying demographic changes taking place in Member States and some of their regions, but how to avert the impending demographic disaster. Nothing in this report actually focuses on resolving the problem of ageing in our continent and of economic and social decline, as well as demographic decline, in many regions, not just isolated rural areas. Clearly, it is not for this policy of patronage and financial tinkering, which you call ‘cohesion policy’, to tackle these problems, which depend on proactive national birth policies. However, neither should this policy make pronouncements on encouraging immigration from outside Europe as a solution to replacing indigenous populations. Amidst all the confusion and immigrationist militancy, the few sensible considerations contained in this report could not deflect the inevitable negative vote.

  Brice Hortefeux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) By overwhelmingly adopting the report on demographic change and its consequences for the future cohesion policy, Parliament has sent a clear signal to the European Commission and the Council of the European Union on how cohesion policy should be handled in the future.

Member States are increasingly mobilising the Structural Funds in order to combat the adverse effects of demographic change (population ageing, rural exodus of young people, inadequate infrastructures, and so on), of which the impact on the economic and social development of the European Union cannot be ignored. For the period 2007-2013, the Member States have devoted EUR 30 billion to action in this area. These efforts need to continue.

That is why I believe it is essential for the demographic dimension to become an integral part of European policies, in particular, cohesion policy, and to be taken into account in national strategies, too.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. – This report highlights the need for adequate provision of affordable housing. Important steps towards this end have been made in my own country, where the Scottish Government and the Scottish Futures Trust are working with local authorities to implement the National Housing Trust initiative. This initiative is rectifying years of neglect in this area by successive unionist governments.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed this document because demographic change in the EU is a fact, and handling it constitutes one of the core tasks for the future. Europe’s population is ageing: it has the oldest population and the lowest population growth rate in the world. In most Member States, the birth rate is below the replacement level and continues to fall in some cases, while life expectancy is rising. Demographic change is therefore rightly considered to be the major trend of the 21st century as it will drastically change the political, social, societal and economic situation in Europe. The problem is not demographic change itself, but politicians’ and society’s hesitation to address this change. Meeting the full range of demographic challenges is principally the task of the Member States, but the regions must be proactive, for which reason they need support at European level. The European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the European Social Fund (ESF) can contribute to the task of addressing the challenges stemming from demographic change in the EU, namely, the increase in the number of older people and the decline in the young population. If we shape demographic change and find answers both at European level and at national and regional level, this change will not be a threat but an opportunity for Europe.

  Lívia Járóka (PPE), in writing. – The economic and social impacts of demographic change are one of the key factors that must be reckoned with regarding the future prosperity of Europe and the fulfilment of justice, human rights and freedom. Marginalisation and demographic dynamics often go hand in hand, as can most conspicuously be seen in the case of the Roma. Not only are they the continent’s far youngest minority with the lowest socio-economic status, but their communities can be characterised by reversed demographic trends compared to the majority population. Hence, in most new Member States, while there is a rapid ageing of the majority population, the proportion of Roma is quickly increasing within the active age cohort, which carries the social security system on its shoulders.

As a demographic gap opens up, so it is usually followed by the exacerbation of intra-regional disparities, further polarising those micro-regions that are peripheral and declining and those that are dynamic and developing. The fact that there are areas which are lagging behind may hamper general social development and threaten to disrupt cohesion – not only in territorial terms, but also in social terms. Their specific needs must therefore be targeted through an equivalent, complex and intensive programme based on a pan-European crisis map.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Demographic change in the European Union is a fact, and handling it constitutes one of the core tasks for the future. This report has an important role to play with regard to the wellbeing of our fellow Europeans. That is why I supported this report.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The rise in life expectancy, which affects almost the entirety of the population of Europe, forces us to think about new challenges and about considering the possibilities without limiting ourselves to avoiding the risks. A demographic change, indeed, leads to reflections and new strategies regarding European Structural Funds anticipated for the development of urban and rural areas. Evaluating, in the light of the new figures on life expectancy and birth rates, the policies relating to the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and, more generally, those that concern mobility and social cohesion, is more necessary than ever. However, this evaluation must take place under the watchful eye of the authorities in individual Member States and regions. Mr Westphal’s report, for which I have voted in favour, reflects the need to tackle the theme of demographic change, in the diversity and complexity of its elements, keeping in mind the repercussions it can have on the economy, employment and mobility, and those that are closely linked to the citizens of the EU.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – Demographic change in the EU is a fact and handling it constitutes one of the core tasks for the future. Europe’s population is ageing: it has the oldest population and the lowest population growth rate in the world. In most Member States, the birth rate is below the replacement level of 2.1 children per woman (and continues to fall in some cases), while life expectancy is rising. There is a 50% probability that a girl born in Germany in 2010 will reach the age of 100. Demographic change is therefore rightly considered to be the major trend of the 21st century, as it will drastically change the political, social, societal and economic situation in Europe. This report makes some sensible suggestions for handling demographic change and I supported it.

  Clemente Mastella (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Demographic change in the European Union is a fact, and handling it constitutes one of the core tasks for the future. We have the oldest population and the lowest population growth in the world. In the majority of Member States, the birth rate is below the replacement level.

Many people consider demographic change to be a problem. We, instead, agree with the rapporteur who, according to this report, believes that this point of view is short-sighted and hopes that the opportunities which these demographic developments can offer to Europe are taken into consideration. The problem is not demographic change itself, but the hesitation of politics and society in addressing this change. Member States and regions can draw on the Structural Funds to develop tailor-made strategies. In order to find answers to the challenges posed by demographic change, we believe that it is necessary, first and foremost, to obtain adequate statistics on this change. Secondly, coordination between the authorities concerned should be improved at every level and examples of good practice should be exchanged between the 27 Member States.

  Iosif Matula (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Demographic change is a current problem facing the EU, exerting an irreversible impact on society. In order to meet the EU 2020 objectives for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, demographic change needs to be approached as an opportunity rather than an inconvenience. The year 2012 is the European Year of Active Ageing and Solidarity between the Generations. The decline in the number of people of working age and the ageing population will have a crucial impact on the labour market. At the same time, youth unemployment is growing at an alarming rate, and the European Union is obliged, in practical terms, to establish a balance between generations.

An initial measure is to utilise the full potential of the European Social Fund to support opportunities for training, professional retraining and social inclusion involving women and young people. The next step must be to encourage workforce training, particularly in developing regions in countries which have joined the European Union more recently. The workforce in countries like Romania or Bulgaria is not used to its full professional capacity. Equal opportunities on the labour market will lead to beneficial competition and provide a dynamic, professionally well-trained workforce. Removing discrimination against workers, promoting their mobility, along with creating a stable vocational training system, are key factors contributing to the European Union’s future.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Proactive measures need to be taken urgently in order to prevent the negative effects of demographic change and to enable an increase in technical assistance for the regions that have been most affected by depopulation and ageing. I fully agree that the balance between work and family life needs to be improved. Genuine support for families is an essential condition for raising the birth rate in the Member States. I am voting in favour.

  Erminia Mazzoni (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The report on demographic change addresses the crucial issue of the gradual ageing of the European population. It sets out a concrete proposal that is based on the conviction that the trend can be reversed in the long term and benefited from in the short term. The European Union cannot walk away from the responsibility of dealing with this phenomenon, since it will set the tone for the future economic and political structure of united Europe. The wide range of effects that it has on social dynamics suggests the use of the structural policy in order to take positive action. The report puts forward six priority areas for ensuring that the rights of all generations are protected, be they children, young people, women or the elderly. The idea of using the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the European Social Fund (ESF) must be taken into consideration during the discussion on the legislative package on the new cohesion policy. The subject we are looking at is entirely coherent with the objective of promoting social cohesion, which is among the three priorities of the EU 2020 strategy. These reasons led me to lend my support to the excellent work carried out by Ms Westphal, both in committee and in this House.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. – Europe’s population is ageing – it has the oldest population and the lowest population growth rate in the world. For this reason, demographic developments must be studied at regional level in particular, where very different developments become apparent. This report, that I support, calls on the Commission to include demographic change as one of the thematic priorities of the future cohesion policy, as the Structural Funds must be better adapted to the challenges of demographic change. The report also encourages Member States and regions to pay greater heed to the issue as a horizontal priority in their operational programmes than heretofore.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Demographic change in the EU is a fact, and dealing with it constitutes one of the core tasks for the future. Europe’s population is ageing. Europe has the oldest population and the lowest population growth rate in the world. In most Member States, the birth rate is below the replacement level of 2.1 children per woman and continues to fall in some cases, while life expectancy is rising. Demographic change is producing new challenges in many regions of the EU. For this reason, demographic developments must be studied predominantly at regional level, where very different developments become apparent.

  Alajos Mészáros (PPE), in writing. – (HU) The ageing of the European population is steadily progressing. It is here that we find the highest average age and the lowest population growth rate worldwide. The birth rate per woman remains below the 2.1 children required for sustaining the population, whereas life expectancy is increasing. Demographic change presents many regions of the European Union with new challenges. The European Commission communication on promoting solidarity between the regions states that the rights of each generation must be protected. Due to the diversity of the challenges, regions and cities will need strategies of their own. This generally falls within Member State competence, and it is therefore obvious that regions must act proactively, in which they require both guidance and perspectives. In their operational programmes for the 2007-2013 programming period, the Member States have allocated some EUR 30 billion (8.5% of Structural Fund appropriations) to measures in this field.

Regional policy is therefore a key instrument in tackling demographic change. In the future, the Structural Funds will need to be better aligned to the challenges of demographic change, and should acknowledge it as a horizontal priority in their operational programmes. When allocating structural funding on a regional level, account must be taken of demographic indicators as well. I find the professional opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs to be particularly useful.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – I agree that demographic developments in the regions should be made comparable in view of exchangeable data and that exchanges of best practices between Members States, regions and local communities should be encouraged. I voted in favour.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) Large-scale demographic change has been under way for several decades and is having far-reaching consequences for the structure of society and a massive impact on the economy. The trend towards an ageing population is not as pronounced in the new Member States in Eastern Europe as it is in the old EU Member States. Demographic change is certain to bring about decisive changes in the political, social, societal and economic situation in Europe. The abandonment of whole areas of land highlights the threats to which rural regions will be exposed in future if we cannot put a stop to the migration of younger people. Initial investigations into the costs and benefits of immigration should by now have made it clear that mass migration is not an appropriate response to demographic change.

Massive cuts in the infrastructure in rural regions under the guise of deregulating the postal and railway systems, together with school closures, are further accelerating the migration trend. As long as the basic infrastructure is being cut back, structural subsidies will not be able to reverse the trend. Therefore, I cannot vote in favour of the report.

  Katarína Neveďalová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) According to the latest information, the population of the world recently passed the 7 billion mark. Demographic change in the EU and worldwide is a reality, and solving this problem is one of the key challenges now and in the future. The situation is different in each part of the world, and this is also true for the EU, where the individual regions differ from one another.

This irreversible change affects cohesion policy in particular. The constant movement of the population within the EU, or the influx of people from third countries, will, sooner or later, force us to reassess and update this policy. These changes will mainly include reforms to structural policy, urban development and projects aimed at creating residential areas that support families, children and pensioners. Last but not least, these will also include migration and unemployment.

It will only be possible to achieve these reforms through close cooperation between Member States. Whatever changes or reforms take place, it is necessary for them to take account of the most vulnerable layers of the population, such as children and single mothers, for example.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcome this resolution because demographic change is currently taking place in the EU on an unprecedented scale and is posing certain dangers, particularly to cohesion policy. Consequently, I believe that structural policy reforms must be actively implemented at EU level. Above all, the EU Structural Funds must be allocated with due regard to the development level of each region and other demographic indicators. The European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the European Social Fund (ESF) must provide increased funding for urban and infrastructure development. It should be noted that the Commission has a special role to play in this area because it must ensure the effective and coordinated management of the consequences of demographic change. Moreover, given the ever increasing problem of the ageing of society, we need to reinforce pension systems, promote solidarity between the generations, and ensure high-quality care and nursing in residential care homes.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of the report. We usually refer to demographic change as a problem. However, the fact that people are living longer is obviously not a problem. The real problem is low birth rates. The cause, apart from the modern way of life, is the economic insecurity and fear that people feel about starting and maintaining a large family. How could they feel otherwise when more than one in three large families – 31.3% to be precise – in the European Union today face the risk of poverty and social exclusion. This, therefore, is the major challenge: to adjust the Cohesion Fund at EU level and operational programmes at national level to support families, to support large families, to promise that social cuts to large families will not be accepted. This pledge, this social contract with large families, is the best safety net for safeguarding social cohesion and for resolving the current demographic problem, and it is becoming even more important in countries such as Greece, where citizens are suffering unprecedented and drastic cuts to social benefits due to the economic crisis.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Like the rapporteur, I believe, in general, that these problems also constitute opportunities for new types of development. However, that is not always the case and demographic issues could run into tragic situations in a future without opportunities. I am referring specifically to the process of desertification of some of the islands of the Azores. In particular, the populations of the islands of Graciosa, Flores and São Jorge are declining and, with them, economic, social, cultural and leisure activity, along with all hope for personal or collective development. There is an urgent need for specific and effective policies to tackle these dire situations, and for adequate funding, which is not being found quickly.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I agree with the idea that managing demographic change in the EU is one of the key tasks of the future, considering that many see demographic change as a problem, despite the opportunities which these demographic developments can offer to Europe. Furthermore, given that I consider the six priority areas included in the report to be valid, I am voting in favour of this report so that structural policy will address the enormous challenges of demographic change.

  Franck Proust (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I welcome the initiative taken by Parliament to raise an issue that is fundamental to our future: demographic change. However, I would like to stress that this issue will have a significant impact not only on regional policy, which is the subject of the report, but also on all European policies. That is the sense in which I voted in favour of the report. The entire structure and architecture of public policy needs to be rethought – from decision making at local level to broad guidelines at international level. We will need good ideas if we are to find substantive, effective solutions to this problem, which affects all our western societies. I also think it would be good to involve the advisory committees even more closely, especially the European Economic and Social Committee. Provided for in the Treaties, this body is made up of representatives of civil society. They are stakeholders on the ground, whose experience may be useful to us in our forthcoming debates.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Demographic change is a fact in the European Union today: the population is becoming progressively older, on the one hand, and people from less developed areas are increasingly leaving for urban centres, on the other. Indeed, the EU has the lowest birth rate in the world, which is not only heightening the need to recruit labour originating in non-EU countries, but is also, in social terms, leading to very severe pressure on social security systems. Therefore, irrespective of the demographic policies in the strict sense that could be adopted, there is a need now to deal with the adoption of a structural policy enabling the Union’s new demographic structure to be tackled. I voted in favour because I agree with this idea.

  Robert Rochefort (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The Member States of the European Union will experience massive population ageing in the coming years. This phenomenon will, of course, affect our countries differently, depending on their demographic structure and their attractiveness in terms of migration. Our regions must, therefore, on the basis of their specific characteristics, adopt proactive measures as quickly as possible so as to turn this development into an opportunity. In this sense, I welcome Kerstin Westphal’s report. Making ageing a horizontal objective of cohesion policy, which is what is proposed, will make it possible for projects to be funded that are able to meet the expectations of our regions in terms of services, infrastructure and social policy in a context of demographic change. Better coordinated and targeted European funding programmes, such as the ERDF, the ESF and the EAFRD, may, in fact, be very decisive in helping regional and local authorities guarantee continuing medical coverage, good urban planning, the possibility of intergenerational communication, and an appropriate policy for the integration of migrants. The cohesion policy of the EU can therefore play a key role in ensuring that population ageing becomes an opportunity for everyone throughout Europe.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – Against. The report is contradictory in itself, weakens existing EP positions on gender equality and mainstreaming, and includes at least one conservative paragraph (para 25: extended families as solution for child care) which we do not support.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of this report because I think that demographic change in the EU is a fact and handling it is one of the key tasks for the future of Europe. The population of the European Union continues to age. We have the oldest population and the lowest population growth in the world. Although many see demographic change as a problem, I think this point of view is short-sighted and I hope that the opportunities which these demographic developments can offer to Europe are taken into consideration. The problem is not demographic change itself, but the hesitation of politics and society in addressing this change.

  Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD), in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of Ms Westphal’s report and I agree with the rapporteur that demographic change in the EU, which will drastically change the political, social and economic situation in Europe, is a fact and that, within that framework, we need to identify the opportunities that these developments bring for Europe. It should be noted that demographic change will have particularly tangible results in regions and rural areas, as young people are already leaving rural areas for towns and cities. I agree with the rapporteur that each region and each urban area needs to develop its own strategy, at both national and regional level, so that demographic change will not be a threat but an opportunity for Europe.

  Marie-Thérèse Sanchez-Schmid (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Demographic change is one of the most important challenges facing Europe in the 21st century. Indeed, the increasing ageing of the population requires ambitious and courageous strategies. A low fertility rate of 1.5 children per woman, continually rising life expectancy, a decline in the working-age population, and an entire generation of baby boomers who are now retiring require us to adapt our policies if we do not want to burden future generations with the debt of our present comfort. Europe’s role is not to impose an age at which everyone should retire, nor to impose a contribution model. Nonetheless, Europe may be of assistance in the coordination of policies, the implementation of a strategy for the employment of senior citizens through the European Social Fund (ESF), or investing through the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) in care facilities for the elderly and the refurbishment of social housing for dependents. For the period from 2007 to 2013, the Member States have allocated almost EUR 30 billion in their operational programmes to initiatives in this area. We need to expand these initiatives to meet the challenge of demographic transition.

  Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE), in writing. – (DE) We in the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance were not able to endorse Ms Westphal’s report on demographic change. It lags far behind the Castex report which was adopted by Parliament in 2008 and, as a result, will be a disappointment for many European citizens. Women, in particular, will find that the report contains very little for them, despite the fact that demographic change has a female face. In the majority of the Member States, it is women who have to choose between children and a career, who do the work of caring for family members which is generally unpaid and unrecognised, and who are therefore the largest group of people suffering from poverty in old age. The amendments which the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Quality and I, on behalf of the Group of the Greens, have submitted were an attempt to rectify this situation. However, the rapporteur rejected all these amendments and opted instead for a completely outdated picture of the family in which women, as in the past, are the unpaid care workers. The one-sided and restrictive approach to migration in the report also does not correspond with the position of the Greens.

We want to see a controlled but not restrictive immigration policy in Europe. In the paragraphs on urban development and regions with net emigration, our amendments form part of the compromises. This is why we have abstained from voting.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) According to Eurostat, none of the EU Member States has a positive population replacement rate. Only a few, including Great Britain, France and Ireland, have steadily increasing populations. In truth, some say that the European countries characterised by population decline – Germany, Italy and Spain – have reached the point of no return in demographic terms. According to some demographers, these countries have fallen into a ‘low fertility trap’.

The reasons behind a low birth rate are the fact that not having children and families with just one child is becoming the norm and this results in the cultural institutionalisation of ‘zero growth’. In the developed world, delaying having children is among the main causes of the low fertility rate, while access to contraceptives has allowed the adult population to exercise greater control over when they have children. Ever increasing numbers of men and women are aiming first of all to establish themselves at work, putting off having children until later.

We are already aware of the many, possibly dramatic, repercussions of population change. I would like to point out one, which is a liability for our national economies: the ageing of the population. The result of this is that an increasing number of old people depend on an increasingly meagre workforce.

  László Surján (PPE), in writing. – (HU) I supported Ms Westphal’s own-initiative report because I believe that in order to stop current demographic trends and encourage people to have children, we must give the citizens of Europe hope. The reason for this is that a logical consequence of hopelessness and a lack of economic prospects is migration and relocation to more promising regions. However, the depopulation phenomenon afflicting several European regions could be reversed by following a targeted cohesion policy that takes into account intra-regional differences. We must therefore assess how sustainable a method of planning based solely on a GDP-based regional development indicator is when the overall picture it provides obscures the centres of poverty. Europe should pay increased attention to such micro-regions, and should assist them in participating in tender schemes and finding their way through the mazes of bureaucracy.

All this presupposes a far higher degree of flexibility on the part of the EU. It must focus on programmes that make micro-regions attractive again and create jobs. At the same time, I am convinced that as regards demographic issues, it is not cohesion policy that can deliver the main answers and solutions.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In October 2011, the European Commission tabled the legislative package concerning the future of cohesion policy in the period 2014-2020, introducing new measures that I consider extremely important for reducing bureaucracy in cohesion policy and making it more effective. The Directorate-General for Regional Policy’s Fifth Report on Economic, Social and Territorial Cohesion says that ‘Demographic change has become increasingly prominent on the policy agenda’, so demonstrating the importance of the issue in question for the future of cohesion policy. I am voting for this report because it tables measures that could prevent the negative consequences of demographic change, lists several solutions for older people, children and families, and increases the role of cities as hubs intending to stimulate greater social integration. Finally, I believe the Structural Funds in the period 2014-2020 should contribute to solving the challenges resulting from demographic change in the European Union, particularly as regards the decline in the youth population and the increase in average life expectancy.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of the report on demographic change and its consequences for the future EU cohesion policy because the impact of demographic change varies considerably between regions, has implications at both infrastructure and services level, and requires a coordinated approach by European, national and regional authorities. The European Union has an ageing population, while its birth rate is falling. A healthy, active population is critical for the development of European society. In order to tackle demographic change, the EU needs to narrow the existing discrepancies in terms of health and improve access to health care services. Member States must be encouraged to use the ERDF and ESF Structural Funds to adapt housing to the needs of the elderly, so as to safeguard the quality of life in an ageing society and support young families. We call for the ESF rules to be made easier to manage and also to allow small organisations to enjoy this source of funding, and to develop and manage innovative social projects. We urge the Commission to create more flexible terms which will promote cross-financing between the ERDF and ESF funds by Member States and local authorities when devising and implementing integrated urban development plans/strategies.

  Viktor Uspaskich (ALDE), in writing. – (LT) I am pleased that the report addresses demographic issues, but there should be a greater focus on those challenges which have an impact on rural areas and towns. One third of Lithuania’s population lives in rural areas. While young people are emigrating, the rural population is ageing – a quarter of the rural population is over 60 years of age. The statistics are worrying. The birth rate in rural areas is 30% higher than in urban areas, but this percentage is falling every year, while the rate of mortality in rural areas is very high (75% higher than in urban areas). This has a negative impact on natural population growth. Demographic change also underlines the disparities in the quality of life of those living in rural and urban areas. In Lithuania, children, farmers and the elderly are worst affected by demographic change. Lithuania’s rural population is three times more likely to experience poverty than the inhabitants of its major cities. I agree with the rapporteur that the EU Structural Funds should be better adapted to the challenges caused by demographic change. For example, low-interest loans provided by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) really would help the poor in Lithuania’s rural areas.

  Geoffrey Van Orden (ECR), in writing. – The EU approach is generally unhelpful in these matters. A common EU migration policy would make it more difficult for the British Government to control our borders and would lead to an increase in the number of illegal immigrants who enter the UK via our European neighbours (many of whom have porous and weak external borders). Our national security, prosperity and cohesion are my prime concerns. I voted against the report.

  Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. – I voted in favour of this report, as it sends a clear message on the changes Parliament would like the Commission to implement with regard to combating the consequences of demographic change for cohesion policy. Whilst recognising that all Member States are different, this report identifies a number of areas where changes to the framework of Structural Funds could recognise specific demographic changes, for example, by providing social infrastructure for an ageing population, urban development plans and strategies for the elderly, children and family-friendly towns and social inclusion and integration of migrants.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) This report looks at demographic change as a continuous process which requires an appropriate reaction at a political level, and which should be supported at a European level using money from the Structural Funds. The rise in the average age of the European population puts increased demands on the pension, health and care systems. Measures are needed to channel migration from the countryside, which is increasing once again, and to provide support for the overstretched infrastructure in large urban areas.

  Hermann Winkler (PPE), in writing. – (DE) The subject of demographic change is of huge importance for Saxony, the region which I come from, and for the whole of the EU. Between 1990 and 2005, Saxony lost 13% of its population and, by 2020, it is expected to lose another 11.4%. The causes of this are migration and, most importantly, low birth rates. Demographic change has an impact on almost all areas of life and, in particular, on the economy. Vocational education for younger and older workers is becoming increasingly important. However, this issue also involves infrastructures and many services. A number of regions within the EU are affected, not just eastern Germany. For this reason, EU structural funding provides essential aid. During the current subsidy period, around EUR 30 billion is available for operational programmes in the region. We also need to take this into account for the new subsidy period, which begins in 2014, and this is called for in the report, which I have voted in favour of.

This can include support for education and training for young and older people, funding to help young families, and changes in urban and regional planning, such as subsidies for housing suitable for elderly people. We must now ensure that the money is distributed in a way which takes these challenges into account and allows the regions sufficient room for manoeuvre.

Report: Pascal Canfin (A7-0055/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report, and would say that the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament has fought and continues to fight hard for an end to speculation that impacts on the interest rates paid on Europe’s sovereign debt. As a policy relating to Europe’s economic governance, ending short selling and certain aspects of credit default swaps would contribute to a more transparent global financial system.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The financial crisis has highlighted many shortcomings in the financial system, such as ‘short selling’ and ‘credit default swaps’ (CDS). Credit default swaps are a form of financial insurance used to hedge the risks taken by the purchaser. These risks may be the bankruptcy of a company or of a state. Accentuating the speculation, CDS contributed to the bursting of the financial bubble in 2008 and led to the collapse of the US bank Lehman Brothers. However, CDS have not disappeared, and they threaten the euro area if Greece is declared to have defaulted on its sovereign debt. It is therefore imperative that the financial markets are regulated to a greater extent. As I am in favour of tighter regulation of CDS, I voted for Pascal Canfin’s report.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Since the start of the financial crisis, several Member States have taken measures to suspend or ban short selling. However, the powers that national regulators have to restrict or ban such selling vary from Member State to Member State. This new regulation will create a harmonised framework for coordinated action at European level. This regulation bans or restricts these transactions and makes it more difficult to speculate on a country’s sovereign debt. The new legislation intends to increase transparency and enable regulators to more easily detect the risks of the debt market. The regulation also makes it impossible to buy credit default swaps with the sole purpose of speculating on a country’s default, owing to the negative impact that these can have on the stability of the sovereign debt markets. The European Securities and Markets Authority will be central to monitoring and supervision activities. The regulation also introduces stricter requirements as regards informing and notifying national and European regulatory entities, in order that these might be able to monitor the markets and detect the accumulation of risk more easily. I voted for this report for the above reasons.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Let us stop speculating on the sovereign debt of Member States. On Tuesday, 15 November, the European Parliament adopted the ban on naked credit default swaps (CDS) on sovereign debt with a large majority. With the Canfin report, the European Parliament has therefore just put an end, purely and simply, to speculative sovereign debt games, which have no place in a social market economy. With contagion now spreading from the peripheral countries to Italy, Spain, and to our country, banning the sale of these speculative financial instruments is consistent with the notion of European public utility. Achieving this ban, in the current context, was no mean feat for the European Parliament and shows that it intends to play its full role in getting the European Union out of this crisis. While the debt crisis is being dealt with behind closed doors, the European Parliament is fully performing its role as colegislator: going beyond the Commission proposal, Parliament has succeeded, through lengthy negotiations with the Member States, in banning naked credit default swaps on sovereign debt. This is good news, both for the return of financial regulation and for the European Parliament.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) In the current climate of crisis and financial emergency in the EU, it is important to regulate and standardise some aspects of Member States’ legislation on short selling and credit default swaps. We must give the markets and investors a coherent framework and therefore guarantee effective supervision that is ready to respond to the speculation that has fed the economic crisis. The proposal being voted on today contains limitations on sales and purchases of financial products and derivatives through the markets which, under the current structure, can be used by speculators aiming to damage sovereign debt securities and make money out of the downward spiral of prices. As the text proposes, it will also be necessary to provide for possible temporary restrictions on short selling. Also, in some cases, it will be necessary to encourage cooperation between the various national authorities responsible for market supervision through the coordination of the European Securities and Markets Authority.

  Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) Short selling and credit default swaps are one of the root causes of the present financial crisis. We now know that these are practices that were abused by speculators to the detriment of Member States’ economies. I abstained on this particular report because, even though it proposes certain measures to control these destructive ‘financial instruments’, it is basically inadequate and lacking in political courage and ultimately compromises with financial interests. Guaranteeing stricter regulatory rules and greater transparency in short selling are fairly important steps, but they are not enough. Given the catastrophic role that these financial products and the speculative practices associated with them have played, what we need is to ban them, not simply to regulate them more strictly.

  Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on short selling and certain aspects of credit default swaps because I hope that it will ensure the proper functioning of the internal market and improve the functioning conditions, particularly for the financial markets. A high level of consumer and investor protection also needs to be ensured, as well as harmonising the framework for short selling and certain aspects of credit default swaps, in order to hinder the creation of obstacles preventing the proper functioning of the internal market, as it is likely that Member States will continue to adopt conflicting measures.

  Marielle De Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Let us stop speculating on the sovereign debt of Member States. The European Parliament adopted the ban on naked credit default swaps (CDS) on sovereign debt with a large majority and has therefore just put an end, purely and simply, to speculation on sovereign debt, which has no place in a social market economy. With contagion now spreading to Italy and Spain, banning the sale of these speculative financial instruments is consistent with the notion of European public utility. Achieving this ban, in the current context, was no mean feat for the European Parliament and shows that it intends to play its full role in getting the European Union out of this crisis. While the inadequate response to the debt crisis is too often dealt with in intergovernmental, behind closed doors meetings, the European Parliament is fully performing its role as colegislator. By going beyond the Commission proposal, Parliament has succeeded, through lengthy negotiations with the Member States, in banning naked credit default swaps on sovereign debt. This is good news, both for the return of financial regulation and for European democracy.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report, since I consider it crucial to curb the speculation on the EU’s sovereign debts that has been taking place. Much of this speculation has been fed by the sale and resale of credit default swaps (CDSs), whose price serves as an indicator of the level of risk of the respective sovereign debts. As such, more effective regulation is of the greatest urgency. The purpose of these measures is to prevent, throughout the European Union, anyone not owning sovereign debt of one of the EU Member States from being able to buy these risk management products – CDSs – in order to speculate against the related debt. Finally, these proposals will also enable a move towards greater transparency in the short selling – the sale of securities without owning them – market, so as to better regulate another area that generates a lot of speculation.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report represents the culmination of an intense negotiation process between both colegislators and results, in my opinion, in a balanced position with regard to the limit to speculation on sovereign debt and to the future of short selling. I would stress that this makes the European Union the first region in the world to restrict short selling and credit default swaps, and I welcome the decision to limit their activity instead of simply banning them. I should also like to highlight the increased role given to the European Securities and Markets Authority, which will enable greater monitoring and supervision of the rules listed here, and which is in line with Parliament’s position regarding European supervisory authorities. Finally, I would congratulate the team of rapporteurs on all the work they have done, which will provide greater European-level harmonisation of this type of activity.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) As the majority of experts state, the current economic and financial crisis has demonstrated the economic, social and political costs of a self-regulated financial system. The attention of the experts now returns to the search for a methodology that could identify behaviour capable of causing new crises in the financial system. This report, drafted by Mr Canfin, concerns the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on short selling and certain aspects of credit default swaps (CDSs), which were banned in some Member States at the peak of the crisis. A bad debt cannot be classified as good and no one can sell something not in their possession. It is crucial that there be legislation harmonising the potential risks resulting from short selling and CDSs in order for the financial systems to be more secure and run more smoothly. I welcome the adoption of this report, which will give more powers to the European regulators, greater transparency to the financial markets, and greater security to all investors, who will now be at less risk of losing their investments.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) As the report says, at the height of the financial crisis in September 2008, competent authorities in several Member States of the EU, and in other countries such as the United States and Japan, adopted emergency measures to restrict or ban short selling in some or all securities. They acted due to concerns that, at a time of considerable financial instability, short selling could aggravate the downward spiral in the prices of shares, notably in financial institutions, in a way which could ultimately threaten their viability and create systemic risks.

However, in the European Union, the measures adopted by Member States were divergent because of the lack of common regulatory measures. Only now, two years later, are some measures – albeit very insufficient ones – being taken, with a view to harmonising the rules on short selling and certain aspects of credit default swaps, making notification mandatory in properly typified cases, which could contribute to reducing some speculation, particularly on sovereign debt. Regrettably, they will only come into force in 2012, and even after then, the exceptions provided for will still permit this practice in some cases.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) As the report says, at the height of the financial crisis in September 2008, competent authorities in several Member States of the EU, and in other countries such as the United States and Japan, adopted emergency measures to restrict or ban short selling in some or all securities. They acted due to concerns that, at a time of considerable financial instability, short selling could aggravate the downward spiral in the prices of shares, notably in financial institutions, in a way which could ultimately threaten their viability and create systemic risks.

However, in the European Union, the measures adopted by Member States were divergent because of the lack of common regulatory measures. Only now, two years later, are some measures – albeit very insufficient ones – being taken, with a view to harmonising the rules on short selling and certain aspects of credit default swaps, making notification mandatory in properly typified cases, which could contribute to reducing some speculation, particularly on sovereign debt.

Regrettably, they will only come into force in 2012. I also regret that the proposal for a regulation states ‘While in certain situations, it may have adverse effects, under normal market conditions, short selling plays an important role in ensuring the proper functioning of financial markets’.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) At the height of the financial crisis in September 2008, competent authorities in several Member States and the US adopted emergency measures to restrict or ban short selling in some or all securities. The measures adopted by Member States differed, as the Union lacks a specific legislative framework for dealing with short selling.

To ensure the functioning of the financial markets, and to ensure a high level of consumer and investor protection, it is necessary to harmonise the framework for short selling and certain aspects of credit default swaps, particularly in order to maintain financial stability. It is appropriate for the framework provisions to take the form of a regulation. Regulations impose a direct obligation on private parties to publish information. They also delegate powers to the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA). The ban on so-called naked short selling is also appropriate. The current debt crisis shows how speculators who do not own bonds of euro area Member States but only bet on them can cause entire states to go bankrupt. It is therefore important that only bond holders can engage in covering securities through credit default swaps. Last but not least, we also need to strengthen ESMA’s powers. I take the view that it should be the Ministers for Finance who take decisions in so-called exceptional situations, and not ESMA.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the Canfin report, which seeks to better control and limit some of the most speculative financial practices and partially ban these practices in relation to sovereign debt. However, as with all of the other European texts on the regulation of the financial markets, it did not live up to my expectations. The European Union contents itself with minimal, partial, incidental measures, when it should really be attacking the root of the problem and calling into question all of the acts that have brought us to this point, and I mean all of them: elimination of controls on capital movements, securitisation of debts, floating exchange rates, ban on the monetisation of public debts, and so on. In other words, we should abandon the general philosophy that has governed the globalisation of the economy for decades. There is no doubt that the financial sector is already preparing instruments that will enable it to by-pass or distort these measures. Indeed, the states are still under the control of the markets and the rating agencies when it comes to financing never-ending deficits fuelled in part by the exorbitant interest rates. I get the impression that we are trying to put out a forest fire with water pistols. I want to be able to rely on my own pump, but it will not put out the fires.

  Roberto Gualtieri (S&D), in writing. – (IT) One of the causes of the current economic and financial crisis is the lack of adequate regulation of financial markets.

Through the adoption of the report by Mr Canfin and the first-reading agreement between Parliament and the Council, the EU has taken an important step forwards by bringing in new rules on credit default swaps and short selling.

Thanks to the work of Parliament, the slightly timid approach taken by the Council has been corrected in a number of fundamental ways. Indeed, we have brought in a ban on naked short selling – that is, selling securities that you do not actually own – which includes a ban on buying credit default swaps unless you also own the relevant government bonds.

Moreover, the information and transparency obligations imposed on operators will allow national supervisory authorities to keep up to date with any pressure on a security, thereby effectively preventing risk.

Parliament can therefore only express its satisfaction about the adoption of this regulation: it may be just an initial step and a simple part of a more general project to regulate the financial markets, but this regulation represents significant progress and a robust contribution to better-functioning financial markets, particularly in terms of sovereign debts.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) The vote on this report is the first of its kind in the world in the regulation of the financial markets. The tremendous pressure exerted by the markets and rating agencies on countries is unbearable on a political level, and on a social level it is a terrible assault on the people of Europe, who are repeatedly suffering the effects of austerity plans. The ban on naked short selling on credit default swaps (CDS) is real progress: from now on, speculators will no longer be able to contract credit default swaps (a financial product for insuring against debtor default) on state bonds without owning those bonds. In other words, it will no longer be possible to speculate and make money by betting on the collapse of an economy. This is truly an unprecedented step forward in the fight against all-powerful financial capitalism. The long-term objective is to ban in the same way all naked selling on the financial markets. Finance must serve the real economy, not the other way round.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. – I welcome this important report. At a time when the European and global economy is in crisis, naked credit default swaps only compound matters. It is right that the EU takes steps to reign in the damaging actions of the spivs and speculators.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed this document because, in order to ensure the proper functioning of the internal market, in particular, the financial markets, and to ensure a high level of consumer and investor protection, it is appropriate to lay down a common regulatory framework with regard to the requirements and powers relating to short selling and credit default swaps and to ensure greater coordination and consistency between Member States. It is therefore proposed that the provisions should take the legislative form of a regulation in order to ensure that provisions which impose direct obligations on private parties to notify and disclose net short positions relating to certain instruments and naked short selling are applied uniformly throughout the European Union. A regulation is also necessary to confer powers on the European Securities and Markets Authority to coordinate measures by competent authorities or to take measures itself.

  Kent Johansson, Marit Paulsen, Olle Schmidt and Cecilia Wikström (ALDE), in writing. – (SV) A ban on short selling in one country affects other countries. We therefore need common EU legislation and greater coordination of the application of rules. The European Supervisory Authority ESMA needs to be given a strong and coordinating role. The agreement that we voted on entails a permanent ban on naked short selling of credit default swaps for sovereign bonds, referred to as CDSs. We are opposed to such a ban because we do not know what effects a ban will have. There is a high risk that the cost of state borrowing will rise, as it could be more expensive for the market players to insure themselves against falls in the value of countries’ sovereign debt. No European supervisory authority, with the exception of the German authority, has introduced a ban on short selling, and such bans are not being demanded by the supervisory authorities themselves. We therefore abstained in today’s vote.

  Constance Le Grip (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported the report by Pascal Canfin, which paves the way for an agreement with the Council on the adoption of the regulation on ‘short selling and certain aspects of credit default swaps’.

This is the first time that the European Union will legislate in this area to ban these complex products, with potentially harmful and destructive effects, that allow speculation on countries’ sovereign debt and result in volatility and exaggerated reactions on the markets.

This is a new, decisive step that we, the Members of the European Parliament, are taking to ensure better regulation of the European financial markets and break the vicious circle and spiral of events that have led to the recent financial crisis.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I welcome this legislation. The ban on naked credit default swaps on sovereign debt is a great achievement for Parliament. The overall transparency of the financial markets will be improved and coordination at European level and the role of the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) will also be enhanced.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on short selling. The financial crisis has hit Europe hard and weakened the economies of many countries. It is time to draw our conclusions. This report aims to limit payment defaults in order to stabilise the markets. The naked short selling of credit default swaps (CDS) is prohibited, thus preventing speculation on a country defaulting. Notifications and the communication of information have also increased, allowing for better control of financial systems upstream and anticipation of potential problems. The powers of the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) have been strengthened to enable it to fulfil its role as arbitrator to the full and to control the markets. This report therefore makes it possible to pre-empt and prevent market volatility, the negative consequences of which for the economy we know only too well.

  Marisa Matias (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The financial crisis has demonstrated to us that short selling, as well as other forms of financial engineering of varying degrees of sophistication, carries enormous risks, and leads to market instability and to the emergence of serious systemic risks, with no evidence of any benefits for the functioning of the economy. As regards short selling, I believe we should have been even more ambitious in the regulation of transparency obligations and of covered short selling as a means of combating financial speculation, so I abstained.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I am in favour of Mr Canfin’s report. In light of the historic time that we find ourselves in, it is crucial to adopt this regulation. We must make sure that the various measures brought in by the Member States do not create barriers to the internal market. Guaranteeing the correct functioning of the financial markets is a matter of urgency, thereby raising the level of protection for investors and consumers.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. – In the context of the financial crisis, it is important that measures are taken to supervise and restrict short selling in some or all securities, as such practices can contribute to a downward spiral in share prices and financial instability. I welcome the calls in this text for the harmonisation relating to short selling and the powers that regulators may use in exceptional situations across the EU. I support Recital 20, whereby the competent authorities of Member States could temporarily suspend such restrictions where it is believed that these restrictions are having a negative impact on the functioning of the sovereign credit default swap market.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The financial products that financial institutions have created over the years have not been properly regulated, and this contributed to the severe financial crisis that broke out in the past. The new rules relating to short selling and credit default swaps also aim to create greater transparency, both for the regulating authorities and for the markets, and to allow the regulators to detect the risks to the sovereign debt market more easily. Regulators will also have the ability to restrict or ban short selling, under certain circumstances. We hope these new measures will solve the problems we have had in the past.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The Commission’s proposal to regulate short selling is the result of the need to harmonise the national competent authorities’ approach to limiting short-selling practices and to regulate the market of credit default swaps. The most important element is that we will tackle speculation. I voted in favour.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) By enacting the regulation on short selling and certain aspects of credit default swaps, the European Union is attempting to standardise the restrictions in this area which have previously been applied by individual Member States. Credit default swaps act as insurance against defaults on loans and also on sovereign bonds. However, it is now possible to buy these products without being a creditor or an owner of sovereign bonds oneself. In this case, it is an advantage if a company or a state cannot meet its financial obligations, because the insurance amount is ultimately paid to the owner of the credit default swaps. It goes without saying that these two financial instruments can cause increased instability on the markets in particular in times of financial and economic crisis and, therefore, must be subjected to restrictions. In a globalised financial world, it makes more sense for all the EU Member States to take a joint approach, which is why the regulation represents a step in the right direction. It is for this reason that I have voted in favour of the report.

  Claudio Morganti (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I decided to vote in favour of this report because it helps to regulate some significant aspects of the financial markets more effectively.

Firstly, short selling, while a potentially useful tool, must be used with extreme care and attention, otherwise we run the risk of having a financial jungle that is dangerous for everyone, investors and savers alike.

Similarly, regulating credit default swaps (CDSs) was the right thing to do. Initially created to act as guarantees, over time, CDSs have turned increasingly into a dangerous way to speculate against States. More stringent rules and greater caution among those working in financial markets are therefore most welcome. We cannot allow financial speculation to have damaging results on the entire real economy as well.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. – (DE) At a time of considerable financial instability, short selling can aggravate the downward spiral in the prices of shares, in particular, those of financial institutions. As a result, systemic risks may be generated which could threaten the viability of these institutions. There is no specific legislative framework within the EU for dealing with short selling issues and, therefore, the measures taken by the Member States during the financial crisis varied significantly. In order to improve the functioning of the European financial markets and to ensure a high level of consumer and investor protection, a common framework with regard to the requirements and powers relating to short selling and credit default swaps needs to be established and greater coordination and consistency between the Member States must be introduced where measures have to be taken in an exceptional situation. In addition, it is appropriate to choose the form of a regulation, as some provisions impose direct obligations on private parties to report and disclose net short positions relating to certain instruments and naked short selling. Therefore, I have voted in favour of this report.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) At the height of the financial crisis originating in the property sector, in September 2008, competent authorities in several EU Member States and the United States adopted emergency measures to restrict or ban short selling in some or all securities. They acted due to concerns that, at a time of considerable financial instability, short selling could aggravate the downward spiral in the prices of shares, notably in financial institutions, in a way which could ultimately threaten their viability and create systemic risks. The measures adopted by Member States were divergent, as the Union lacks a specific legislative framework for dealing with short selling issues. The purpose of this report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on short selling and certain aspects of credit default swaps is to compensate for this lack of a specific legislative framework for a measure regarding short selling at the level of the Twenty-Seven. As such, I voted for this report.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Following the financial crisis, it became necessary to provide the legal systems of various Member States with legislative instruments enabling preventative measures to be taken against the risk of another systemic crisis emergency. In this context, the adoption of a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on short selling and certain aspects of credit default swaps is justified, enabling consumers and investors to be offered means of protection and, at macro-economic level, the risk of systemic crises to be reduced. I therefore voted in favour.

  Evelyn Regner (S&D), in writing. – (DE) I have voted in favour of the Canfin report because, following long-drawn-out negotiations with the Council, the European Parliament has succeeded in reaching an agreement and introducing improvements in the form of stricter regulation of short selling and credit default swaps. Parliament was able to convince the Council of the validity of its position on many points during the trialogue negotiations. Trading in uncovered credit default swaps on state debt, which has drastically increased levels of state debt in Greece, Portugal and Spain and, more recently, also in Italy, will be subject to stringent restrictions and will only be possible with the agreement of the European Securities and Markets Authority. For a long time, I did not understand why the Council spent so much time hesitating over this subject in the negotiations. At the start of the negotiations, the Council took a very cautious approach and spoke out in favour of a minimum level of regulation of short selling.

As a result of the negotiating skills of the delegation from the European Parliament during the trialogue negotiations, it has been possible to achieve what, in comparison, represents a major step towards preventing high-risk speculation. I also welcome the fact that, because of the agreement which was reached, this regulation will come into force quickly after the first reading, rather than being debated for another year or two. We need rapid and effective action.

  Frédérique Ries (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) I supported the agreement reached between the Polish Presidency and the European Parliament delegation to ban naked selling on sovereign debt. In my view, it is important, in the wake of the decision taken by certain Member States (Germany, France, Belgium, etc.), for the European Union to ‘clean up’ the jungle of financial instruments that are destabilising the markets and reducing the monetary funds available to finance the real economy. The creativity of the experts is clearly limitless, as in this case, where financial institutions have the possibility of purchasing credit default swaps without owning the underlying assets, for example, Greek state bonds. Applied to the real economy, it is as if a citizen were given the opportunity to take out a fire insurance policy on his neighbour’s house, giving him an obvious interest in a little arson.

It is the worst possible temptation! In adopting this regulation here, the European Parliament is seeking a ‘return to normal’. As the rapporteur, Mr Canfin states, this compromise ‘will make it impossible for a hedge fund to buy Greek or Italian credit default swaps (CDS) without already owning the bonds of those countries, for the sole purpose of speculating on the country’s default’.

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I should like to offer my congratulations on the excellent work carried out by Mr Canfin. The new European rules adopted today impose greater transparency and will prohibit the use of some kinds of credit default swaps (CDSs), which are financial products used as insurance against defaults. These rules prove that the EU can act against speculation when the political will to do so exists. The legislation will make it impossible to buy CDSs with the sole aim of speculating on a country’s default. For example, buying Greek CDSs will only be allowed from now on if the buyer already owns Greek government bonds or a stake in a sector that is highly dependent on their performance, such as a Greek bank, since, if the country were to go bankrupt, Greek banks would certainly suffer a great deal.

  Robert Rochefort (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) I supported the report relating to the regulation on short selling and certain aspects of credit default swaps (CDS). This is a key regulation in combating the financial crisis. We note, in particular, our victory in banning short selling on sovereign credit default swaps. Indeed, it was necessary to restrict current opportunities for speculating on a country’s debt crisis. It was utterly disgraceful to make it possible to speculate on the default and failure of others. The entry into force of the text will, in principle, enshrine the prohibition of such selling if the purchaser is not exposed to the sovereign debt concerned. However, national market authorities will be able to suspend the ban temporarily if a malfunction occurs on the sovereign debt market. We also welcome the progress made in respect of disclosure: this should enable the regulatory and supervisory bodies to carry out their duties better through improved preventive work and closer monitoring. The lack of information was a major problem encountered by the supervisory bodies before the crisis and the time had come to draw the lessons in this regard.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. As Green MEP and EP draftsman for the legislation, Pascal Canfin, said: ‘The legislation adopted by the EP today, notably the decision to ban naked credit default swaps, is a major step forward in tackling sovereign debt speculation, which continues to wreak havoc across the eurozone. The European Parliament pushed to ensure a ban on naked CDS was included from the outset, and its inclusion is a victory for the EP and our efforts to curb the excesses of the financial system. These new rules will prohibit market actors from purchasing CDS of sovereign debt without holding actual bonds of the countries involved as a general rule. This will prevent cynical traders from speculating on the bankruptcy of a country’.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of this text because I think that in these tough economic times, it is essential to limit short selling and trading in so-called credit default swaps, which are financial products used as insurance against defaults. The new European rules must impose greater transparency and make it more difficult to speculate on a country defaulting.

Parliament’s aim with this text was to obtain a ban on short selling in these financial products. Furthermore, more stringent disclosure obligations will be introduced from today onwards. Indeed, a lack of information was very much one of the biggest obstacles to supervisors’ work in the period before the crisis.

  Antolín Sánchez Presedo (S&D), in writing. – (ES) The adoption by Parliament of the regulation on short selling and certain aspects of credit default swaps (CDSs) is an important step forward in financial reform. I congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Canfin, and the other shadow rapporteurs on the content of the agreement with the Council.

The regulation introduces transparency in the area of short positions on securities, bonds and CDSs. It strengthens the powers of the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) to take coordinated action to limit speculation. Restrictions must be imposed on the short selling of securities and bonds in order to ensure that the regulation functions properly. It is also appropriate for these restrictions to be lifted for long-term bonds or those designed to increase liquidity in the Member States.

The ban on naked short selling of CDSs on sovereign debt will prevent a few unscrupulous speculators from making fortunes at the public’s expense. It is reasonable for the Member States to have the option of temporarily revoking this rule to stop it harming them when the market is not functioning properly, under the scrutiny of the ESMA.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) To put an end to the current fragmentary situation, where some Member States have adopted different measures, it is important to work in a harmonised way to deal with the potential risks deriving from short selling and credit default swaps.

If the price of a financial instrument rises significantly in one trading venue, in a way that is clearly disproportionate to previous values, the competent authorities should have the power to temporarily ban sales of that instrument in that venue.

The rules put forward by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs are designed to tackle the risks identified, increasing the liquidity of the market and allowing investors to act when they think that a security is overvalued so that short selling leads to a more efficient system of price formation. However, this must all be done bearing in mind the differences between Member States, the potential economic impact of the rules themselves, and without unduly reducing the benefits that short selling brings for the quality and efficiency of the market.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In September 2010, the European Commission tabled a proposal on short selling and certain aspects of credit default swaps, which was intended to resolve the regulatory fragmentation existing between the Member States. I am voting for this regulation, as there is a pressing need to standardise the Member States’ response to the risk of short selling by applying this regulation to financial instruments that are admitted to trading on a trading venue in the Union, including such instruments when traded outside a trading venue, derivatives, or debt instruments issued by a Member State or the Union. I should also like to mention that there is an urgent need for the European Union to find sustained and lasting responses to resolving the sovereign debt crisis by developing cross-cutting solutions for the euro area.

  Rafał Trzaskowski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) This vote is a great success for the European Parliament. The Union has taken action to control speculation on short selling and credit default swaps, as this kind of speculation was putting the finances of Member States at risk. We have shown the participants of financial markets that when there is the political will, we are able to take action which is extremely effective.

  Thomas Ulmer (PPE), in writing. – (DE) I have voted in favour of the report. For the first time, regulations and restrictions on short selling are being introduced, which is a subject that the majority of the EU population knows nothing about. This move is the right one and it represents the start of an organised, but no longer completely unregulated, approach to financial transactions. The regulation is important because the much-vaunted markets have completely failed in this respect. When the situation is turned on its head and taxpayers or, in other words, all of us are responsible for the risk, we have the political right and also the responsibility to take regulatory measures.

  Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. – I supported today's report to curb short selling and trading in credit default swaps. The regulation is key to tackling the financial crisis dominating Europe at the moment, and I welcome the move to ban ‘naked’ credit default swaps. Speculators should not be able to gamble with debt issued by governments; short selling and CDS trading fuel volatility in the markets which is something Europe cannot risk. I also welcome the move to improve reporting requirements. National and European supervisors will now be alerted to potential risks at an earlier stage and will therefore be able to carry out their work more effectively.

I am pleased that ESMA, the EU’s financial watchdog, will also be involved in restricting short selling and hope that new powers for ESMA will allow better financial coordination across Member States. I am disappointed that UK Conservative MEPs could not support this report, showing once again their support for the elite of the City of London.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) The European Parliament has adopted a law curbing sovereign debt speculation by banning credit default swaps (CDS). Credit default swaps can be held by a speculator even if the speculator does not hold any debt. In practice, this amounts to insuring the house of his neighbour and selling this insurance when there is an increased risk of fire.

Credit default swaps have led to frenzied speculation, with speculators buying them in huge volumes in order to increase the perception of a risk that the country will collapse. In so doing, speculators artificially increase the price of these CDS and sell them at very high prices to the holders of the debt.

It is an aberration. Banning credit default swaps if the purchaser does not hold bonds issued by the country involved is a positive step.

This measure will certainly not be enough to stem the crisis. However, it does have the merit of demonstrating to all who are still in any doubt that the financial crisis is not an act of fate but the result of political choices, and these choices can be re-examined. Determination to control the markets and to regulate the speculators is not a pipe dream, of which there is ample evidence.

  Dominique Vlasto (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I was keen to support this legislative resolution, which extends the financial regulation process launched by my political family in 2007. This text prohibits malicious financial operators from hastening the default of euro area Member States by banning naked credit default swaps (CDS). These financial instruments, originally designed for investors to take out insurance when purchasing a State bond, constituted an autonomous market. In other words, it was possible to hold the insurance on a house (the CDS) without being the owner of the house (the State bond). Therefore, it was in the interest of the holder of the insurance that the house burned down so that he could collect the payout. This grotesque situation in particular led hedge funds to create a climate of panic around Greece by acquiring CDS in huge volumes. These CDS then became increasingly lucrative as concern spread. Faced with this excessive speculation, Greece had to borrow at exorbitant rates of interest, thereby accumulating even more debt. In order to prevent other States from falling foul of such speculative madness, we are now demanding that the holder of the CDS must also hold the State bond.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) This proposal for a regulation represents a comprehensive regulatory framework for credit default swap derivatives. Short selling of securities is said to have made a significant contribution to the current financial situation. Covering an area which is as extensive as possible, we need clear guidelines concerning the cooperation between the European Securities and Markets Authority and the national bodies, combined with a comprehensive transparency regime, including restrictions on naked short selling.

  Glenis Willmott (S&D), in writing. – I am pleased to have voted for new controls on what are some of the riskiest aspects of the financial sector. The financial crisis was, in no small part, the result of unseen risks building up across the financial industry. To make the system safer and reduce the likelihood of future crises, we need to tackle those risks. This is doubly important for markets in sovereign debt. We have all seen the effects that a sovereign debt crisis can have on people and their livelihoods in Greece and elsewhere in the eurozone. The rules approved by Parliament today therefore target ‘naked’ short selling, as well as ‘uncovered’ credit default swaps (CDS) for sovereign debt, which have allowed traders to speculate on a country’s debt without even owning it.

They have the potential to be extremely damaging by encouraging speculation and driving down asset prices at the worst possible time. Putting an end to these activities is an important step in preventing another Greek-style crisis.

Report: Mariya Nedelcheva (A7-0188/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report, since this political compromise proposes a common legal framework for the systematic collection, compilation and transmission of data on permanent crops in the various Member States; it is important to make this information available.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. – I am in favour of this report, which welcomes the Commission proposal to update the legal framework for European statistics on permanent crops, in line with current user and market requirements.

The report stresses the objective of achieving simplification and recognises the efforts made by the Commission to reduce the administrative burden on respondents and ensure that statistical data on permanent crops provide a reliable basis for taking judicious decisions in relation to production and the European market. The report indicates that the administrative burden may be reduced by amending the precision requirements, excluding from the scope of the provisions all smallholdings of less than 0.2 hectares, and no longer requiring a breakdown by NUTS 3 region for certain data on vines for purposes other than the production of table grapes.

With regard to the delegation of power to the Commission to amend certain aspects of this regulation through delegated acts, the rapporteur stresses that the principles laid down in Parliament’s resolution of 5 May 2010 on the power of legislative delegation (2010/2021(INI)) must be strictly applied.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The EU conducts statistical surveys in the fruit and vine-growing industries. These statistics are used, for example, to assess the production potential of certain fruit trees (apple trees, pear trees, etc.). The statistical system is, however, obsolete. That is why I voted in favour of Ms Nedelcheva’s report, which recommends simplifying the legal framework.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the report by Ms Nedelcheva because I think it is crucially important to update the legal framework for European statistics on permanent crops, as proposed by the Commission. Indeed, this update will allow these crops to be better aligned with the current needs of users and the market. Furthermore, I have decided to support this report because it aims to attach particular significance to the goal of simplification and the need to reduce the administrative burden on respondents.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – I voted against this report. This is another attempt to extend statistical harmonisation and create a pan-European database in order to dictate what kind of crops may be seeded and harvested in future in the EU. Such decisions should be taken by Member State governments based upon domestic research, economic need, climate and exportation.

  Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this resolution which aims to update the legal framework for European statistics on permanent crops in line with current user and market requirements. With this in mind, and with a view to achieving simplification, the Commission is making efforts to reduce the administrative burden on respondents and ensure that statistical data on permanent crops provide a reliable basis for making sensible decisions in relation to production and the European market. It must be borne in mind that structural statistics on permanent crops are vital for managing the markets at EU level.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I think that cooperation needs to be strengthened at EU level between the authorities involved in compiling European statistics on permanent crops. I also believe that the best examples of international practice should be taken into consideration when compiling European statistics.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this proposal, which will provide access to reliable statistics on European crops to enable decisions to be taken that meet the real needs of farmers. These measures include easing the administrative burden on smallholdings and simplifying the collection of data for the other stakeholders in the industry.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the report on European statistics on permanent crops because it recognises the need to adapt the common regulatory framework for European statistics on permanent crops to current user and market requirements, as well as to simplify the administrative burden inherent to data production, specifically by exempting small farms.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Statistics are an irreplaceable method and means of evaluating practically all areas of political activity, and are extremely useful both for forecasting certain events, and for providing goods and services. They are also important as regards agricultural activity, as they enable more thorough knowledge of what has been produced and of what a given area could produce, as well as of how such activity fits into the marketplace. The updating, simplification and optimisation of these statistics increase the possibilities for their use and remove part of the bureaucratic burden from them, so enabling their production without excessive constraints on respondents.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Statistics constitute an essential technique that forms the basis for the majority of scientific work. When we have better information about a given subject, we are able to make more appropriate and grounded decisions. Bureaucracy is a necessary evil, which urgently needs to be cut back as far as is possible without affecting transparency or jeopardising the achievement of established goals. In this report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning European statistics on permanent crops, Ms Nedelcheva points out the advantages of this proposal, specifically as regards reducing the administrative burden on respondents and simplifying procedures. I welcome the adoption of this report, for which I voted, since I believe that the normal procedures for gathering statistics are too bureaucratic, and are the same for both large and small farms, which often complicates the lives of this latter group.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The objective of this report is to update the legal framework for European statistics on permanent crops ‘in line with current user and market requirements’. Certain aspects of this report are better than in the European Commission’s initial proposal, not least with the removal of the Commission’s ability to change the list of permanent crops using delegated acts, without Parliament’s prior approval. The proposal of simplification by reducing the administrative burden on respondents is important and should, to begin with, ‘entail smaller samples’. We would also register our concern that these changes should not mean an additional burden on the competent national authorities.

However, it is not clear to us that the changes being proposed to statistics will respond in all the ways necessary to the specific difficulties for small farmers and smallholders created by the current data-collection system.

Naturally, that is more important for countries like Portugal where, despite the increased concentration of ownership that has taken place over recent years, encouraged by the common agricultural policy, small and medium-sized holdings still predominate, accounting for around four fifths of all farms.

In view of the doubts and concerns expressed, we voted for the improvements proposed by Parliament, but we did not vote for the final legislative proposal.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The objective of this report is to update the legal framework for European statistics on permanent crops ‘in line with current user and market requirements’. Certain aspects of this report are better than in the European Commission’s initial proposal, not least with the removal of the Commission’s ability to change the list of permanent crops using delegated acts, without Parliament’s approval.

The proposal of simplification by reducing the administrative burden on respondents through the introduction of thresholds at farm and territorial level is also important and should, to begin with, entail smaller samples.

However, it is not clear that these statistics will respond in all the ways necessary to the concerns of small and medium-sized farmers, as they will be technical support for decision making in the areas of production and the European market. In countries that have weaker economies and are more dependent on agri-foodstuffs, like Portugal, the path followed in recent decades has been the enfeeblement of the agricultural sector, especially family farming, through the successive neoliberal reforms of the common agricultural policy.

Owing to all these concerns, we voted for the improvements proposed by the majority in the European Parliament, but we did not vote for the final legislative proposal.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The importance of agriculture for the economic, social and cultural development of Europe is widely acknowledged. Fruit and wine production is a key area of agricultural activity in the EU.

In Council Regulation (EEC) No 357/79 of 5 February 1979 on statistical surveys of areas under vine, and in Directive 2001/109/EC of 19 December 2001 concerning the statistical surveys to be carried out by the Member States in order to determine the production potential of plantations of certain species of fruit trees, provision is made for the creation of an information system on the statistically most important permanent crops at European level.

The statistical system currently available for permanent crops in the EU would not be possible without this legislation. Despite this, however, there is a need to update the data. There is still room for improvement in the comparability and completeness of the framework, by putting greater effort into the harmonisation of variables and concepts, and providing greater freedom to Member States to select the methods and sources they use, in order to collect the basic data necessary for compiling these European statistics.

Over the years, Member States, interested parties and Commission units have requested changes to the legal basis for statistics on permanent crops, and I also take the view that it is appropriate to update, simplify and optimise the existing legal framework for statistics on permanent crops and to replace the two existing acts with one act.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Fruit and wine production is a key area of agricultural activity in the European Union. The aim of this proposal is to update, simplify and optimise the existing legal framework for European statistics on permanent crops, replacing the existing two legal acts by a single one. That is why I supported this report.

  Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE), in writing. – (DE) It is important for us to revise the regulation which dates back to 1979 concerning the statistical surveys used to evaluate the production potential of certain permanent crops and, in particular, wine and fruit. In addition, we must establish a standardised, simplified information system at a European level concerning the most important permanent crops. These legal provisions have helped to create national systems for surveying the production potential of these crops and the structural features of the production units. The aim of the proposal, which I support, is to update, simplify and improve the legal framework.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I welcome the Commission proposal, the aim of which is to update the legal framework for European statistics on permanent crops in line with current user and market requirements. The rapporteur stresses the objective of achieving simplification and recognises the efforts made by the Commission to reduce the administrative burden on respondents and ensure that statistical data on permanent crops provide a reliable basis for taking judicious decisions in relation to production and the European market.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I am voting in favour of the report by Ms Nedelcheva. The Commission proposal on updating the legal framework for European statistics on permanent crops to bring them into line with current user and market requirements is, without doubt, worthy of support. I agree with the rapporteur on the amendments put forward, which will definitely improve the text.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. – I voted in favour of this report and welcome the Commission’s proposal aimed at updating, simplifying and consolidating the legal framework for European statistics on permanent crops in line with current user and market requirements. It is important that measures are taken to reduce administrative burdens in the collection and processing of harmonised European statistics on permanent crops.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The objective of this regulation is to update the legal framework in force for European statistics on permanent crops ‘in line with current user and market requirements’. The objective of simplification should be stressed, and the efforts the Commission has made to reduce the administrative burden on respondents should be lauded. The intention is to use statistics relating to permanent crops as a reliable basis for making suitable decisions in the areas of production and of the European market. However, it is possible and desirable for the administrative burden to be reduced by amending the data precision requirements, excluding all smallholdings of less than 0.2 hectares.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – I completely approve if this political agreement endorses the need for a common legal framework for the systematic collection, compilation and transmission of European statistics on permanent crops in the different Member States.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report, which is aimed at updating, simplifying and improving the current framework for European statistics on permanent crops and better adapting it to users’ actual requirements. Given the current situation farmers find themselves in, I believe that it is, above all, necessary to reduce the administrative burden they face. The fact that there was a particular focus on smallholdings, with operating conditions being made easier for them by eliminating the obligation to provide statistical data relating to certain permanent crops, should be welcomed.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) The report on the proposal to update the legal framework for European statistics on permanent crops, which I supported, is a move in the right direction, because it adapts to the current needs of users and the market. The reduced administrative burden and simpler questionnaires will allow more comprehensive data to be collated on the volume of production, products and crops on the European market. Having reliable statistics brings about a win-win situation; on the one hand, they help to ensure that the right decisions are taken in terms of demand, production and differentiation of European agricultural products, so as to make them more competitive and, on the other, they tell farmers and agricultural cooperatives how they can optimise their land. By definition, improving these statistics will be very useful to Greece, whose economy is heavily reliant on the primary sector.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The objective of this report is to update the legal framework in force for European statistics on permanent crops ‘in line with current user and market requirements’. The objective of simplification should be stressed, and the efforts the Commission has made to reduce the administrative burden on respondents should be lauded. The intention is to use statistics relating to permanent crops as a reliable basis for making suitable decisions in the areas of production and of the European market. I share the rapporteur’s concerns about the need to achieve a better balance between the needs of users and the administrative burden inherent to producing statistics. Consideration should be given to the rapporteur’s suggestion of reducing the administrative burden by amending the data precision requirements, excluding all smallholdings of less than 0.2 hectares from the scope of the provisions, and no longer requiring a breakdown by NUTS 3 region to be given for certain data on vines for purposes other than for the production of table grapes. I voted for this report for these reasons.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Updating the legal framework for European statistics on permanent crops and bringing them into line with current market and user needs means not only simplifying the data in order to make them more accessible to users, but also reducing the administrative burden, given changes to the precision of the statistics. Since I think it is necessary to better reconcile the quality of the data requested and that data which can actually be found, so as to achieve a balance between user needs and the administrative burden, I am pleased to vote in favour of the proposal in question since I agree with every part of the text.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The effective application of EU law depends, to a large extent, on its capacity for continuously adapting to the successive challenges that emerge. To this end, there is a need to periodically revise legislative texts, so as to evaluate exactly which points could be improved. That is the context of the Commission’s recent proposal intended to reduce the administrative burden on those surveyed for the purposes of Europe’s statistics on permanent crops. This initiative should be applauded, since it contributes to protecting public trust and to the simplicity of EU legislation. I voted in favour for these reasons.

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) In today’s part-session, we voted on Ms Nedelcheva’s report on European statistics on permanent crops. The Commission proposal aims to update the existing legal framework for European statistics on permanent crops to bring them into line with current user and market requirements. These relate to using the statistical data on permanent crops as a reliable basis for taking judicious decisions in relation to production and the European market. The proposal aims to simplify the breakdown of user data, adapting them to statistical needs by cancelling the annual statistics on crops and the detailed breakdown of wine production.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. The report welcomes the Commission proposal, the aim of which is to update the legal framework for European statistics on permanent crops in line with current user and market requirements, and stresses the objective of achieving simplification and recognises the efforts made by the Commission to reduce the administrative burden on respondents and ensure that statistical data on permanent crops provide a reliable basis for taking judicious decisions in relation to production and the European market.

  Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD), in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of the report by Ms Nedelcheva on the use of statistics on permanent crops because I consider that they provide a reliable basis for taking the right decisions in connection with agricultural production and the European market. I agree with the rapporteur that we need to reduce the administrative burden in connection with the production of statistics and with the amendments that she tabled on the proposal for a regulation.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I congratulate Mariya Nedelcheva, who has included a series of paragraphs in this report to secure my vote in favour, in particular, those relating to the simplification and reduction of the administrative burdens facing respondents in connection with the statistics on permanent crops.

The Commission’s proposal is necessary during the revision phase of the agricultural market system. I would like to recall that in recent years, the Standing Committee for Agricultural Statistics (Eurostat) has debated broadly on the future of agricultural statistics and, in particular, on structural statistics which are the principal point of reference in the decennial census.

The future challenges facing the bodies that draw up statistics are, above all: the broadening of the European Union which has further increased the number of differences between national agricultures in terms of land structures and crop systems; the thorough revision of the common agricultural policy, which is in the process of changing the framework for informational statistics requirements for the Commission as well as for national and local governments; the need to make the European system for agricultural statistics, on the one hand, more homogenous with that of economical statistics and, on the other hand, more flexible with regard to new informational needs concerning safeguarding of the environment and food security.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In May 2010, the European Commission drafted a proposal for a regulation concerning European statistics on permanent crops, which argues that there is a need to ‘update, simplify and optimise the existing legal framework for European statistics on permanent crops replacing the existing two legal acts by a single one’. I am voting for the amendments to this regulation, given that there is a need to instil greater cooperation between the authorities involved in producing and publishing European statistics; to undertake consultations with various decision makers, including experts with wide knowledge of the subject; and to take into account the best practices adopted at international level. I also consider it important that this regulation establishes a common framework for systematically producing European statistics on permanent crops, so facilitating increased EU-level integration and comparison.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) The proposal aims to update the legal framework for European statistics relating to permanent crops and to adapt it to meet the requirements of users and the market. The data involved is used as the criterion for evaluating production and, therefore, the reliability of this data must be improved. I have voted in favour.

Report: Jan Březina (A7-0340/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for the amendments suggested by Parliament and note the importance of one of the general objectives of the original document, which stresses the need to increase safety, commitment, resource efficiency and the cost-effectiveness relationship of nuclear fission, and of the uses of radiation in industry and medicine. I would also highlight the importance of international collaboration in numerous areas, in particular, in that of the advanced nuclear systems being studied within the framework of the Generation IV International Forum.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) How and to what extent should we finance ITER? The subject regularly appears on the European Parliament’s agenda. It is now being discussed again, as part of the vote on the extension of the Euratom Framework Programme. Pursuing nuclear research is all well and good, but the research budget should not be devoted exclusively to nuclear energy. Diversification is necessary. I say this in particular because, with the exponential increase in the cost of the ITER project since its launch in 2006 – from EUR 6 billion to EUR 16 billion – I believe that the project should now continue with the resources it has been given. While research – both fusion and fission – is a good thing (even if it should be diversified), I deeply regret the increase in appropriations (an additional EUR 700 000 for 2012) and the financial tinkering planned, as it would mean draining part of the EU research budget solely to fund ITER, not to mention the planned budget cuts in the field of research, which will only exacerbate the imbalance between research spending on nuclear energy and on renewable energies. For these reasons, I voted against the Březina reports on the Euratom Research Framework Programme.

  Antonio Cancian (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of Mr Březina’s report on the Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community because I believe it is important for the EU to continue to finance research and training activities in the nuclear sector. I agree with the aims of the programme, which strives for improvements in terms of the security, reliability and efficiency of nuclear energy production, and I appreciate the reference to the applicability of these results even in the fields of medicine and industry, particularly in the light of the European Sustainable Nuclear Industrial Initiative (ESNII), included within the European Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SET-Plan). Given the relevance of the nuclear activities undertaken by the Joint Research Centre (JRC) in the fields of testing and non-proliferation, of the safety of installations, of waste management and of radioactivity in the environment, it is also important that adequate funds are anticipated so that these activities can be continued at an exceptionally high level. In the same way, it is necessary to ensure that there are sufficient resources to complete the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) project, so that this can come to a satisfactory and financially advantageous conclusion.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I welcome these proposals, which are designed to continue and extend the agreement on the Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom FP) for nuclear research to the years 2012 and 2013. This programme’s legislative acts are draft decisions on implementation through direct and indirect actions, and on laying down the rules for the participation of undertakings, research centres and universities in direct actions.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I identify with those who have profound doubts about nuclear energy: about its cost, about what to do with its radioactive waste, and about the security of its facilities from accidents in house, from terrorist attacks or other criminal acts, or from natural disasters like those that occurred in Fukushima, Japan. I am therefore ambivalent about the reports by Mr Březina. I acknowledge that some avenues of research could even be positive because they have an impact on increasing the safety and protection of the public, but others are clearly intended to pursue the investments of an industry that is being phased out in a number of European countries. That is why I have decided to abstain in the final votes on the reports concerning implementation of the Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom FP) for nuclear research and training activities, for both direct and indirect actions, and on that concerning the rules for the participation of undertakings, research centres and universities in indirect actions under the Euratom FP and for the dissemination of research results.

  Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of the implementation of the Framework Programme (2012-2013), which should be based on the principles of simplicity, stability, transparency, legal certainty, consistency, excellence and trust, following the recommendations of the European Parliament in its report on simplifying the implementation of the Research Framework Programmes. In order to maintain and improve the safety level of both Western- and Russian-type nuclear power plants, advanced, finely honed safety assessment methodologies and corresponding analytical tools have to be extended and validated. With this in mind, the JRC will continue, in collaboration with its international partners, to develop networks for measuring radioactivity in the environment, while making all the collected data available to the public immediately.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the report on implementing the Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community for nuclear research and training activities by direct actions because it is part of a legislative ‘package’ intended to continue supporting research and development activities in the context of the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community for 2007-2011 by adapting it to the current multiannual financial framework until 2013.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The main objective of the Joint Research Centre is to provide scientific and technical support for European Union policy. More particularly, it constitutes an interface between technological research and its specific applications in the field of EU policy. The Joint Research Centre plays a key role in research and contributes know-how to European Union policy, along with scientific and technical support. One of its key functions is to promote the transfer of technologies derived from the research results, so as to benefit industry and support Union policy in the field of innovation. The importance of the energy issue to Europe makes it advisable for the centre to be provided with adequate resources for pursuit of its specific objectives in this area.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The disasters that have occurred in Chernobyl and, more recently, in Fukushima, have caused mistrust in nuclear technology, and in its economic and social benefits. However, despite all the conflicting voices, the nuclear issue remains very current, not just because of the need to monitor the decommissioning of obsolete nuclear plants, ensuring the safe management of waste, but also, and fundamentally, because of an issue of scientific and technological modernisation, as regards both energy production and medicine. This report, by Mr Březina, concerns the proposal for a Council decision concerning the specific programme implementing the Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom FP) for nuclear research and training activities (2012-2013), to be carried out by means of direct actions by the Joint Research Centre. Despite the economic and financial crisis, I believe the EU should continue supporting the Euratom FP, specifically through educational programmes in the nuclear energy sector promoting high-level training, through the award of research grants, and through the implementation of methodologies that take into account safety and the decommissioning of inactive or obsolete nuclear reactors.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community for nuclear research and training activities (2012-2013) is to be implemented via specific programmes defining the detailed rules for implementation, determining duration and specifying the resources that are considered necessary. The structure of the Framework Programme (2012-2013) consists of two types of activity: indirect actions in the area of research into nuclear fusion and research into nuclear fission and radiation protection, and direct actions for the activities of the Joint Research Centre in the field of nuclear energy.

The direct actions should be implemented by the present specific programme. The Joint Research Centre (JRC) should implement the research and training activities to be carried out by means of the so-called ‘direct actions’ under a JRC specific programme implementing the Euratom 2012-2013 framework programme. In implementing its mission, the JRC should provide customer-driven scientific and technical support to the Union policy-making process, ensure support for the implementation and monitoring of existing policies, and respond to new policy demands. In implementing this specific programme, emphasis should be given, in my opinion, to promoting the mobility and training of researchers and promoting innovation in the European Union.

  Françoise Grossetête (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Following the Fukushima disaster, Europe should not, under any circumstances, halt its nuclear energy research; rather, it should support it. It would be irresponsible to call into question the continuation of Euratom’s nuclear research activities.

It is essential to continue Europe-wide nuclear research and development, in particular, to increase the safety of nuclear fission and to continue research into the ITER project.

I would point out that in France, nuclear power is a key factor in our energy independence, as it provides 80% of our electricity supply. The price of raw materials, such as oil and gas, is constantly rising, and stocks will soon be on the brink of depletion. Renewable energies certainly have their role to play, but at present, they cannot provide a sufficient response to our energy needs. It is therefore crucial that we study the nuclear energy of the future so that we can continue to provide our children with a secure, high-quality energy supply at stable prices. Training and research in nuclear energy are crucial for encouraging European competitiveness and growth.

  Jiří Havel (S&D), in writing. – (CS) Even after the disaster at Japan’s Fukushima nuclear power station in March, nuclear power continues to be a key component of the energy mix for many European countries, and it is only thanks to nuclear power that they are able to cover their needs fully. Fukushima, however, has presented us with a clear requirement for further improvements in nuclear safety, and particularly on two levels – tightening up international standards and reinforcing specific safety measures. In addition to this, the task of resolving the question of nuclear waste handling persists in general terms. The submitted proposals are focused precisely on this area. They also harmonise the Euratom programme with the current budgetary framework up to 2013. These are the main reasons why I recommend that the entire package be approved.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) The Euratom Treaty limits all research programmes to a maximum of five years. The current Euratom Framework Programme, Euratom FP7 (2007-2011), consisting of two specific programmes (one for indirect actions and the other for direct actions of the Joint Research Centre), will expire at the end of 2011. The proposal accompanying this memorandum is for the adoption of a Council decision to extend the specific programme for direct actions for the two years 2012-2013. I welcomed this document because the principal aim is to ensure the continuation of EU-funded research in these fields for a further two years after 2007-2011. To this end, the proposal explains the objectives of the research and development activities. This specific programme for direct actions covers the following three thematic priorities: nuclear waste management, environmental impact and basic knowledge, and nuclear safety/safeguards and security. I therefore believe that it is necessary to continue this programme.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this legislative package which aims to continue supporting R&D actions in the nuclear field carried out under the Seventh Euratom Framework Programme.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Increased attention and budget spending are needed for initiatives ancillary to core nuclear research, in particular, with regard to investments in human capital and actions aimed at addressing the risk of skills shortages in the coming years. This amendment encapsulates the right steps to be taken for this type of activity. I voted in favour.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) At times of crisis, we need to ensure that the framework programmes of the various EU entities are properly implemented. In the specific case of the Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community, it is important that funds be spent properly on safeguarding against potential safety risks, as well as on research to discover a cleaner and more environmentally friendly form of atomic energy.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The proposal will extend the Euratom programme in order to align it with the end of the EU’s current financial cycle in 2013. Euratom programmes are limited to five years by the Euratom Treaty, whereas the general Seventh Framework Programme for Research, which runs until the end of 2013, lasts for seven years. I am in favour.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) In the proposed amendments, Parliament is calling for increased ‘investment in human capital and actions aimed at addressing the risk of skills shortages in the coming years (for example, grants to researchers in the nuclear field) and the consequent loss of leadership for the Union’. In the light of the most recent nuclear disaster at Fukushima, greater attention needs to be paid to nuclear safety in this area and in the basic research referred to by the Commission. It is essential for us to follow up on reports indicating that safety-related maintenance is being outsourced to external companies and that their employees are being prevented from reporting safety shortcomings. I welcome the proposed reinforcement of the networks for measuring radioactivity in the environment.

In this area, however, coordination and cooperation at a European level leaves a lot to be desired. Many of the problems faced by the nuclear industry, such as the disposal of radioactive waste, improvements in the procedures for managing nuclear disasters and, for example, the decontamination of polluted soil, remain unresolved. As a result of all these problems and the fact that I am opposed to the promotion of nuclear power, I have voted against this report.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) As events this year in Japan show, nuclear safety remains a particularly relevant issue both in the European Union and beyond. The potential for EU scientists in this area is huge. I therefore welcome the position to strengthen research into nuclear security, the management of nuclear waste and other related fields. Such knowledge would help to establish the highest standards of nuclear security, which should apply not only to nuclear facilities in the EU, but to those near its borders.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. – (DE) Nuclear safety and the reliability of nuclear power plants should be constantly improved. In the light of the nuclear disaster at Fukushima, I believe that this is essential. In the proposed amendments to this programme, Parliament comes out in favour of targeted support for mobility and training for researchers and of promoting innovation, which is to be welcomed. The report states that particular attention should be paid to nuclear safety and risk prevention. According to the report, more support should be provided for monitoring the quality and effectiveness of the training and for coordinating the existing training programmes in the field of nuclear energy in the Union and in candidate and neighbouring countries. It is clear from this that the European Union is on the right track and regards nuclear safety as an important issue. However, I am fundamentally opposed to the promotion of nuclear power and, therefore, I have voted against this report.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcome this resolution because the Joint Research Centre (JRC) plays a particularly important role in implementing the Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community for nuclear research and training activities. Particular attention should be paid and funding allocated to developing knowledge regarding the management of nuclear waste, its impact on the environment, nuclear safety, and also nuclear security and control. It should be noted that the JRC should help with the supervision of the quality and efficiency of training, as well as with the coordination of existing educational programmes. Furthermore, in view of the growing number of nuclear reactors being decommissioned and the associated risks, the JRC must enhance its expertise in this field and, as soon as possible, include in its programmes the key aspects of research and the training of experts on the decommissioning of reactors.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report on the proposal for a Council decision concerning the specific programme, to be carried out by means of direct actions by the Joint Research Centre, implementing the Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community for nuclear research and training activities (2012-2013). This report is related to report A7-0358/2011, which also concerns research into fusion, fission and radiation protection. However, this report concerns direct actions while that one concerned indirect actions. The main purpose of these reports is to ensure EU-financed research activities in these areas for another two years, taking into account the activities successfully undertaken in the 2007-2011 period.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I agree with the idea that the Joint Research Centre (JRC) should, among its other activities, aid in the supervision of the quality and efficiency of training, as well as in the coordination of existing educational programmes in the field of nuclear energy within the Union, and in candidate and neighbouring countries, and I recognise the importance of increasing the budget for initiatives ancillary to core nuclear research, in particular, as regards investments in human capital and actions aimed at addressing the risk of skills shortages in the coming years. I therefore believe that this proposal for a decision is of primary importance. Although I find it impossible to agree with the report in its entirety, I am taking this opportunity to vote in favour of bringing simplicity, stability and transparency to the Framework Programme (2012-2013).

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Following the analysis by the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, I voted for the proposal concerning the specific programme implementing the Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community for nuclear research and training activities, to be carried out by means of direct actions by the Joint Research Centre, because I believe it is in line with the goals of EU energy policy.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. – (IT) In the current Euratom programme, the Joint Research Centre’s programme for direct actions prioritises management of nuclear waste, security and nuclear monitoring. This programme focuses on research on nuclear waste management and security of nuclear systems and aims to increase scientific knowledge, with a view to ensuring safe and efficient use of nuclear energy. The main requirement is responsible use of nuclear energy in order to protect European citizens and the environment.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) At a delicate time for the economies of Member States and for markets, and bearing in mind the enormous expenditures in the field of nuclear research, special attention should be paid to the definition of contractual arrangements intended to reduce the risk of failure to perform as well as to the reallocation of risks and costs over time.

In order to ensure the safety of existing nuclear power plants, it is necessary to keep an eye on the state of the structures and to invest in research to prolong their lifetimes. At this moment, the average lifetime of the current generation of active nuclear power plants in Europe is 40 years; this period of time can be lengthened if necessary. Generation III and Generation IV systems aim towards lifetimes of 60 years, minimising running and maintenance costs that are due to old age. The objective of the framework programme is to establish a solid scientific and technical basis to demonstrate the safety of the technologies for disposing of spent fuel.

Another fundamental aspect concerns transparency of public information regarding atomic energy and the nuclear sector. Citizens should be informed of the modalities of research and experimentations and specific steps should be taken to ensure the efficacy of the communication programme.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Seventh Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom FP) 2007-2011 is made up of two specific programmes – one of ‘indirect actions’ and another of ‘direct actions’ – which finish at the end of this year. The European Commission has tabled a proposal intended to extend the specific programme of ‘direct actions’ for a further two years (2012-2013), so as to ensure the continuation of EU-financed nuclear research and training activities. I am voting for this European Parliament decision because it is important to increase the sector’s funding and allocate more grants to the area of nuclear research, since that is the only way it will be possible for the EU not to lose its leading role at global level. I also believe a multiannual programme should be drawn up, which should include the scientific and technological priorities, the objectives of research and training activities, and the related implementation dates.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The Euratom Treaty limits the duration of any research programme to five years. The current Euratom Framework Programme, Euratom FP7 (2007-2011), comprising two specific programmes (one for ‘indirect actions’, and the other for ‘direct actions’ carried out by the Joint Research Centre (JRC)), will expire at the end of 2011. I voted to extend the specific programme for ‘direct actions’ for the 2012-2013 period to ensure that the research funded by the EU continues into nuclear waste management and the physical and radiological safety and protection of nuclear systems.

The implementation of the Framework Programme (2012-2013) should be based on the principles of simplicity, stability, transparency, legal certainty, consistency, excellence and trust. I support the need to increase the budgets for initiatives ancillary to core nuclear research, such as investment in human capital, vocational training and awarding grants to nuclear researchers, in order to prevent a possible shortage of skilled labour in the coming years. I think that the Joint Research Centre should help monitor the quality and effectiveness of the training and coordinate existing educational programmes in the field of nuclear energy within the EU, as well as in candidate and neighbouring countries.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) As the direct measures concerning the specific programmes to be carried out as part of the work programme are not restricted to the safety of nuclear activities, preventing proliferation and environmental matters, I have voted against the report.

Reports: Jan Březina (A7-0340/2011), (A7-0358/2011)

  Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) I voted against this report and the other two reports (Březina Α7-0340/2011 and Březina Α7-0358/2011), because not only do they fail to promote solutions that aim to abolish nuclear energy; on the contrary, they assume it will be used and that research into it will be funded. There are numerous problematic points in all three reports, such as, for example, in connection with funding and the participation of the private sector in general in subsidising research, but that is not my main comment. The main reason I voted against the report is because I am opposed to nuclear energy in principle. Unfortunately, the report reproduces the distorted perception of the usefulness of nuclear energy for economic reasons and in combating climate change. It maintains that more public funding is needed for basic nuclear research. It also advocates the need for the Union to ‘lead the way’ in this sector. However, the funding needed, especially in these times of crisis, is funding for sustainable growth based on renewable sources, which is truly compatible with environmental and social needs.

Report: Jan Březina (A7-0345/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this legislative package since it confirms continued support for research and development, in the context of the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community for 2007-2011, by extending it until the end of the multiannual financial framework in 2013.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) How, and to what extent, should we finance ITER? The subject regularly appears on the European Parliament’s agenda. It is now being discussed again, as part of the vote on the extension of the Euratom Framework Programme. Pursuing nuclear research is all well and good, but the research budget should not be devoted exclusively to nuclear energy. Diversification is necessary. I say this in particular because, with the exponential increase in the cost of the ITER project since its launch in 2006 – from EUR 6 billion to EUR 16 billion – I believe that the project should now continue with the resources it has been given. While research – both fusion and fission – is a good thing (even if it should be diversified), I deeply regret the increase in appropriations (an additional EUR 700 000 for 2012) and the financial tinkering planned, as it would mean draining part of the EU research budget solely to fund ITER, not to mention the planned budget cuts in the field of research, which will only exacerbate the imbalance between research spending on nuclear energy and on renewable energies. For these reasons, I voted against the Březina reports on the Euratom Research Framework Programme.

  Antonio Cancian (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of Mr Březina’s report on the participation of businesses, research centres and universities in the initiatives provided for by the Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community. I did so because I am convinced that it is necessary to involve the academic world in the research and development plans for the nuclear sector that are financed by the European Union. Shared research and training in this area is essential for boosting competitiveness, economic growth and scientific excellence in Europe. These entities’ contribution is fundamental for the development of new technologies that will consume fewer resources, guarantee greater safety and efficiency and reduce carbon emissions. Coordination and knowledge sharing are also part and parcel of the Euratom Safety Programme. Therefore, these aspects will be able to show the effective application of the results of research and development activities in nuclear facilities in light of better understanding of the causes of accidents and possible solutions. I also think that Europe ought to promote contact between the academic world and industry so that research activities bring economic benefits, thereby creating a large market for the nuclear sector.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I identify with those who have profound doubts about nuclear energy: about its cost, about what to do with its radioactive waste, and about the security of its facilities from accidents in house, from terrorist attacks or other criminal acts, or from natural disasters like those that occurred in Fukushima, Japan. I am therefore ambivalent about the reports by Mr Březina. I acknowledge that some avenues of research could even be positive because they have an impact on increasing the safety and protection of the public, but others are clearly intended to pursue the investments of an industry that is being phased out in a number of European countries.

That is why I have decided to abstain in the final votes on the reports concerning the implementation of the Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom FP) for nuclear research and training activities, for both direct and indirect actions, and on that concerning the rules for the participation of undertakings, research centres and universities in indirect actions under the Euratom FP and for the dissemination of research results.

  Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the Framework Programme (2012-2013), which should help to achieve the ‘Innovation Union’ initiative, one of the flagship initiatives of the Europe 2020 strategy. This should be done by reinforcing competition aimed at scientific excellence and accelerating the implementation of key innovations in the nuclear energy sector, especially in terms of nuclear fusion and safety, while also playing a role in tackling the challenges of the energy sector and climate change. The programme’s aim is to complement the other EU actions in the area of research policy which are required for the implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy, in particular, those relating to education and vocational training, competitiveness and innovation, industry, employment and the environment.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the report on the participation of undertakings, research centres and universities in indirect actions under the Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom FP) because it is part of a legislative ‘package’ intended to continue supporting research and development activities in the context of the Seventh Euratom FP for 2007-2011 by adapting it to the current multiannual financial framework until 2013.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Scientific knowledge rarely observes borders or types of institution, and it is clear today that there is a need for cooperation between public institutions, business and universities, and that these partnerships are of substantial benefit to all those involved. These partnerships should be prized and knowledge sharing encouraged in the field of nuclear energy too, provided that they do not call into question issues that could endanger the Member States’ security.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report, by Mr Březina, concerns the proposal for a Council regulation (Euratom) laying down the rules for the participation of undertakings, research centres and universities in indirect actions under the Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom FP) and for the dissemination of research results (2012-2013). Despite the disasters in Chernobyl and, recently, in Fukushima, the nuclear issue remains very current, not just because of the need to monitor the decommissioning of obsolete nuclear plants and ensuring the safe management of waste, but also, and fundamentally, because of an issue of scientific and technological modernisation, as regards both energy production and medicine. The EU needs to allocate funds so that the Euratom FP can continue promoting the participation of institutions dedicated to innovation and technological development, such as certain undertakings, research centres and universities. Despite the economic crisis, the EU should remain at the forefront of research into this area, so as not to lose its leading position or threaten all the know-how acquired over the years. That is why I am voting for this motion for a resolution.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community for nuclear research and training activities for 2012-2013 has the same overall scope of authority and principles as the Community’s Seventh Framework Programme adopted under Council Decision 2006/970/Euratom of 18 December 2006 concerning the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) for nuclear research and training activities (2007-2011). It is the responsibility of the Commission to ensure the implementation of the programme and its specific elements, including the related financial aspects.

The rules for the participation of undertakings, research centres and universities should provide a targeted, comprehensive and transparent framework for ensuring the most effective implementation possible, taking account of the need to facilitate access for all participants through simplified procedures, in accordance with the principle of proportionality.

We must continue to facilitate the exploitation of the intellectual property of participants and, at the same time, to take account also of a possible method of organising participation at international level and protecting the legitimate interests of other participants and the Community.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed this document because the rules for participation define the rights and obligations of legal entities wishing to take part in the framework programme and establish the principles for the use and dissemination of their work resulting from that participation. The Euratom Framework Programme for 2012-2013 is implemented in accordance with the provisions established by the Financial Regulation, its implementing rules, and the State aid rules, in particular, the rules on State aid for research and development.

  Marian-Jean Marinescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of the European Commission’s proposals to continue nuclear research as nuclear energy currently plays an important role in Member States’ energy mix and in ensuring energy security. I support the approach adopted by the Commission, recommending that great importance must be attached to current funding in the nuclear sector, as the European Union is engaged in a decision-making process on the future of nuclear energy, which will be determined, to a large extent, by the results of the technical risk and safety assessments carried out on nuclear power plants in the EU. Furthermore, research in this area is also vital for decommissioning nuclear power plants in some Member States and for dealing with the activities involved in the long-term management of nuclear waste. It is important that the Euratom Seventh Framework Programme for nuclear research can continue until 2013 as this will allow businesses, research centres and universities to contribute to streamlining nuclear energy research activities (fission and fusion) and radiological protection.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report on participation of undertakings, research centres and universities in indirect actions under the Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community, which aims to continue supporting R&D actions in this field.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The Framework Programme (2012-2013) should contribute to achieving the Innovation Union that is one of the flagship initiatives of the Europe 2020 strategy. The report by Mr Březina seems to me to be heading in this direction, hence my vote in favour.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The expansion of the indirect actions of the Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community is not only desirable but welcome. It could provide very important new discoveries as regards the safe use of atomic energy, which is an increasingly pressing issue on the alternative energy sources agenda.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The legislative package aims to continue supporting R&D actions in the nuclear field carried out under the Seventh Euratom Framework Programme (2007-2011). The proposals will only cover two years (2012-13), in accordance with the current financial perspectives (2007-2013) and in line with the timeframe of the EU’s Seventh Framework Programme (2007-2013). I am in favour.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcome this resolution because there must be comprehensive and strict rules clearly defining the rights and obligations of undertakings, research centres and universities participating in indirect actions under the Framework Programme and establishing the principles for the use and dissemination of their work. I believe that increased attention and significantly greater funding are needed for initiatives ancillary to core nuclear research, in particular, as regards investment in human capital. Consequently, we should welcome the fact that priority support is to be allocated to experiments aimed at optimising ITER operations and contributing to DEMO programmes.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report, which complements A7-0358/2011 and A7-0340/2011, concerns the proposal for a Council regulation (Euratom) laying down the rules for the participation of undertakings, research centres and universities in indirect actions under the Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community and for the dissemination of research results (2012-2013). The Committee on Industry, Research and Energy voted unanimously for this report, with the European Parliament having, through its rapporteur, inserted certain guarantees into the text regarding the implementation of the programme and penalisation of failure to perform. For these reasons, I voted in favour of this report.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Considering the importance of innovation for the EU 2020 strategy, I think the Framework Programme (2012-2013) offers an excellent tool for reaching the strategy’s objectives. It will strengthen competition for the purposes of scientific excellence and speed up the implementation of key innovations in the field of nuclear energy, particularly in relation to fusion and nuclear safety. At the same time, it will also help tackle the challenges posed by the energy sector and climate change. I therefore feel inclined to vote in favour of this proposal for a regulation.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this proposal for a regulation laying down the rules for the participation of undertakings, research centres and universities in indirect actions under the Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community and for the dissemination of research results because I believe it is essential to put together non-public research entities, as that is the most appropriate way to build a true knowledge society.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. – (IT) This proposal establishes the rules of participation for enterprises, research centres and universities in indirect actions under the Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community and for the dissemination of research results. Increased attention and budget spending are needed for initiatives ancillary to core nuclear research, in particular, with regard to investments in human capital and actions aimed at addressing the risk of skills shortages in the coming years and consequent loss of leadership for the Union. This will facilitate the process of transferring technology between universities and the industry, placing emphasis on training, with a view to promoting competition in the nuclear sector and establishing a new high-tech industry sector which will lead to the creation of new jobs in a wide range of disciplines.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom FP) for nuclear research and training activities (2012-2013) should make provision for new actions in order to meet the objectives enshrined in the Europe 2020 strategy, especially as regards scientific excellence and the implementation of the main innovations in the field of nuclear energy. I am voting in favour of this report because I believe increased investment in the areas of education, training, innovation, industry, employment and the environment is positive, as it contributes to the aforementioned programme for increasing the competitiveness and modernisation of European companies. I should like to stress that the new Euratom FP will promote the participation of the outermost regions, while stimulating the creation of networks between undertakings, research centres and universities.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of the report on the regulation laying down the rules for the participation of undertakings, research centres and universities in indirect actions under the Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community and for the dissemination of research results (2012-2013). I voted for increased attention and budget spending for initiatives ancillary to core nuclear research, in particular, with regard to investment in human capital and actions aimed at tackling the risk of a shortage of skilled labour in the coming years (such as awarding grants to nuclear researchers).

Based on the amendments tabled, we have proposed that, when appointing groups of independent experts, appropriate measures must be taken to ensure a reasonable gender balance and a balance between Member States undertaking nuclear research and training. I think that, when appointing groups of independent experts, a reasonable balance must also be ensured between the business sector and academia. The rules concerning the participation of undertakings, research centres and universities must provide a coherent, comprehensive and transparent framework so that simplified procedures guarantee easy access for stakeholders.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) The Framework Programme for 2012-2013 is intended to supplement other EU measures in the field of research policy and to support education, innovation and employment as part of the Europe 2020 strategy. Its objective is to implement the Innovation Union, in this case, in the area of nuclear energy and nuclear safety. As I am opposed to the further promotion of nuclear power, I have voted against this report.

Reports: Jan Březina (A7-0358/2011), (A7-0340/2011), (A7-0345/2011)

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) Nuclear energy has been referred to as one of the energy sources that produces least carbon, but its use is always very controversial, both because of the difficulty of disposing of nuclear waste and because of safety issues. However, we also believe that it is important to carry out research in this area and that, alongside other types of research, not least into renewable energy sources, it could contribute to knowledge, and to solving and reducing the cost of, and dependence on, fossil fuels currently being experienced in many Member States of the European Union. We are concerned about a number of premises in this report, especially those that end up promoting nuclear energy when there are well-known dangers to the public and the environment resulting from issues related to the safety of the plants and reactors, to the processing and transportation of the waste resulting from this kind of energy, and to the decommissioning of facilities.

  Brice Hortefeux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) On Tuesday, 15 November, the European Parliament voted by a large majority for the Březina reports aimed at extending the research and training activities of the Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community for 2012 and 2013.

It was primarily a question of ensuring the coherence of these activities and the continuity of the commitments undertaken with the financial perspective for the period 2007-2013 and the Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Development.

I share the emotion aroused by the nuclear explosion at the Fukushima site and its disastrous consequences, both in human and material terms. The French authorities have recognised the need to learn as much as possible from it to ensure that this never happens on its own territory. However, that is not the main consideration in these reports.

Research on nuclear fission, taken in a broad sense, is essential for furthering our knowledge in this area and the continuation of the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) programme should not be exploited by those opposed to nuclear energy. That is why I am glad that the European Parliament has been able to separate the issues and take action in order to give overwhelming support to the continuation of nuclear research.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Today, three reports by Jan Březina were put to the vote. They seek to extend the Euratom Framework Programme for nuclear research and training activities to 2012 and 2013, so that it can be brought into line with the current financial perspective and the Seventh Framework Programme, which will both end in 2013. I supported these reports, which were brilliantly advocated by Mr Březina.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – Against. The Greens/EFA requested that any decision on nuclear research should: enhance democratic control and Parliament’s role concerning nuclear material by introducing the Lisbon Treaty as the legal basis; limit the Euratom nuclear research programmes to the activities linked to radioprotection (people and the environment), decommissioning of nuclear installations, safeguards and non-proliferation – this could free up to EUR 2 400 million or more from the EU budget in the next two years; and exclude EU public money from research into fusion, in particular, the white elephant ITER, and into the development of new types of fission reactors. As regards nuclear waste, the ‘polluter pays’ principle should apply. None of the above requests were carried by ITRE.

Report: Emma McClarkin (A7-0373/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report, as there is consensus about the majority of its proposals. I would stress, in line with my group’s opinion, that it would be much easier to actually implement this directive if a professional card were introduced at European level.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. – Professional mobility is a key factor for economic development and sustainable economic recovery. However, one of the main reasons for difficulties in relation to the recognition of professional qualifications is a lack of confidence in the criteria used for accreditation and granting academic qualifications in the country of origin. So there is an urgent need to establish automatic recognition measures by removing prejudice and formal national obstacles to recognition. While the automatic recognition procedure has been successful, the recognition process under the general system based on professional experience is excessively time consuming, both for the competent authorities and for professionals.

I am in favour of this report, which calls for simplification, a reduction in the duration of procedures through the use of modern communication technologies, the centralisation of information and the clarification of definitions. It also urges that the classification of economic activities be upgraded in line with scientific and technical developments, and that public health and safety be improved through the introduction of a proactive alert mechanism and through restrictions on the principle of partial access in relation to health professions. It underlines the importance of language skills, of integrating professionals, and of injecting confidence into the system through the mandatory introduction of the Internal Market Information (IMI) system, and it calls for the introduction of a voluntary professional card.

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I have abstained from voting on the directive on recognition of professional qualifications because, despite the strong commitment that my colleagues have undertaken to raise awareness of certain problems relating to the application of this directive, it has not been possible to discuss them, even though documents were sent to the meeting of the coordinators of the Economy and Environment Working Group. Although all present today are aware of some of the obstacles to professionals seeking work in the EU, I am convinced that it would be wise, on the one hand, to proceed with caution with regard to extending recognition of qualifications obtained in third states in that these might not guarantee an adequate level of professionalism; and, on the other hand, to bring into the current debate professions other than those in the health sector which also experience problems in the application of the directive.

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The free movement of persons within the European Union and the right to recognise merit and professional skills will only happen when the existing barriers have been reduced to a minimum and certain national rules that hinder access to skilled jobs disappear. Changing labour markets require greater transparency, simplification and flexibility in terms of the rules on recognising professional qualifications. Modernising the system for recognising professional qualifications is key to enhancing economic growth and boosting the confidence of members of the professions and of the public.

I think that the rapid pace of innovation requires an open attitude from European and national authorities to accepting new skills, qualifications and academic studies, and to facilitating the transfer of knowledge and innovation. I should stress the need to develop a sustainable workforce by devising staff recruitment and retention policies, promoting gender equality, lifelong education and vocational training, while also placing emphasis on improving working conditions.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Respect for the free movement of workers as required for the operation of the internal market requires mutual recognition of professional qualifications. In 2005, the EU adopted a directive moving in this direction. Today, it is a question of ensuring its implementation within the Union. To do so, Member States must show mutual confidence and promote mobility for qualified workers, especially young graduates. I therefore voted in favour of Emma McClarkin’s report, which calls for a simplification of the recognition procedures.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) Changing demographics will make the mobility of professionals across the European Union increasingly important. Professional mobility is a key factor for restoring economic development and a sustainable economy. According to the findings of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop), demand for highly skilled workers is expected to rise by over 16 million jobs in the European Union between now and 2020, and there must therefore be greater transparency, simplification and flexibility in the rules on the recognition of professional qualifications. One of the main reasons for difficulties in recognising academic titles and professional qualifications is a lack of confidence in the criteria used for accreditation and granting academic qualifications in the country of origin, so that there is an urgent need to establish automatic recognition measures by removing prejudice and formal national obstacles to recognition. I welcome the call to lay the foundations for an ambitious system for the validation of the professional skills of all workers, so that the latter can obtain full or partial certification (diploma, vocational qualification, statement of professional standing) on the basis of their professional experience following validation by a panel of their knowledge and skills.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The mobility of professionals is an essential element of economic growth, of sustainable economic recovery, and of the relaunch of the internal market. Although Europeans expect the recognition of professional qualifications to be easy and automatic, they are frequently disappointed.

This report, for which I voted, argues that a future revision of the Professional Qualifications Directive should be based on the following objectives: simplifying recognition procedures for qualifications; modernising the current legal framework; and strengthening trust and cooperation between Member States.

The European Commission should also draft guidelines applicable to the length of time it takes to obtain a decision from the competent authority regarding the recognition of qualifications.

The public should also be given the option of requesting access to an e-system of regulated professions, so reducing waiting times. Finally, it should be stressed that the mobility issue should not be dissociated from the issue of the transferability of social security rights and pension rights.

  George Becali (NI), in writing. – (RO) I voted in support of this report and I also wish to give you some of my reasons. The right to obtain employment or provide services in another Member State is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Treaties. The system for recognising qualifications is a key component and modernising it may provide a source of economic growth. Citizens need a simplified system, clear and shorter deadlines for obtaining professional recognition, transparency, and a system which can incorporate professionals and instil confidence. I hope that all these aspects will soon become a reality not for us who are debating the issue today, but for millions of people who are waiting for this.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) It must be admitted that the recognition of professional qualifications in the European Union is far from being achieved. Many obstacles remain, as the 2005 directive did not settle all of the issues. It is therefore more than necessary to simplify and modernise the existing system. The Member States must cooperate more with one another, with recognition of professional qualifications being a matter of trust. It goes without saying that mobility must not be emphasised at the expense of quality. This is why we must continue the discussion of this famous European professional card, which we have been talking about since 2005, but which still provokes resistance. The pilot projects have shown that it can be a useful tool for improved recognition of qualifications. We therefore call on the Commission to continue along these lines by showing the added-value of such a card and by giving the necessary guarantees, especially as regards data protection.

  Sergio Berlato (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The Professional Qualifications Directive pursues the aim of ensuring that European citizens’ professions are recognised outside the country where they gained the relevant qualification. Currently, the complexity of the recognition process for professional qualifications, which is associated with an extremely high number of regulated professions – particularly in Italy – is an obstacle to entry for European professionals and, as a result, this limits internal competition in regulated professions, with negative effects on competition between European businesses.

I therefore agree with the report’s demand to streamline administrative processes for recognising professions by making full use of new information technologies. In my opinion, the establishment of registration systems and an online portal containing all the information on the procedures could speed up processes for recognising professional qualifications while also facilitating more effective circulation of information between the administrations of Member States, thereby lowering the access barriers to professionals from different countries.

I also welcome the proposal in this report to extend the Internal Market Information (IMI) system to professions not yet covered by the so-called ‘Services Directive’, given that the IMI system has been shown to be a very efficient and cheap instrument.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) The report lays down a positive and convincing framework on the recognition of professional qualifications in the EU. In the report, I detected the right amount of caution on delicate passages noted by the directive, such as the issue of language skills, professional qualifications obtained in third countries and, above all, the recognition of qualifications in the extremely delicate sector of health care.

The text we will vote on is balanced and far-sighted; it encourages the Commission to carry out the work on the recognition of professional qualifications in order to make the European legal framework simpler, clearer and leaner for final users and watchful of the most sensitive issues. I therefore voted in favour.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because highly qualified workers still face obstacles when wishing to take up employment in another EU Member State. Creating a favourable environment for cross-border professional mobility is an important means of ensuring economic growth and competitiveness in the EU, and the European Parliament therefore proposes establishing a voluntary European professional card certifying academic and professional experience acquired. This card could be a useful tool in aiding mobility for some professions, and might simplify administrative procedures and enhance the safety of workers. The European Parliament also urges the Member States, competent authorities and the Commission to ensure that recognition of diplomas and certificates is on a par with recognition of professional qualifications, so as to create a genuine single market at European and international level and thereby avoid regulating what has already been regulated. The Member States, competent authorities and the Commission should ensure greater transparency so that applicants or people who have received a negative response can be given a full explanation as to the reasons for the non-recognition of their diploma or professional qualification. All workers must therefore be given information both about their rights and the procedures for the recognition of professional qualifications in order to guarantee the rights of all workers and end their exploitation.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – I voted against this report as it is another attempt to create a one-size-fits-all European system, this time in education. This is another step towards reinforced EU strategy in the single market, which will limit national determination of what proof is required from those who claim to be highly skilled workers to corroborate their professional abilities. We cannot ignore the fact that there is a huge gap between professional standards and educational requirements in poor countries of Europe, which struggle to compete with the most advanced Member States such as Great Britain. I am against the EP proposal of setting up a voluntary professional passport linked to an electronic exchange system connecting public authorities across the EU, known as the Internal Market Information system. However I do agree that a lot of suspended or struck-off professionals, who leave their own countries to work in other Member States, pose an enormous danger, but I believe that national state authorities should determine the recognition of qualifications of those who are coming from abroad to work.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of Ms McClarkin’s report on the implementation of the directive on the mutual recognition of professional qualifications. This report focuses on four points: simplification for citizens, updating existing data, progress in public health and safety and integrating professionals. I agree with the rapporteur on these points.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) There are many barriers that, directly or indirectly, continue to restrict people’s freedom of movement within the EU, as well as the public’s ability to fully enjoy the benefits of the single market, which include the right to work or provide services in another Member State. The right to recognition of academic and professional qualifications can only truly exist when the national rules, which tend to make it disproportionately difficult to exercise the right to qualified jobs, have been eliminated. The very development of the markets requires increased transparency, simplification and flexibility of regulations concerning the recognition of professional qualifications, in which cross-border mobility should contribute to the smoother working of the labour markets, while encouraging economic growth and competitiveness in the EU. I therefore agree that there is a need to modernise and improve this directive, so as to ensure a clear legal framework, by improving the system for recognition of professional qualifications, with the establishment of automatic recognition measures, and by removing prejudice and formal national obstacles to recognition. At the same time, conclusion of the transposition of this directive in all the Member States and its implementation also needs to be ensured. I also welcome the use of technologies that are more efficient and appropriate, enabling the recognition process to be facilitated and sped up.

  Lara Comi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I have abstained from voting on this report as I believe that while the rapporteur has carried out work of an optimum standard, the premises are mistaken: one cannot talk of recognising professional qualifications until the training and education systems which allow such qualifications to be obtained have been harmonised. Indeed, that is of far greater importance, as the recognition of professional qualifications is of fundamental significance to the growth of competition, the economy and the internal market more generally. I believe that greater authority between the relevant authorities is needed, by means of new communication technologies that streamline and accelerate processes of recognising professional qualifications thereby reducing access barriers. In my opinion, greater balance between workers’ mobility and the quality of recognised professional qualifications is a key factor in economic development and sustainable growth, and crucial in a period of such deep crisis. It is therefore necessary to eliminate all obstacles which could compromise the principle of free market competition.

  Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the implementation of the Professional Qualifications Directive. The free movement of an ever-growing number of highly skilled persons and workers is one of the key benefits of European cooperation and of a competitive internal market, which is an important factor in the development of economies across the EU and a right enjoyed by every EU citizen.

Workers’ mobility should be enhanced for EU citizens, and direct and indirect barriers should be removed, provided that a balance is struck between mobility and the quality of professional qualifications. The directive encourages the initiatives aimed at facilitating cross-border mobility, both as a means of ensuring the efficient functioning of labour markets and as a means of stimulating economic growth and competitiveness within the EU. As part of this, consideration must be given to the fact that the recognition of professional qualifications is closely linked to the completion of the Bologna Process aimed at establishing a single European Higher Education Area.

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In the current economic and financial context, qualified medical professionals are often seeking to make use of the economic dynamic within the EU itself for their benefit. The free movement of people, the freedom to provide services, and freedom of establishment are some of the fundamental pillars of European integration. They are different principles and have already been the subject of judgments from the Court of Justice of the European Union, as the report says. I therefore believe that the EU legal framework regulating the phenomenon of internal worker migration should be improved, optimised, simplified and clarified, so as to fully implement the rights of the European public, and to promote a more competitive internal market, as the rapporteur advocates. The simplification of the recognition process for qualifications, the full integration of professionals, and the introduction of a professional card for some professions, which will enable increased confidence in the system, are procedures listed in the report, which I believe the Union should implement. I am voting for this report because it represents another step forward in the process of European integration that has been planned, that is under way, and that we hope to see concluded one day.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Directive 2005/26/EC applies to any national of a Member State of the European Union wishing to work in a regulated profession – whether freelance or as an employee – in a Member State other than the one where they obtained their professional qualification. In practice, it transpires that the recognition procedure based on professional experience remains too cumbersome and time consuming both for the competent authorities and the professionals. That is why I welcome the adoption of this report because it is aimed at: 1) making it simpler for citizens insofar as the procedure will be shorter thanks to modern communication technologies, improved centralisation of information and clearer definitions, especially with regard to temporary or occasional provision of services; 2) updating existing provisions (in particular, by classifying economic activities in line with scientific and technical developments); 3) upgrading public health and safety by establishing a proactive alert mechanism and 4) introducing a voluntary professional card.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report because I believe the free movement of qualified workers is one of the key benefits of European cooperation and of a competitive internal market. Cross-border mobility will contribute to the smoother running of the labour markets, and will encourage economic growth and competitiveness itself in the EU.

  Nigel Farage (EFD), in writing. – This is not a matter that should be within the power of the EU, but within that of sovereign nation states, working under international agreements.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In the current economic situation, simplifying all the rules that enable increased worker mobility and making them more flexible, especially in terms of recognition of their qualifications, constitute an essential requirement for a sustainable economic recovery. Moreover, the free movement of professionals is only really possible if there are simple rules for recognition of qualifications that do not act as an obstacle to mobility. This report is therefore laudable, as it is intended, inter alia, to reduce the duration of recognition procedures for qualifications through the use of information technologies, and to uniformly update the minimum training requirements for those working in various professions, as regularly as is necessary, and in line with scientific and technical developments.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Parliament has considered the problem of bureaucracy many times, and taken measures to resolve it. The goal of operating a single and free market often clashes with administrative procedures that are incomprehensible to the majority of the European public. This report, drafted by Ms McClarkin, concerns the implementation of the Professional Qualifications Directive for the many Europeans – doctors, nurses, dentists, pharmacists, etc. – who would like to exercise their profession in any European Member State but who are currently confronted with the complexity and sluggishness of recognition procedures. This is therefore a priority issue which should, nevertheless, take into account certain essential issues like an in-depth command of the host state’s language, the professional’s accountability and the safety of the public, through a proactive mechanism for warning of unsuitable professionals. I welcome the adoption of this report, which will contribute to improving the mobility of various professionals within the EU, which will not only contribute to reducing unemployment rates within the Union, but will also fill many gaps in specialised human resources in some of the Member States.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report has positive aspects, but is certainly not free of contradictions. The current economic and social context of a profound crisis in various countries, like Portugal, is pressurising many workers, particularly young people, to emigrate and seek work wherever they can find it. Mobility is therefore emerging, not as a desired option that is chosen from a number of possible alternatives, but as an escape into which people are pushed by a lack of alternatives in their home country. Naturally, it is important for anyone going to work in a country other than their own to demand the recognition of their professional qualifications. However, there are issues that must be borne in mind relating to health care professions, to the historical and cultural component of the country in question, and to the language itself. As such, the recognition of professionals’ qualifications must not threaten the rights of consumers and service users. Above all, however, there is a need to encourage and support the creation of jobs with rights in all the Member States, so that people can truly work where they want, and will not be obliged to leave their country simply because they have no work.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The free movement of a growing number of highly skilled persons and of workers is one of the key benefits of European cooperation and of a competitive internal market. Workers’ mobility should be enhanced for EU citizens, and indirect barriers should be eliminated, making it easier to strike a balance between mobility and the quality of professional qualifications.

Ensuring that the system for recognising professional qualifications is designed in the best possible way is a prerequisite for enabling everyone to fully enjoy the benefits of freedom of movement. One of the main reasons for difficulties in recognising academic titles and professional qualifications is a lack of confidence in the criteria used for accreditation and the granting of academic qualifications in the country of origin. For this reason, too, there is an urgent need to establish automatic recognition measures and to work to remove prejudice and formal national obstacles to recognition. Dialogue and exchanges of information within each individual profession must be enhanced, and cooperation between the competent authorities improved, at both national and intra-Member State level. Free movement of persons within the EU and the right to the recognition of merit and professional skills can only exist if the existing invisible barriers are limited, and if some national rules that currently disproportionately hinder the use of the right to qualified jobs can be eliminated.

  Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), in writing. – (IT) The report by Ms McClarkin explains the choice of rapporteur, who has shown herself to be a safe bet for achieving a balanced text that does not contain any references that are overly pretentious and, hence, scarcely practical. For this reason, I am voting in favour.

  Elisabetta Gardini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) According to a recent Eurobarometer survey, the idea of working abroad is an appealing prospect for more than half of young Europeans. It is important to provide them with the requisite legal and cultural instruments to fully exploit their learning potential and the opportunities provided by the common labour market. To this end, the forthcoming revision of the Professional Qualifications Directive will certainly be an important way to get things moving and stimulate professional mobility within the EU.

However, I think that aside from simplification and a reduction in the timescales of the current procedures, it is fundamental to continue to ensure the reliability and security of professionally-provided services for our citizens. In medicine, for example, possible linguistic misunderstandings between patients and doctors could compromise both diagnoses and treatments.

As we wait for the Commission to adopt its new proposal for legislation, I decided to abstain at this stage in the debate. Indeed, I think it would be a good idea in the meantime to deepen the dialogue with all the affected professions in order to end up with a new regulation on professional qualifications that is more effective, transparent and more widely shared.

  Louis Grech (S&D), in writing. – I am in favour of this report due to its firm endorsement of the updating of the Professional Qualifications Directive. In the revision process, one of the issues which needs to be tackled is the persistent reluctance shown by Member States to collaborate among themselves – an unwillingness which has emerged due to a lack of trust that the EU-27 have in each others’ systems, and which has consequently resulted in the uneven implementation and enforcement of the directive throughout the Union. The revamp will require true ownership on the part of Member States, whereby national governments and labour market players will have to engage in a structured dialogue on how better to guarantee professional integration of young people and the cross-border movement of workers with a view to establishing an efficient and transparent professional qualifications recognition system which is applicable throughout Europe. I am also of the conviction that the creation of a professional card could significantly increase labour mobility and boost citizen confidence vis-à-vis the service being offered and enable the competent authorities of the receiving state to have a true and clear picture of the level of qualification and experience which the professional in question has.

  Françoise Grossetête (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Better recognition of professional qualifications will make the European economy more competitive while stimulating growth and job creation. It must become easier for professionals to travel to where the job opportunities are because too often, they face long and cumbersome procedures.

However, that does not mean that we are going to do away with all of the rules. The recognition of qualifications can, in certain cases, continue to differ from one state to another. Some professions are still regulated: lawyers and doctors, for example, continue to be the domain of the Member States because of their highly sensitive nature. It is entirely logical for us to be able to lay down stricter requirements in certain cases in order to protect consumers and patients.

Our goal in the longer term is to move towards harmonisation, but things are not that simple: it is still not possible at present.

Finally, in order to achieve a more united, better regulated European professional universe, we should look at establishing a voluntary European professional card. That would greatly facilitate the mobility of professionals by giving them a real status.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) The recognition of professional qualifications in Europe still depends too much on cumbersome and costly administrative procedures which militate against the mobility of professionals. I therefore voted in favour of this report, which proposes ways to change this situation, in particular, by simplifying information-based procedures and ensuring the transparency of decisions and the reduction of timeframes. It is also necessary to update the, at times rather fusty, current classification of economic activities as well as minimum training requirements. In the case of health care professionals, I was particularly keen to support the establishment of a proactive alert mechanism which would make it possible to issue an alert to other Member States when a regulatory action is taken against a professional. Furthermore, on the issue of the professional card, which the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament has been calling for for many years now, we want to simplify procedures for professionals, improve exchanges of information between authorities, and reassure customers and patients. I also hope that these elements are taken into account in the future Commission proposal on the revision of the 2005 directive.

  Małgorzata Handzlik (PPE), in writing. – (PL) The recognition of professional qualifications is an essential condition for the mobility of workers in the European single market. Experience with the operation of Directive 2005/35/EC shows that many aspects of the recognition of qualifications need to be changed. Therefore, in the resolution which has been adopted, we point to aspects which, in our opinion, should be simplified to make it easier for citizens who, when they move to another Member State, want to continue working in the profession in which they are qualified to work in their country of origin.

Among other things, we call for the inclusion of a greater number of professions in the system of automatic recognition of professional qualifications, introduction of a European professional card, use of the latest information technology and simplification of procedures. I am certain that the amendments proposed by the European Parliament will contribute to the streamlining of the European single market and will help citizens to be professionally mobile. I will be very interested to follow and take part in work on the amendments to the Professional Qualifications Directive which the European Commission intends to submit before the end of the year.

  Brice Hortefeux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I welcome the adoption of the McClarkin report, which responds to the need to simplify and update the existing 15-odd directives on the recognition of professional qualifications.

The modernisation of this legislation matches one of the 50 proposals from the European Commission in the Single Market Act and is one of the 12 levers for growth identified by Commissioner Barnier.

The report also introduces a proactive alert mechanism intended to guarantee the supply of services by health professionals and draws up proposals intended to promote the integration of health professionals.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. – The freedom of movement for workers is one of the fundamental freedoms of the EU and the mutual recognition of professional qualifications is an important tool in facilitating that movement. Different countries have differing education and training regimes, however, and I welcome the fact that this report recognises that reality.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed this document because one of the main reasons for difficulties in recognising academic titles and professional qualifications is a lack of confidence in the criteria used for accreditation and granting academic qualifications in the country of origin, so that there is an urgent need to establish automatic recognition measures by removing prejudice and formal national obstacles to recognition. The free movement of a growing number of highly skilled persons and workers is one of the key benefits of European cooperation and of a competitive internal market, an important factor in the development of economies across the EU and a right enjoyed by every EU citizen. I believe that workers’ mobility should be enhanced for citizens of the EU and that indirect barriers should be eliminated, provided that a balance is struck between mobility and the quality of professional qualifications and a possible brain drain from the Member States is prevented.

  Cătălin Sorin Ivan (S&D), in writing. – (RO) Parliament voted today to recognise professional qualifications. However, we must not forget that although these rules were introduced on a general basis, not all EU citizens can benefit from them. I am referring in particular here to Romanian citizens who have had restrictions imposed on them accessing the labour market in a very large number of European states. Now, some states which had lifted these restrictions have reimposed them, using the crisis as an excuse. What good is it us recognising people’s qualifications if we do not grant them the right to work? I wholeheartedly wish for this situation to change as soon as possible.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I support Ms McClarkin’s report on the implementation of the Professional Qualifications Directive (Directive 2005/36/EC) adopted today in plenary for it is an important contribution by the European Parliament to the debate launched by the European Commission following the publication of the Green Paper in June. The recognition of professional qualifications is necessary if we want to make it easier for workers to move within the single market. The existing directive, adopted in 2005, must be updated and improved; in particular, it must be simplified for citizens, it must guarantee the protection of public health and safety (health professions) and it must increase confidence in the system.

  Constance Le Grip (PPE) , in writing. – (FR) I wished to support Ms McClarkin’s report on the implementation of the Professional Qualifications Directive, for which I acted as rapporteur for the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats). The issue of professional mobility is closely related to the issue of growth and competitiveness in our internal market. This report calls for greater professional mobility and, therefore, for simpler, more effective recognition procedures for professional qualifications. We especially call on the European Commission, which will present its proposal to revise the 2005 directive in mid-December, to make progress on the introduction of a European professional card to be used on a voluntary basis by the professional sectors involved. This could be another step along the path to a people’s Europe. We also wish to introduce more confidence and security in the recognition system by introducing practical tools for Europe’s citizens, such as a proactive alert system which we would like to see used when a regulatory action is taken against a health professional’s registration or their right to provide services.

  Morten Løkkegaard (ALDE), in writing. – (DA) I am voting in favour of the report on the recognition of professional qualifications, which is a step in the right direction if the free movement of persons is to work. If the professional qualifications that EU citizens have obtained through training or work in one Member State are not recognised in the other Member States, then, in my opinion, we cannot have a well-functioning internal market. As the demographics change as the population in Western Europe, on average, gets older, we need the internal market to work more than ever. I am in complete agreement with the report’s message that the most effective way to create a framework for free movement is to limit the number of regulated professions. I also agree that the way to more uniform rules is through the Internal Market Information system (IMI).

  Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE), in writing. – (PL) The Professional Qualifications Directive is intended to make it possible for every EU citizen who holds a qualification to work in a regulated profession or run a business to have it recognised in a Member State other than the one in which the professional qualification was obtained. It is important to update applicable rules, including by defining minimum requirements for training, duration of training and learning outcomes. It is important that Europeans be able to work freely throughout the EU, because the benefits which flow from a competitive European internal market are going to be an important factor driving development of the EU, particularly now at this time of economic and financial crisis. I personally support the McClarkin report, so I voted in favour of its adoption.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this resolution, which calls on the Commission and the Member States to further encourage mobility among professionals; argues that the relatively low numbers of mobile professionals is cause for concern and suggests that strategies be devised to tackle this problem; and underlines the result of the recent Eurobarometer survey, according to which, more than 50% of young people in Europe are willing or keen to work abroad.

  Jiří Maštálka (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (CS) I very much welcome the directive under discussion and its amendment. The emphasis placed on a gradual harmonisation of professional qualifications is right and proper. Our attention should not be focused only on highly qualified specialists, but also on technical staff with secondary school qualifications. I support a substantial increase in the sharing of information on individual professions between Member States. I also support the idea that language proficiency should not be set up as a basic obstacle to the pursuit of a profession. I do not agree with the positive assessment of the impact of the so-called Bologna Process. On the contrary, I believe it is necessary to reassess it, so that it can be an effective means for increasing qualifications that are comparable in all Member States. In the meantime, it serves only as an obstacle to obtaining a full university education.

  Clemente Mastella (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I believe that the free circulation of a growing number of highly skilled people and workers is one of the key benefits of European cooperation and of a competitive internal market, as well as being an important factor in the development of EU economies.

We, therefore, firmly believe that mobility for European citizens should be enhanced and that it is necessary to eliminate indirect obstacles, aiming for a balance between mobility and quality of professional qualifications. The number of regulated professions should be reviewed and gradually reduced, while the scope for automatic recognition of qualifications for new professions should, if necessary, be expanded, paying particular attention to innovative sectors.

Consequently, harmonising the different education systems of the 27 Member States is a priority. We therefore invite them all to improve coordination of their own systems of education, be these formal or informal, and from there to establish a future workforce with analogous qualifications which could be advantageous to the European labour market. Only in this way will we be in a position to increase our levels of productivity.

We ask, finally, for greater transparency of the administrative processes involved and for a reduction of the costs, in order to facilitate and speed up the process of recognising professional qualifications, without hindering the free movement of people.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on the implementation of the Professional Qualifications Directive. The European Union is based on a single market. This integrated single market can only function effectively if European workers are able to choose which Member State they wish to work in. With equivalent training, knowledge and expertise acquired in one Member State should be recognised in the other Member States. The issue of the recognition of professional qualifications is fundamental for the integration of our economies. This report will make the process easier and shorter for doctors, midwives, dentists, chemists, architects and other professionals wishing to work elsewhere within the European Union, without undermining the safety of European citizens. We need to build on mobility within Europe if we want a dynamic and competitive European economy. As yet, too few Europeans are taking this opportunity; this is about reducing the barriers they encounter in order to promote these beneficial exchanges.

  Marisa Matias (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The free movement of an increasing number of highly qualified workers is one of the key benefits of European cooperation. I believe that all indirect obstacles to the public’s movement within Europe should be removed, without compromising rights and labour protection; a balance needs to be achieved between mobility and the quality of professional qualifications. The mobility of European workers has been particularly noticeable in the field of health care, and its immediate impact on public health means there is a need for clear and transparent rules, so as to guarantee mobility and safety.

This directive is a step in that direction, so I voted in favour. Although it does not come under the scope of this directive, I believe the public’s freedom of movement within the Union should be increased, particularly by conferring equal rights on the citizens of all European Union countries.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I am voting in favour of the report. I agree that proper implementation of this directive would reinforce the human dimension of the single market. The free circulation of a growing number of highly skilled people and workers is one of the great advantages of cooperation between Member States.

  Erminia Mazzoni (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I am focusing on the first two points of this report: simplification for citizens and improvement of existing standards. These define the rapporteur’s approach to the revision of Directive 2005/36/EC on professions. Simplifications are not always positive. When the action that determines them consists of a generalised removal of pre-existing defensive norms, the repercussions can be more damaging than the causes we are trying to eradicate. The free circulation of services and people represents, I would say, the most important part of the package of freedom to promote a common market. It seemed natural to propose that we take into account any relevant differences which still exist between the 27 national systems. Unfortunately, amendments to that effect have all been rejected. The intention was to anticipate, initially, the acceleration of processes for the homogenisation of training systems and equivalence of qualifications, as well as the reworking of orders and regulations on determining professional fees, with a view to protecting civil rights and liberties and not opposing competition. This path has led me to the decision not to support Ms McClarkin’s proposal.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The implementation of this directive is very important in order to provide doctors, engineers, dentists and all other professionals with the opportunity to work in another EU country. In this way, we will make the labour market more flexible. This can only happen with mutual recognition of professional qualifications, and with their rapid implementation, whilst always taking care not to compromise the reliability and safety of their performance. Speeding up recognition procedures for professional qualifications would also help young Europeans to believe professional experience in any Member State is possible. In this context of crisis, all European professionals are hoping their mobility will increase so as to be able to exercise their profession. One way of simplifying the procedures, which are too bureaucratic, is to introduce a voluntary professional passport to be included immediately in the internal market’s existing information system, capable of connecting all the public authorities throughout the EU.

  Louis Michel (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Professional mobility is an essential element for stimulating economic growth, making the labour market more flexible and addressing demographic challenges in some regions of the European Union. However, the free movement of persons within the EU and the right to recognition of merit and professional skills will only exist when the invisible barriers that now exist have been reduced to a minimum. The recognition of academic and professional qualifications is a prerequisite for establishing a genuine internal market and for enabling everyone to fully enjoy the benefits of this freedom of movement. As a result, we must encourage all the initiatives aimed at making cross-border mobility easier. An effective way of making freedom of movement for professionals possible would be to reduce the total number of regulated professions in the EU, although one classification may be justified by consumer protection considerations, particularly in the case of the medical, legal or technical professions. We should encourage remunerated supervised practice for graduates from other Member States and ensure that the professional experience acquired during the supervised practice is recognised in the home Member State.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – Since the report focuses on how to develop the recognition of professional qualifications and thus enhance the mobility of EU citizens and how to improve confidence in the recognition system, and takes into account that special attention should be paid to professionals in the health care sector, I voted in favour.

  Claudio Morganti (EFD), in writing. – (IT) This report certainly contains a number of positive elements which could lead to greater simplification in, and wider guarantees for, the recognition of professional qualifications.

However, one point of this report leaves me somewhat perplexed. I am referring to Article 13, which would exempt tour guides from the obligation of prior declaration in another country. This measure could open the floodgates to unauthorised tour guides who do not have the necessary competence to work in an area in which they do not normally work. Tour guides working in their own localities are guarantees of competence, quality and even safety. During the recent floods in Liguria, it was thanks precisely to their expertise and knowledge of the region that two local guides were able to rescue a number of people.

I would not like Europe to cede yet again to large multinationals in the tourism sector, as happened with the Bolkestein Directive, thereby giving up an unparalleled degree of knowledge of our territories. For these reasons, I have decided to abstain.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) The proposals set out in the report are aimed at remedying the problems and shortcomings observed in the area of recognising professional qualifications since the entry into force of the directive in 2005, so that the right to access jobs or provide services in another Member State, which is enshrined in the Treaties, is fully implemented. To this end, there is a need to simplify regulation, increase the accessibility of information, enhance mutual coordination and boost confidence in the system. On the other hand, a balance must be maintained between the right to take up employment and the rights of consumers, including patients. I hope that the European Parliament’s proposals will be properly reflected in the legal proposal drafted by the Commission. We must ensure that everyone who has the right can take advantage of a system for the recognition of qualifications which is flexible, accessible and not too complex – this is what professionals throughout the EU expect of us. Health care professionals are the most mobile in the EU (around 57 200 professional qualifications of professionals in this field were recognised in the period 2007-2010). Of the 800 regulated qualifications, 43% are in health care systems, while 9% are in the social sector, including education. Countries like Lithuania, which, for a number of years, have experienced negative trends due to the emigration of highly qualified professionals, should reform the most sensitive sectors accordingly. Research shows that the majority of professionals would be inclined to work in the country where they acquired their qualifications, even for a relatively lower salary, if there were sufficient opportunities to work in their chosen profession upon graduation.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution because it is particularly important to take effective action at EU level to simplify the process of recognising professional qualifications and properly implement the free movement of persons and the freedom to provide services. The planned automatic recognition measures will remove the formal national obstacles to recognition that currently exist and will open the door to a competitive internal market. Favourable conditions will thus be created to promote the mobility of professionals because currently, the refusal to recognise qualifications obtained in another Member State is often one of the greatest obstacles to ensuring the freedom to provide services and the free movement of persons. The implementation of the provisions of the directive will also ensure confidence among the Member States in the criteria used for accreditation and granting academic qualifications in the country of origin.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report on the implementation of the Professional Qualifications Directive urges the Commission not to fragment the process of modernising automatic recognition, as is suggested in the Green Paper, and to ensure that Parliament is given proper oversight when substantial changes are made to the directive. Particularly important in this report is the call for enhanced mobility of graduates and for compliance with the judgment in the Morgenbesser case, which argues that Member States should encourage remunerated supervised practice for graduates from other Member States if they offer such a possibility to their own nationals. The professional experience acquired during the supervised practice should be recognised in the home Member State.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The free movement of people and workers is a matter of significant importance in the economic context of the European Union. This is because it acts as a driving force for cooperation between Member States as well as a stimulus for the competitiveness of the internal market, factors that speed up the development of the EU economies. I therefore consider it highly necessary that mobility for European citizens should be enhanced, eliminating any sort of obstacle to it. As I declare my vote in favour of the report, I am confident that all the initiatives designed to facilitate cross-border mobility will be emboldened, as it is a lever for achieving employment markets that function effectively and a way to stimulate economic growth and competitiveness within the European Union.

  Rovana Plumb (S&D), in writing. – (RO) Global competition and the tendency towards a knowledge-based economy are creating new challenges for skills development and education. The current directive includes rules for the mutual recognition of professional qualifications in EU Member States covering 800 regulated categories of professions and automatic recognition for seven sectoral professions: architect, dentist, doctor, midwife, nurse, pharmacist and veterinary surgeon. The European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training estimates that demand for highly skilled workers will rise by over 16 million jobs in the European Union by 2020. This is why I support continuous professional development, lifelong learning and the recommendation for Member States to review and increase the minimum duration of vocational training courses.

I think that dialogue and exchanges of information within each individual profession must be increased and that cooperation between the competent authorities and National Contact Points must be improved, at both national level and between Member States. I call on Member States to exchange general information about national processes and education requirements and to organise exchanges of best practices in order to guarantee service quality. Public authorities and social partners must engage in a structured dialogue in order to increase the professional integration of young people.

  Phil Prendergast (S&D), in writing. – I welcome this report on the implementation of the Professional Qualifications Directive. At a time when half of our youth show a willingness to look for work opportunities abroad, it is crucial that we simplify and eliminate disproportionate rules, as well as needless, invisible barriers to the realisation of their right to work in another EU Member State. We need to do so without undermining the confidence of the public and professionals. As a former midwife, I am acquainted with the challenges and risks inherent in areas where health and safety are at stake. Indeed, health care professionals are the most mobile, and the ability to communicate and safeguard patient safety have to be ensured. A key challenge lies in the recognition of academic titles and professional qualifications by shoring up confidence in the accreditation criteria. Dialogue between public authorities and professionals has to be stepped up. The ECTS system needs more transparency and comparability. The high number of SOLVIT cases relating to professional qualification recognition issues shows that this area is more than a fundamental element of the Internal Market. It is a matter of rights that our citizens want to see fulfilled.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Professional Qualifications Directive has been established as an important instrument for increasing the mobility of workers between the various Member States, and of ensuring a match up between supply and demand in the European labour market. In the context of evaluating the results achieved thus far, it should be stressed that additional obstacles to workers’ mobility must not be erected, notwithstanding the recognition that measures to prevent mobility from putting consumers’ health and safety at risk are needed. For example, that will be the case for health care workers who, having been banned from working in one Member State, move to another so as to avoid being held accountable. In general, we should continue down the path towards integration, not just by promoting workers’ mobility, but also by creating measures linked to combating fraud. I voted in favour for these reasons.

  Frédérique Ries (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The adoption of the report on the recognition of professional qualifications is excellent news for European workers: simplification and relaxation of the rules on the recognition of professional qualifications for a speedier process, increased cooperation between Member States, creation of a European professional card granting easy access to information and so on are the main objectives. These are all proposals that will ensure more mobility and freedom for workers and these are all guarantees for citizens to see their rights respected. This raft of measures will still need to be supplemented with crucial safeguards to ensure a balanced recognition between the many qualifications that exist in the EU and to guarantee a reliable service from professionals, especially in the health sector. The challenge is by no means minor: duration of studies, supervised practical experience, language training; there are as many formats as there are Member States for each course. Modernising recognition will have to be done cautiously but confidently, given that over 50% of young people are willing to work abroad, according to the Eurobarometer (May 2011). There is still a long way to go before professional qualifications are fully and comprehensively recognised, despite European progress in the equivalence of training courses and qualifications.

  Robert Rochefort (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The internal market and the free movement of workers cannot be achieved without facilitating the recognition of professional qualifications between the Member States. It is, moreover, a priority of the Single Market Act to promote economic growth within the Union. However, in order to be fair and effective, and to protect European citizens, the procedures need to be simplified, while maintaining a high level of quality. The report by Emma McClarkin meets these expectations and I welcome that. Indeed, her proposals will help achieve the necessary objective of modernising Directive 2005/36/EC. Efforts should therefore be focused on the intensification of exchanges between the competent authorities, the accessibility of useful information via an online portal and one-stop shops, the provision of an electronic professional card for European workers and, finally and most importantly, the protection of patients through enhanced monitoring of health care professionals. I now call on the European Commission to take these measures into account in the proposal it will publish in December on the modernisation of Directive 2005/36/EC.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. The EP: 1. Believes that the free movement of a growing number of highly skilled persons and of workers is one of the key benefits of European cooperation and of a competitive internal market, an important factor in the development of economies across the EU, and a right enjoyed by every EU citizen; firmly believes that workers’ mobility should be enhanced for citizens of the EU and that indirect barriers should be eliminated, provided that a balance is struck between mobility and the quality of professional qualifications; 2. Encourages all initiatives that aim to facilitate cross-border mobility as a means to the efficient functioning of labour markets and a way of enhancing economic growth and competitiveness within the EU; recognises the need for modernisation of Directive 2005/36/EC in order to guarantee a clear, robust legal framework; 3. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to further encourage mobility among professionals; argues that the relatively low numbers of mobile professionals is a cause for concern and suggests that strategies be devised to tackle this problem; underlines the result of the recent Eurobarometer survey according to which more than 50% of young people in Europe are willing or keen to work abroad;

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I have voted in favour of this text because I believe it is of fundamental importance to simplify the procedures for doctors, engineers, dentists and other professionals wishing to work abroad within the EU, thereby increasing the flexibility of the labour market. However, this can happen only through mutual recognition of professional qualifications for which the procedure should be quick, while not compromising the reliability and safety of professional services.

Speeding up procedures for recognising professional qualifications would also help young Europeans who believe it is important for their careers to gain experience working abroad. All European professionals are waiting for increased mobility to be put into practice and not remain a dead letter. In order to simplify procedures which are still too bureaucratic, it is necessary to introduce an optional professional passport to be included immediately in the current Internal Market Information system, allowing public authorities across the EU to liaise with each other.

  Matteo Salvini (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I would like to declare my vote in favour of Ms McClarkin’s report on the implementation of the Professional Qualifications Directive. There is no doubt that the ability to carry out one’s profession in all Member States is a significant feature of the internal market. It is important to implement the quite correct precautions outlined in the report in regard to the health care sector, third-country professional qualifications and the need for a high level of linguistic competence, particularly for some professional categories whose work involves being in close contact with patients or clients.

  Debora Serracchiani (S&D), in writing. – (IT) I have voted in favour of this report which seeks to lay the groundwork for future debate on the reform proposal that the Commission is due to present in December, and that aims to simplify the process of working abroad for doctors, engineers, dentists and other professionals. If, on the one hand, professional qualifications should be recognised quickly by other Member States, on the other hand, the reliability and safety of their services should not be compromised.

To this end, one notes that the professional qualifications of tour guides could cease to be recognised as, following the revision of Directive 2005/36/EC, their profession would be confused with that of travel couriers or tour representatives who would be able to conduct guided tours in all 27 Member States.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Currently, the complexity of the process of recognition associated with an extremely high number of regulated professions, particularly in my own country, Italy, is an obstacle to entry for European professionals and limits internal competition within regulated professions, entailing negative effects as regards competition between businesses.

That said, I fully concur with the report’s demand to streamline administrative processes for recognising professions by making good use of new information technologies. The establishment of registration systems and an online portal containing all the information on the procedures could speed up processes for recognising professional qualifications while also facilitating more effective circulation of information between the administrations of Member States, thereby lowering the access barriers to professionals from different countries.

I also agree with the proposal to extend the Internal Market Information (IMI) system to professions not yet covered by the so-called ‘Services Directive’, given that the IMI system has been shown to be a very efficient and cheap instrument.

Finally, I can also agree with the warnings given relating to extending the procedures to recognise professional qualifications obtained in third states, as an adequate level of professionalism might not be guaranteed in such cases.

  Peter Skinner (S&D), in writing. – For many years, I have supported the strong need for recognition of professional qualifications across the EU. The problems alluded to in terms of some of the linguistic differences and professional aptitude are partly true, but they are also relevant in all aspects of trade and employment services across borders, EU and non-EU.

In the South-East of England, I have been proud to assist constituents – some of whom have been doctors and other professionals – to gain recognition in other Member States. I would, however, support additional measures to ensure that checks can be made where necessary and with respect for the spirit of this law.

  Bogusław Sonik (PPE), in writing. – (PL) The united Europe project means an effectively operating single market which removes barriers and rules and makes it possible for the citizens to move around the EU. The free movement of persons and the freedom to take up work in different Member States are fundamental rights. The desire to take up work in a Member State other than the country of origin is declared in research by over 17% of EU citizens, while 2% do actually make use of this possibility. This is the result of barriers which still exist and which stand in the way of people taking up work freely, and is also the effect of time consuming and complicated procedures for the recognition of professional qualifications.

The directive on this matter, which came into force in 2007, is not effective everywhere. This is why we have adopted the report on the implementation and revision of the directive, in which we propose changes concerning simplification of the procedures for recognising professional qualifications in 4 700 regulated professions throughout the Union in order to support the mobility of workers in the EU, and in which we also propose introduction of the European professional card. Changes to the Professional Qualifications Directive must, above all, help to increase the mobility of workers in the face of demographic challenges and the rise in unemployment figures in some Member States.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Mobility within the EU’s borders is one of the four freedoms on which the EU was founded and is a prerequisite for the completion of the single market. Recognition of qualifications is necessary in order to promote the mobility of highly qualified people and workers, and the bureaucracy surrounding it should be reduced. This directive sets out a distinction between the freedom to provide services and freedom of establishment, in line with the criteria laid down by the Court of Justice: duration, frequency, regularity and continuity of service provision. The automatic recognition procedure has demonstrated enormous successes, while the recognition procedure under the normal system, based on professional experience, is excessively slow and complex, so it does not fit with the free movement of people. It is also essential to create a proactive alert system, so as to prevent professionals who have been suspended or banned from practising from doing so in another Member State. The EU’s competitiveness is based on its know-how, so there is an urgent need to simplify recognition of professional and academic qualifications, so as to confront the obstacles to economic growth in the EU. Creating an information portal will inform the European public of its rights.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of the report on the implementation of Directive 2005/36/EC on the recognition of professional qualifications since the free movement of persons is one of the basic freedoms guaranteed by the Treaties. In order to enjoy freedom of movement, professionals need to have their qualifications easily recognised in every Member State. The Professional Qualifications Directive stipulates that any host Member State where a profession is regulated is obliged to consider the qualifications gained in another Member State and verify whether they correspond to those it requires. Although the internal market creates conditions for getting a job or providing services in another Member State, the level of professional mobility is still low in the EU.

Greater mobility also provides a solution for filling the posts requiring a high level of qualifications, especially at a time when the working population is dwindling. Using the latest communication technologies, including databases and online registration procedures, would help improve significantly access to information and knowledge of the procedures, as well as ensure that the deadlines set by the general recognition system are met.

We think that removing qualification levels, including Annexes II and III of Directive 2005/36/EC, would simplify the recognition procedure considerably.

  Róża Gräfin von Thun und Hohenstein (PPE), in writing. – (PL) The European Parliament report on the implementation of the Professional Qualifications Directive is a response to dynamic demographic changes and changes taking place in the economy and the labour markets. Free movement of highly skilled workers is an important factor in the development of economies across the EU and of a competitive internal market. Especially now, during the economic crisis, citizens need to be able to operate in a friendly legal environment which facilitates mobility.

The directive on the recognition of professional qualifications was adopted in 2005. We can now see that it requires further improvement and revision. There is therefore still much to do in order that citizens can freely take up employment anywhere in Europe based on the knowledge and skills that they acquired in another Member State.

During consultations which I organised in Poland, almost 3 000 people appealed to the European Commission to introduce a European professional card as soon as possible. I am pleased the report supports this proposal of young Poles. I hope the card will be introduced as soon as possible and that all citizens will be able to make greater use of the single market. Therefore, I voted in favour of the European Parliament resolution on the implementation of the Professional Qualifications Directive.

  Rafał Trzaskowski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) Poles who go to other EU countries to work are still having to contend with complicated procedures for having their professional qualifications recognised. The directive on this matter, which came into force in 2007, is not effective everywhere and is far from perfect. Today, therefore, I voted in favour of the report on the enforcement and revision of the directive, in which Parliament calls for changes to the current system.

  Viktor Uspaskich (ALDE), in writing. – (LT) This report proposes simplifying the system so that it would be easier for doctors to work in the EU. I agree with the rapporteur that this would stimulate economic growth and would give the labour market flexibility, but we should try to achieve this without creating a severe shortage of labour in countries like Lithuania. According to a Lithuanian report published earlier this year, the ratio of doctors and nurses per 10 000 inhabitants in Lithuania is one of the highest in Europe. However, an ordinary Lithuanian has to wait several weeks or more in order to get an appointment to see a doctor, particularly a specialist. This is because Lithuania has one of the highest rates of migration of doctors in the EU. Most worrying is the fact that the majority of young talented specialist doctors, such as interventional cardiologists, cardiac surgeons and vascular surgeons are emigrating. Last year, doctors’ salaries were cut three times, reducing the salaries of some specialists to a few thousand Litas. According to the Lithuanian Union of Doctors, half of all medical graduates go to look for work in Germany, the United Kingdom and Scandinavia. We must provide more incentives to keep doctors from migrating.

  Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. – The measures included in this report make the recognition of professional qualifications easier for EU citizens wanting to work in other Member States. Importantly, this report also calls for the Commission to look at implementing an alert mechanism to let all Member States know when a professional has been struck off in another country. This is particularly important for medical professionals and will continue to be a priority for Labour Members when the legislative proposals are discussed.

  Dominique Vlasto (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The Union is built on economic cooperation, which must remain the driving force of integration. To overcome the crisis, we need all the qualified manpower available throughout the European Union. I therefore support the application of the logic of the single market to qualified workers to promote and encourage their mobility within the Union. Naturally, each Member State organises and proposes its own training, but workers who are candidates for mobility are confronted with bureaucratic, time consuming and, hence, dissuasive procedures. Our economies need simplified, common, transparent procedures for the recognition of professional qualifications to operate most efficiently. This progress must be confirmed through, in particular, the introduction of the Internal Market Information (IMI) system and the professional card. Formalities for workers must be reduced, employers need to be informed, and data has to be protected. To retain its position as economic leader in the face of the BRICS group of emerging powers, the Union must, first and foremost, prevent a brain drain and optimise the skills of its workers. I therefore naturally voted in favour of this report to promote the employment, within Europe, of highly qualified workers, and to establish the Union as the world hub of innovation.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) Serious errors have been made in implementing the Professional Qualifications Directive, given that the free movement of highly qualified workers is of huge importance for the competitiveness of the internal market. The recommendations in the report concerning the simplification of the recognition procedure and accompanying comparative studies to identify whether the skills and qualifications are equivalent are important improvements to the existing framework. Another essential aspect is the requirement for the national authorities to inform the persons affected clearly and fully if their qualifications have not been recognised.

  Glenis Willmott (S&D), in writing. – Recognition and assessment of professional qualifications when professionals move across borders is essential. I have voted for this report, which looks at the way the 2005 directive on professional qualifications has been implemented, because there is room to improve confidence in the recognition system whilst maintaining support for the principle of mutual recognition. There has been a lot of attention given to the way the directive has been implemented in the UK’s National Health Service, particularly as regards language skills for doctors. The NHS must be able to hire the doctors and other staff it needs to provide a quality service, and this often means that they must come from outside the UK. At the same time, doctors must, of course, be able to understand their patients, and there can be no exceptions to this rule.

Despite media reports, the directive does not prevent Member States from imposing language requirements on doctors – in fact, it states that they should have all the necessary language skills to do their job. Nevertheless, there is clearly scope to make the rules stronger. When the Commission comes to review this directive later this year, it must take Parliament’s report into account.

Report: Kyriacos Triantaphyllides (A7-0369/011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting in favour. Following this report, I believe that the Commission should, as is envisaged, take a significant step towards improving policies in this area and, in particular, to ensuring better protection for consumers, specifically by creating a Consumer Agenda, whilst, at the same time, always paying attention to the statistics of the Consumer Scoreboard.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. – I am in favour of this report through which the European Parliament welcomes the Consumer Agenda, to be set by the Commission by May 2012 which will include all initiatives for consumers, emphasising the need for the proper implementation and enforcement of existing legislation (in particular, the latest Consumer Rights Directive). This report indicates how the Agenda must ensure safe food, health and product safety, as well as aiming to lower inequalities between consumers in Europe, how it can contribute to a low carbon economy as decided in the EU 2020 strategy, and how it must protect children from advertising. It must also address globalisation of our markets, the digitalisation of the economy and ageing population, as well as the importance of enforcement/redress instruments and support to consumer organisations. This report invites the Commission to propose ‘consumer friendly’ legislation and, together with MS, to provide adequate support and capacity building to consumer organisations, with a view to strengthen their role and means, thereby enhancing consumer empowerment.

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The guarantee of food safety and health are among the priorities of the consumer protection strategy. It is of fundamental importance to promote education and consumer information relating to the rights of the consumer and the services on offer. This would allow consumers not only to make better use of the privileges and opportunities presented by the internal market, contributing simultaneously towards correct functioning and towards filling the legislative gaps, but also to defend their interests to the benefit of everyone.

The next step in the new strategy should be improving protection of cross-border transactions, in particular, for online services and for access to basic banking services. Finally, it is necessary that this strategy contribute to the development of a low carbon and therefore sustainable economy, and that it protects children in particular from advertising, who, due to their lack of awareness, are not yet able to make informed choices in the same way that adult consumers are.

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I welcome the European Commission’s initiative to launch a Consumer Agenda. I should point out that the internal market must grow without undermining consumer protection, thereby guaranteeing the free movement of services and paying particular attention to the protection of workers.

I call for EU Member States to carry out an in-depth review of ways of devising smarter policies which provide consumers with information they can actually use, without creating additional burdens for companies, thereby addressing the many challenges currently facing the EU: empowering consumers and reducing levels of inequality, encouraging sustainable consumption, reducing consumer exposure to unsafe products and protecting consumers, especially children, against misleading advertising.

I think that special attention should be paid to smart energy systems. The use of new technologies should enable all network users to participate in the internal energy market, in order to save energy and reduce energy costs. Furthermore, efforts need to be coordinated to inform consumers better about more efficient ways to buy and consume food, in order to prevent and combat food waste.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Sensitive to the issue of consumer protection, I voted in favour of the Triantaphyllides report. The protection of consumers requires an overall strategy that, on the one hand, defends their interests and informs them of their rights, and, on the other, empowers them so that they are given incentives for a more sustainable consumption. From 2012, a Consumer Agenda will record all the initiatives relating to consumers and will form the basis of the Union’s policy in this area. The European Parliament calls on the European Commission to conduct ‘a more proactive policy’ with a view to establishing a more coherent legal framework.

  Liam Aylward (ALDE), in writing. – (GA) Since 50% of healthy edible food is lost in the food supply chain, the Commission, the Member States and the stakeholders must improve and increase their efforts to inform consumers of more effective ways of buying and using food in order to combat and prevent food waste. To that end, I welcome the part of this report which requests that the Commission and the Member States do more, but it is still clear that there is a lot more to do, especially in terms of labelling, and this must be placed at the top of the Consumer Agenda. More information and education on proper informative labelling, end dates and proper storage methods must be provided at each step of the food supply chain to cut back on food waste. Full, clear information must be available for consumers so that they can make good, informed choices.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report. EU citizens have a crucial role to play as consumers in achieving the Europe 2020 goals of smart, inclusive and sustainable growth, because consumer expenditure generates more than half of the EU’s GDP. Disclosure of information to consumers is both necessary and important since it enables them to identify the best prices, sales terms and quality, which contributes to the promotion of competition and innovation. I support the Commission’s initiative of drawing up a Consumer Agenda, the main focus of which should be ensuring that consumers have full protection in the EU. This Consumer Agenda must contain a clear vision of the future and a holistic approach to the current situation in the world regarding climate change, the issue of food security, and the question of the ageing population, etc. I believe that public procurement has a crucial role to play in the area of sustainable consumption and can make a significant contribution towards implementing the sustainable consumption and growth objectives set out in the Europe 2020 strategy.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Commission is set to publish a Consumer Agenda by May 2012 as the follow-up to the 2007-2013 EU consumer strategy. This report argues that the Consumer Agenda should be an umbrella for all the important topics and challenges that we have ahead of us in this area.

Concerning food, health and safety, the new Consumer Agenda also needs to address the threat of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, starting by phasing out the widespread and medically unmotivated use of antibiotics in the meat industry.

It is also important to take measures to lower the exposure of consumers and the environment to hazardous chemical substances. The Rapid Alert System for Non-Food Consumer Products (RAPEX) should become more transparent and effective.

The Consumer Agenda should also tackle the issue of protecting children from advertising and unhealthy food products. Finally, as regards the promotion of the interests of the ‘digital consumer’, it is important to provide the consumer with a safe digital environment, to guarantee access to telecommunications networks as a means of social and economic inclusion, and to respect consumers’ fundamental rights, especially the protection of their personal data.

For these reasons, I voted for this report.

  George Becali (NI), in writing. – (RO) I am pleased that we will have a Consumer Agenda in May 2012 and I hope that it will take into account, first and foremost, food safety, human health and product safety. We are all aware that we do not have the same consumer empowerment or the same conditions either in all Member States. We know that we have poverty and food shortages, that we do not recycle enough, and that children are the most vulnerable population group. I believe, as do my colleagues, that these are just a few of the issues which need to be tackled and remedied in the future agenda, and I have voted in support of them.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) This report is well-balanced and adequately recognises the role of consumers in the development of the European economy, not least their fundamental significance with regard to the smooth functioning of the internal market and the requirement, for the internal market, that the EU include measures to protect consumers in its policies. The text gives the right amount of relevance to vital consumer sectors in Europe, such as food safety, health and safety and the quality of products offered by the market. Nevertheless, the rapporteur has reconciled attention for the crucial sectors of the market with the social requirements that we should never forget, such as social and environmental sustainability and safety in the digital environment. We must be aware that respecting consumers is fundamental to the growth and realisation of the development objectives that the EU has set for itself, and, now more than ever, in this time of financial and economic crisis, the protection of the consumer also has an important social dimension. I am therefore voting in favour of the report.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because there is a need to increase consumer protection and, at the same time, ensure the free movement of services and goods. The Consumer Agenda should cover all important subjects and issues that are faced in the area of consumer affairs. Ensuring safe food, health and product safety should be its highest priority. Disclosure of information to consumers is both necessary and important in all sectors of financial services. Groups of people who are particularly vulnerable because of their mental, physical or psychological infirmity, age or credulity – for example, children, teenagers and the elderly – or who are made vulnerable by their social and financial situation (such as those with excessive debts) need special protection. It is therefore very important to inform consumers about their rights and obligations and ensure that consumers’ rights are fully respected when it comes to Internet use and protecting intellectual property rights, while, at the same time, protecting personal data and privacy. In order to enforce consumer rights, the Commission should continue to support and draw attention to the work of the European Consumer Centres network, which plays a central role in informing consumers of their rights.

  Cristian Silviu Buşoi (ALDE), in writing. – (RO) Consumer protection is one of the areas where the EU’s actions benefit consumers. I think that the report contains guidelines on the most important aspects of consumer policy which Parliament would like to find in the new strategy that will be presented by the European Commission next year. The Commission will have to take into account consumers’ interests when proposing legislation. In particular, it will, along with Member States, have to communicate better on the subject of consumer rights in order to strengthen consumer confidence. The lack of certainty regarding consumer rights makes consumers especially reluctant to use e-commerce or carry out cross-border online transactions, which are of paramount importance at the moment to the development of the internal digital market. We also need additional guarantees about the safety of products on the market. This is why the General Product Safety Directive needs to be reviewed and the Toy Safety Directive needs to be implemented, as called for in this report. Particular attention will also have to be focused on protecting both vulnerable consumers and consumers in general, and a review of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive and the Misleading Advertising Directive will be very useful to this end.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The promotion of the rights, prosperity and wellbeing of consumers is one of the EU’s core values. I welcome the European Commission’s initiative of creating a Consumer Agenda, which should be an umbrella for all the important topics and challenges in the area of consumer protection. In this sector, there is an urgent need to reduce the inequalities existing between European consumers, to apply and implement the legislation in force, and to confront the new challenges that society faces today: the globalisation of markets, the digitalisation of the economy, the ageing population, carbon emissions, and food protection. Consumers have little awareness of their rights, and this should be combated with better information, better labelling, and an active role for public authorities and consumer organisations. Particular protection needs to be ensured for categories of consumer who are especially vulnerable, whether because of disability, or because of their delicate social and financial situation. I consider it important to adequately support – in financial terms and others – consumer organisations as a means of combating consumers’ information deficit and, downstream, to give European supervision authorities greater powers and responsibilities.

  Lara Comi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I welcome this report, which is a significant step forwards for consumer policy and is the result of complex but effective cooperation between various political groups. I should like to reflect for a moment on the central role of consumers, not only in economic terms, but also as individuals who need to be protected. If our policies are to be successful, I think it is absolutely essential to take concrete steps to boost consumer confidence in EU legislation. Developing a sense of belonging to the single market should stimulate cross-border trade. However, this requires clear and precise rules from the organisations responsible for ensuring its management and organisation, both in terms of consumer confidence and for future economic prospects. The foundations are in place for a fruitful Consumer Agenda in 2012; all that remains is to wait for formal adoption and the Council’s initiatives.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) We are all aware that the more than 400 million consumers provide the heart and driving force of the European economy. According to the latest Eurobarometer survey on consumer empowerment from April this year, most consumers feel knowledgeable, but, at the same time, a considerable number have gaps in their knowledge about basic consumer legislation.

European citizens play a key role in achieving the Europe 2020 strategy objectives, but consumer expenditure generates more than half the EU’s GDP. In light of this, I think that European consumer policy must play an important role in shifting the focus point in this policy to the issues which are focused on citizens. European consumer policy must empower EU consumers more by providing correct information, market transparency and effective protection for them against the risks and threats to which they are subject.

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This own-initiative report analyses the inevitable need to secure and strengthen existing consumer policy legislation, which I consider crucial if the European internal market is to function properly. The rapporteur examines the challenges emerging in the field of European consumer policy and, specifically, the future Commission communication ‘Consumer Agenda’, and makes a number of proposals that have since been the subject of conciliation between the various political groups. While it may seem obvious, the idea of making consumers central to the legal framework of the common market is often forgotten by law makers, at both European and Member State level. Of the report’s text, I would highlight the principles of empowering consumers and reducing inequality, of encouraging sustainable consumption, of reducing exposure to dangerous products, and of protection against misleading advertising, in particular for children. I voted for this report and would congratulate Mr Triantaphyllides on his efforts at conciliation between Parliament’s various political groups. I would also stress that consumer protection is crucial at times of economic and financial crisis if we are to structure the system rationally, effectively and fairly.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported the adoption of this report, which will lay down new foundations for the protection of European consumers by ensuring better implementation of the existing legislation. By adopting this report, we are therefore strengthening the fight against inequalities, especially by promoting sustainable consumption, by fighting against misleading advertising, and by reinforcing the safety of our citizens with regard to the sale of dangerous products.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report because I support the Commission proposal to revise European consumer policy and its legislative strategy. However, I would stress the need for better link-up between consumer policy and the Europe 2020 strategy’s social and environmental targets.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Consumer rights and their protection under EU law is one of the core principles of how the internal market functions. For this very reason, it seems appropriate to me to make consumers central to policies whose purpose is the better implementation of the internal market. I will say once again that I believe adequate consumer protection and security are fundamental to the proper functioning of the markets and to trade, which constitute an essential condition of competitiveness and growth. As such, it is crucial to strike a balance between a high level of consumer protection – especially as regards the level of information provided to them and accountability for any harm caused to them – and the costs this will impose on businesses. At this point, I should like to congratulate the Commission on its work relating to the proposal concerning unfair trade practices, which is critical if we are to have an adequate policy for protecting consumers and the internal market.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The overriding objective of European Union policy is improving quality of life for the European public. In a liberalised society in which we need consumer products to live, we are often exposed to a certain amount of opportunism from markets that exploit consumer weakness. In 2007-2013, the EU has implemented a Union consumer policy strategy. With the adoption of the Europe 2020 strategy, the issue of consumption took on new importance owing to the need to combat climate change, poverty and social exclusion, and to increase employability. As private consumption represents 56% of EU gross domestic product, it needs to become more sustainable. To this end, the launch of the Consumer Agenda is planned for March 2012. This initiative is key to solving a number of problems: ensuring consumer safety, promoting a low carbon economy, preventing food wastage, encouraging recycling, reducing inequalities between consumers, guaranteeing protection as regards financial services and food, and providing more information. I therefore voted for this report, drafted by Mr Triantaphyllides.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The alternative proposal tabled by the rapporteur on the new strategy for consumer policy, about which it has been possible to reach a consensus, should be viewed positively. This proposal better reflects concerns about the neoliberal policies threatening Europeans’ fundamental rights. It also pays more attention to the problems of consumers, especially the most vulnerable social strata, in the current context of severe economic and social crisis being experienced in a number of Member States. In addition to information campaigns, to monitoring and to product testing, it is crucial to ensure that all Europeans, notably workers, children, women and migrants, will have sufficient income to access essential goods and services, such as food, health care, electricity, transport and housing.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) It is positive that the rapporteur has achieved a compromise on an alternative proposal on the new strategy for consumer policy. This proposal better reflects concerns about the neoliberal policies threatening Europeans’ fundamental rights, by seeking to pay more attention to the problems of consumers, especially the most vulnerable social strata, in the current context of the severe economic and social crisis which is being experienced in a number of Member States.

In addition to information campaigns, to monitoring and to product testing, it is crucial to ensure that all Europeans, notably workers, children, women and migrants, will have sufficient income to access all the essential goods and services – such as food, health care, electricity, transport and housing – that will enable them to live in dignity.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The European Commission plans to publish a Consumer Agenda in May 2012. The agenda should be an umbrella for all the important topics and challenges confronting us in the consumer area. There is a widespread expectation that it should be a milestone in EU consumer policy, giving a specific significance for the first time to the EU Treaty principle that consumer interests must be taken into account in all other relevant EU policies. Ensuring safe food, health and product safety should be the highest priority in the consumer agenda.

In my opinion, consumers also need to become increasingly empowered. Empowered consumers are better able to identify the best prices, conditions of sale and quality, therefore driving competition and innovation. I consider it particularly important for the competent institutions to know how to guarantee special protection for the groups of consumers who are particularly vulnerable due to their mental, physical or psychological weakness, age or credulity, or who have been made vulnerable by their social and financial situation. I firmly believe that it is essential to devote particular attention to the correct application of all legislation having an impact on consumer policy. The European Parliament, together with the national parliaments, should, through close cooperation, contribute to better enforcement of the legislation in the interests of consumer protection.

  Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), in writing. – (IT) The report by my fellow Member shows how the strategy for consumer protection should provide a framework which encompasses all the important topics and challenges for the future of consumers. I therefore think that adopting this strategy will bring greater safeguards in terms of food safety and health. For this reason, I am voting in favour.

  Louis Grech (S&D), in writing. – The complexities of the single market should not be underestimated and the fact that addressing the EU’s socio-economic problems entails working towards a market that is at the service of citizens and not the other way around. Therefore, the new Consumer Agenda should take into account the essential needs of ordinary citizens, especially the ones in the most vulnerable positions such as the young, uneducated, disabled or those without Internet access. In order to reach a more social and sustainable consumer policy, the Consumer Agenda should address core issues such as consumer empowerment, consumer protection and focus on actions towards enforcement of consumer rights and redress. The Commission should merge the various sources of information into a one-stop shop providing free, reliable, comparable, objective, multilingual and easily accessible information for consumers. The Commission should reinforce the role of EU citizens and consumers in the relaunch of the single market, by making them a main political variable in the determination and formulation of the future single market legislation.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) Consumer protection is an area covering a number of major issues: ensuring food safety and the health and safety of products, tackling the problem of reducing inequalities among European consumers, and establishing a low carbon economy. That is why I voted in favour of the rapporteur’s proposal for an alternative resolution to pick up on a number of points that could not be adopted in the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection due to opposition from the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats). It is, in particular, a question of ensuring that the consumer protection programme includes initiatives to protect minors against misleading advertising. Children, as a vulnerable group, are, in fact, an ideal target for advertisers, especially through the medium of television. Finally, the legislative vacuum existing in the field of collective redress should be filled by a Commission proposal to enable consumers to feel reassured that their rights are being better protected.

  Małgorzata Handzlik (PPE), in writing. – (PL) In the resolution which has been adopted, the European Parliament suggests a course of action which the European Commission should adopt on consumer policy for the next few years. We believe that consumers and the decisions made by them are of crucial importance for the proper functioning of the single European market. The resolution addresses primarily correct implementation of the Consumer Rights Directive, the need to increase the confidence of consumers and retailers with respect to online purchases, reducing the risk to consumers from hazardous products, for example, through the RAPEX system, and creating a more accessible and effective system of redress for consumers.

I would like to emphasise that a particularly important task in the coming years is to strengthen the role of consumer organisations, in particular, in the new Member States. Consumer organisations are effective in protecting the interests of consumers and do a great deal of work to promote knowledge about consumer rights. Unfortunately, they often have problems with funding. Therefore, I am inclined to think that consumer organisations should be supported.

  Brice Hortefeux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The protection of consumers is a major concern for the European Parliament. It reflects Parliament’s desire to place the citizen back at the heart of its actions.

Ahead of the publication, at the start of 2012, of the European Commission communication entitled ‘Consumer Agenda’, Parliament has set out its priorities: effective consumer protection, respect for consumers’ rights, product safety, and better accessibility for the most vulnerable consumers.

This report, which has succeeded in achieving a broad consensus in the European Parliament, sets ambitious goals for the upcoming consumer policy strategy.

That is why I wanted to cast my vote in favour of this report, which strengthens my commitment to improving the daily life and wellbeing of my co-citizens.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. – I voted in favour of this report which speaks about consumer empowerment. Unfortunately, at the moment, five million Scottish consumers are not fully empowered because consumer policy remains a competence of a UK Government which Scotland did not vote for. The Scottish Government is, however, committed to a referendum which will give the people of Scotland the opportunity to fully empower themselves by choosing independence, the normal status of nations in Europe.

  Filiz Hakaeva Hyusmenovа (ALDE), in writing. – (BG) The single market counts among the European Union’s greatest achievements, and its consumer policy is an integral part of it. I supported this resolution because I believe that guaranteeing European citizens’ health and safety, encouraging sustainable consumption, and increasing the choice and quality of products and services, are important to all of us.

I feel it is necessary to pursue a single strategic approach and achieve better coordination between individual policies, which would bolster the achievement of the Europe 2020 objectives, given that consumer confidence is one of the fundamental driving forces of economic development. I think that international cooperation and the exchange of information with countries outside the EU, as well as improving the effectiveness of the RAPEX early warning system, are vital to ensuring better consumer protection. A significant proportion of European citizens are still not very familiar with consumer protection legislation. It is considerably important to adopt measures to raise their awareness of their rights and obligations, and to guarantee compliance with them. I share the view that the vulnerable sections of the population need to be viewed as being subject to special protection. I think that consumer empowerment is a key step for achieving smarter, sustainable policies.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcome the provisions concerning ever greater empowerment of consumers. Consumer empowerment depends on knowledge of consumer rights and information, the existence of well-known and effective non-governmental organisations and public authorities, an active media and simple and accessible means of redress. Ensuring safe food, health and product safety should be the highest priority in the Consumer Agenda. However, we also need a Consumer Agenda that will lower the inequalities between consumers in Europe, contribute to a low carbon economy, in line with the EU 2020 strategy, and protect children from advertising. More broadly speaking, we need to address the new challenges that modern societies have to face, such as the globalisation of our markets, the digitalisation of the economy and our ageing populations, as well as the importance of enforcement/redress instruments and support for consumer organisations. Finally a strong representation of consumer interests is a crucial part of a sound civil society. Such representation must be made possible and promoted, not only at EU, but also at national level in all Member States. Many years after EU accession, this is not the case in all our countries, and capacity building measures for the consumer movement in these countries are indispensable.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of Mr Triantaphyllides’ report on a new strategy for consumer policy as it seeks to identify the European Parliament’s priorities for the drawing up by the European Commission of the next Consumer Agenda that includes the Commission’s future initiatives regarding consumer protection, and which is due to be published next year. I feel it is particularly important to emphasise the logic of consumer empowerment, that is to say, to provide consumers with the ability to take optimal decisions by themselves by understanding their preferences and being aware of the instruments at their disposal.

  Tunne Kelam (PPE), in writing. – I voted in favour of this report. Empowering consumers and ensuring clear and correct information about services, products and similar should be a core principle in Europe. I very much support the EC initiative to launch a Consumer Agenda which aims to deal with existing and forthcoming consumer policies coherently. We need to ensure that all areas of consumer policy are integrated and the policy is applied in a holistic manner. The European consumer should benefit from one of the biggest markets in the world. The completion of the European single market is a must to ensure that. I would also draw attention to the European digital single market where, especially in cross-border transactions, we can still witness significant difficulties and gaps in both e-commerce and also in consumer protection. These gaps need to be closed rapidly and e-commerce should be made easily accessible and available across the EU on the same terms.

  Edvard Kožušník (ECR), in writing. – (CS) The new consumer policy strategy should reflect the continuing legislative changes in the area of consumer protection, accentuating greater cross-border enforceability of consumer rights, protection of intellectual property and protection of personal data. I also attach great importance to the fact that the report highlights the significance of standardisation, and emphasises its potential for simplifying complex processes and complex consumer information on services, including, for example, the possibility of involving consumer organisations in the law-making process. In my opinion, consumer law should retain its private law character, and the aim of the new strategy should be to strengthen the enforceability of consumer rights generally.

  Constance Le Grip (PPE) , in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of Mr Triantaphyllides’ report on a new strategy for consumer policy, for which I acted as rapporteur for the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats). This report sets a well-defined path for the Consumer Agenda that the European Commission will propose at the start of next year. This includes creating responsible consumers, providing them with better information, ensuring the safety of the products available to them, quickly implementing the existing legislation and ensuring that all players are aware of their rights and responsibilities: these must be the priorities for European and national legislators, but also for companies and consumer associations in the coming years.

Above all, I believe that it is a good time to call for real discussions to find a fair balance between the level of information that the consumer really needs, the use to which this will be put when making purchases, and the administrative and financial costs this will entail for companies.

The policies that we adopt must give consumers the keys to understand the existing rules and to exercise free choice using clear, useful and truly comparable information.

  Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE), in writing. – (PL) The European Commission is to launch a Consumer Agenda by May 2012 which will bring together all initiatives for consumers. The agenda should be a kind of umbrella for important topics and challenges in this area. In view of the current global crisis, it is very important that we study all the problems being faced by consumers. It is necessary to create a suitable legal framework which will make it possible to put the consumer at the very centre of the single market.

It is important that we emphasise the importance of education in the area of consumer rights, and that we promote sustainable consumption and the protection of children from misleading advertising. Therefore, I endorsed the report on a new strategy for consumer policy.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this resolution, which notes that the intended beneficiaries of competition policy and of financial services regulation include consumers and emphasises the need to take into account the particular needs of vulnerable consumers while also recalling that the economic crisis has generated particular hardship for consumers.

  Clemente Mastella (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The new strategy for consumer protection should provide a framework which encompasses all the important topics and challenges for the future of the consumer sector. The guarantee of food security, health and product safety should, above all else, be the number one priority.

Conditions for consumers vary enormously from state to state. Financing welfare services in solidarity and with a view to making them accessible for all can only be a crucial factor in reducing the current inequalities. The strategy for consumer protection should therefore promote the objective of sustainable growth of the EU 2020 strategy and, consequently, the increase of sustainable public consumption of services such as education, health care and care for the elderly.

Finally, we would like to underline the importance of a solid representation of consumer interests as one of the fundamental elements of a healthy civil society. This representation should be made possible and promoted not only at the level of the EU, but also within each of the Member States. This is not the case in all Member States, despite accession to the EU years ago, and capacity building measures for the consumer movement in these countries are indispensable.

  Marisa Matias (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report is a step forward for consumer protection. The intention is to put forth strategic areas that should be covered by the Consumer Agenda, to be published by the Commission next year. The overriding priority for this agenda should be the safety of food, of health care and of products, including financial ones. The implementation of these measures should also contribute to reducing the inequalities between European consumers, to promoting a low carbon economy, and to better protection from advertising for children, as well as for older people and those who have been left most vulnerable by the current crisis. I voted in favour.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Serious reflection is required if we are to deal with the numerous challenges before us on this subject. Mr Triantaphyllides quite rightly calls for the empowerment of consumers, a reduction in levels of inequality and the promotion of sustainable consumption. I am voting in favour.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. – I voted in favour of this report that welcomes the ambitious approach set out by the Commission in the upcoming launch of its Green Paper, which will set a basis for discussions for consumer rights organisations, citizens, national parliaments and governments and the publishing of a Consumers Agenda by May 2012.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Inconsistency in the rules regarding the value added tax (VAT) applicable to cultural content products sold in physical and in digital format is a subject that has been of concern to the EU for some time. This new strategy is welcome and is in line with changes to the way Europeans consume: the purchase of cultural content – music, newspapers, magazines, books, etc. – over the Internet is becoming increasingly frequent. Given that the Member States can levy lower VAT rates on cultural products in physical format in order to promote access to these products, it does not seem right to me that these same products should be treated differently because they are sold online. We are, therefore, talking about an aspect of the VAT Directive that is completely obsolete in the face of new consumer trends. As such, it is important to revise this point, so that VAT will not be levied at different rates for the same products simply because they are being sold through different distribution channels. This development, along with the reform of copyright, will facilitate the free movement of audiovisual content online, and will therefore contribute to creating a genuine internal market for digital content.

  Louis Michel (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) I welcome the Commission’s initiative to launch a programme for protecting consumers. It is indeed necessary to ensure that consumers can enjoy a high level of protection throughout the European Union. Consumers must have access to information that is useful, targeted and understandable without, however, incurring additional costs for businesses. We must guarantee particular protection to groups of consumers that are especially vulnerable because of their mental or physical health or because of their age. It is also important to educate consumers from a very young age. Faced with the growth of financial services and e-commerce, we need to take measures aimed at defining good practices for e-commerce and rules covering electronic methods of payment. We need to continue to fight against unfair trade practices such as misleading advertising and aggressive sales practices such as harassment. Consumer confidence is a powerful driving force in the economy with regard to both domestic and cross-border trade and must therefore be strengthened by clear and effective measures.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The report outlines the core objectives of the Consumer Agenda and places a special focus on consumer empowerment, consumer protection and product safety, on measures to reach a more social and sustainable consumer policy, and on enforcement of consumer rights and redress. I voted in favour.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) In the light of increasing cross-border consumption and the fact that consumer protection is often neglected in this area, focusing the EU strategy more closely on consumer protection is an important move. In particular, we need to improve food safety, reduce misleading advertising, combat cross-border scams involving advertising trips and increase the enforcement of consumer legislation. However, we do not require a new consumer organisation in order to do this. Instead we need better cooperation and increased coordination between the Member States. It is doubtful whether the EU is really interested in consumer protection, given the deregulation of packaging sizes, which has resulted in a great deal of confusion among consumers. There is also a noticeable lack of action on food safety at an EU level. Furthermore, the European Food Safety Authority is coming under repeated criticism and the wide-ranging authorisations of genetically modified organisms without mandatory labelling run contrary to a whole-hearted commitment to consumer protection on the part of the EU. On account of these contradictions, I have abstained.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) Consumers form the fundamental basis of the single market. However, arbitrarily encouraging consumption is dangerous both for the economy and the environment and, in the end, violates the rights of consumers themselves. The new EU consumer strategy should promote responsible and sustainable consumption. To achieve this, there needs to be a greater focus on financial literacy among consumers, the provision of useful, targeted and understandable information, understandable labelling and the dissemination of information about consumer rights. There is still a lot to be done to guarantee consumer rights and protection in the financial services, e-commerce and energy sectors. A dispute resolution and damage compensation scheme must be established, the young must be protected from misleading advertising, and the consumer rights of vulnerable groups of consumers, such as the elderly, people on low incomes, people with disabilities, children, women and migrants, must be guaranteed. We must continue research into the impact that chemicals, nanotechnologies and antibiotics used in food, cosmetics and other branches of industry have on consumers’ health. These and the other proposals set out in the report will help create a culture of consumption in the EU which would see the growth of a generation of aware consumers who would know their rights, be able to defend them, and consume responsibly without wasting or overdrawing resources and would seek to do as little damage as possible to the environment. On the other hand, this will encourage goods manufacturers and service providers to take greater account of consumers’ expectations.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Commission is set to publish a Consumer Agenda by May 2012 as the follow-up to the 2007-2013 EU consumer strategy. This agenda will be published as a Commission communication and will include all initiatives for consumers from 2012 and beyond, but will go further than the scope of the 2007-2013 EU consumer strategy.

By means of this report, the European Parliament welcomes this ambitious approach and urges the Commission to also launch a Green Paper on the issue, so that there can be a genuine basis for debate with consumer rights organisations, the public, and national parliaments and governments. That would be a milestone in EU consumer policy, giving concrete meaning for the first time to the principle enshrined in the Treaty on European Union, according to which consumer interests have to be taken into account in all other relevant EU policies. I voted for this report for these reasons.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Having considered the current economic situation in the entire European economy, I believe it is necessary and essential to define a framework for all the important topics and challenges we have ahead of us in the consumer area, with a view to protecting consumers. The strategy, which will be published as a Commission communication and will include all initiatives for consumers from 2012 onwards, should follow the double objective of ensuring that consumers are protected on the one hand (by means of guarantees of safe food, health and product safety) and, on the other, of reducing the disparities between European consumers. With the firm conviction that the strategy for consumer policy can allow for consumer interests to be taken into account in all other relevant EU policies, I am voting in favour.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) As an area of freedoms, consumer protection has been one of the guiding principles of the European Union since the very beginning. What is currently before Parliament for assessment is a new consumer protection strategy. This new strategy constitutes a milestone in EU consumer policy, since it gives concrete meaning, for the first time, to the principle enshrined in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, according to which consumer interests have to be taken into account in all other relevant EU policies.

The essential aims of this strategy, which is given concrete expression in the ‘Consumer Agenda’, are more sustainable private consumption, the safety of food and products, the protection of children from today’s aggressive advertising, and the development of a digital environment favourable to the maximum absorption of information by consumers. At bottom, the intention is to adapt the available legal instruments to the new challenges that have been emerging, so promoting an improved supply of services, and safeguarding the health of consumers and of the environment itself. I voted in favour because I consider this approach suitable.

  Evelyn Regner (S&D), in writing. – (DE) One of the most important reasons why I voted in favour of the report is the protection of children from unsafe products and misleading direct advertising. Furthermore, private consumption within the European internal market is a key factor, as it is responsible for 56% of European GDP. Therefore, it is obvious that the protection and legal certainty of consumers must be the Commission’s highest priority when it draws up its Consumer Agenda. In addition, both consumers and retailers must be informed about consumer rights. The report by Mr Triantaphyllides highlights, in particular, the role played by private consumption in a sustainable, low carbon internal market. This point is essential in ensuring that we can meet the climate policy challenges currently facing us. It is critical that consumers have both an adequate choice and comprehensive information. I am calling on the European Commission to take all these factors into consideration in its initiatives concerning consumers.

  Frédérique Ries (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The adoption of the report on the new strategy for protecting consumers is good news. The European Parliament supports the European Commission’s ambitious guidelines. These guidelines aim to greatly facilitate consumer choice by promoting ever more information on products (clearer labelling, information that is transparent and comparable on prices and so on, for instance) and lays particular emphasis on food safety (information on levels of pesticides, chemical products, etc.). Other priorities include reducing the inequalities between consumers, a low carbon economy and protecting children from advertising within the context of fighting obesity. Citizens are entitled to demand exhaustive information so that they can make informed choices about what they consume. Globalisation, growing ecological awareness and technological progress have considerably altered consumption habits. As a result, it was important to reform the priorities of the Community strategy for protecting consumers. This report strives to define a better, more coherent legal framework, for a safe and transparent environment that takes into account the concerns of Europeans.

  Robert Rochefort (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of Mr Triantaphyllides’ report on the new strategy for consumer policy. This report, which I helped to draft, sets out the precise issues that we wish to see the Commission address when it proposes its ‘Consumer Agenda’ at the start of 2012. We want to see an agenda that is ambitious, consistent and concrete, placing the consumer at the heart of an effective single market. Our Parliament has emphasised consumer safety, the importance of education and transparent, comparable information for consumers, and on the means of redress that are made available to them. We also dealt with several emergent challenges in the report: the need to move towards sustainable consumption, the need to respond to the specific needs of elderly people in our ageing Europe, the issue of social inclusion and vulnerable consumers and the handling of new demands in respect of labelling (fair trade, carbon footprint and so on). Finally, we again call for greater consistency in European consumer protection policy and for a re-opening of the discussions on how this area is divided up within the Commission.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. I would like to start by thanking Ms Eva-Britt Svensson (former MEP), who regrettably resigned from Parliament for health reasons during the preparation phase of the draft report, for her excellent input. The Commission is set to publish a Consumers Agenda by May 2012 as the follow-up to the 2007-2013 EU consumer policy strategy (COM(2007)0099 final). It will be published as a Commission communication and will include all initiatives for consumers from 2012 and beyond, but will go further than the scope of the 2007-2013 EU consumer policy strategy. We welcome this ambitious approach and urge the Commission to also launch a Green Paper so there can be a real ground for discussion for consumer rights organisations, citizens, national parliaments and governments.

The Consumer Agenda should be an umbrella for all the important topics and challenges that we have ahead of us in the consumer area. It should be a milestone in EU consumer policy and, for the first time, gives concrete meaning to the EU Treaty principle according to which consumer interests have to be taken into account in all other relevant EU policies.

  Tokia Saïfi (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Consumer spending generates over half the gross domestic product of the European Union (EU). In the context of the current crisis, which undeniably has an impact on consumer behaviour, drawing up and adopting this new strategy was a necessary step. That is why I voted in favour of this report in plenary. Among its main objectives, I particularly support the one which entails basing all future actions on an overall approach that places consumers at the heart of the single market. Since consumer confidence is a powerful economic engine, we must work towards improving consumer awareness and unifying the legal framework for protecting consumers at European level, while taking into account the needs and specific features of each group of consumers, in particular, the most vulnerable (young people, the disabled).

  Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD), in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of the report on a new strategy for consumer policy because I consider it to be a move in the right direction in terms of consumer protection. It highlights the importance of informing consumers of their rights and the importance of safeguarding food safety. I agree with the rapporteur that consumers need better protection in the financial services sector and in the food sector, given that we spend a large proportion of our income on food. The Consumer Agenda is a basic instrument in consumer protection and in attaining the objectives of the EU 2020 strategy.

  Matteo Salvini (EFD), in writing. – (IT) The purpose of this text is to provide a right and necessary basis for guiding the Commission on consumer protection. It is a complex and important issue that thus requires further consideration in the future. The report has brought to light important principles such as the importance of the consumer’s role in developing EU policies and the dissatisfaction being shown by citizens, with increasing concerns over sectors such as finance and insurance. Mr Triantaphyllides’ report also includes important points on the need to bolster consumer protection in sectors which are currently growing quickly, such as e-commerce. That is why I voted in favour of this text.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) Consumer rights protection is a problem which affects the whole of Europe, and is one which requires new strategies and new measures. The problem affects every one of us, because we are all consumers. We have to know our rights and the rules of the litigation open to us. Recent research conducted by the European Commission shows that it is necessary to strengthen the position of consumers, extend their knowledge and improve their access to information. Results published by the European Commission for 2011 show a clear improvement in almost all Member States. However, they also show a lack of awareness of consumer rights at a time of active development, computerisation and growth of the Internet. Therefore it is extremely important to have access to information, so that every decision can be made in an informed way. The need for all kinds of measures which contribute to increased awareness is a challenge for the European Union and is a challenge concerning specific action to improve the position of consumers.

The report shows strategies and possible means for making consumers aware of their rights and obligations by many different measures, such as promoting healthy food and healthy eating, for example. There is a need for clear and transparent information about benefits to health to make consumers aware of the choices with which they are faced. Food information should be clear and easy to understand so that it can enable consumers to make the right choice. This problem particularly affects children, who are, of course, also consumers, but are only developing their awareness in this area.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The European Commission is due to publish a Consumer Agenda by May 2012 as a follow-up to the 2007-2013 EU consumer strategy.

The guarantee of safe food, health and product safety should be the highest priority in the Consumer Agenda. According to the Material Deprivation Rate index, 16.3% of the EU’s population is at risk of poverty, and this percentage rises to 17.1% for women. Therefore, crucial to reducing the inequalities between consumers and citizens is that welfare services should be financed in solidarity and made accessible to everyone.

Another important challenge for future consumer policy is the promotion of the interests of the ‘digital consumer’, along with the protection of personal data. It is essential, therefore, to provide the consumer with a safe digital environment, access to telecommunications networks as a means towards social and economic inclusion, and respect of the consumer’s fundamental rights, specifically, the protection of privacy.

  Laurence J. A. J. Stassen (NI), in writing. – (NL) This resolution contains a number of patronising and politically motivated proposals for European consumer policy with which the delegation of the Dutch Party for Freedom (PVV) cannot agree. For example, the resolution calls for ‘more sustainable patterns of consumption’ in order to reduce CO2 emissions, for empowering consumers and for ‘better coordination between consumer policy and social and environmental goals’. This is, to all intents and purposes, a typical leftist agenda that is being forced upon consumers and Member States. It appears that the European Parliament is assuming that consumers cannot make informed choices themselves. When did Member States stop being able to pursue their consumer policies independently? The PVV cannot agree to such unnecessary European meddlesomeness. It is therefore voting against this resolution.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report advocates a more comprehensive scope for the Consumer Agenda, which will require, to that end, a consistent legal framework and an approach that makes consumers central to the internal market. As such, there should be particular focus on effectively implementing rules and strengthening existing legislation, with particular focus on the existing Consumer Rights Directive.

Parliament therefore calls on the European Commission to improve the criteria and conditions for carrying out impact assessments, to review European legislation when necessary, and to promote best practices between the Member States, so as to improve implementation of existing legislation.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for Amendment 1 to the report on the new strategy for consumer policy because, in accordance with Article 169 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the EU must contribute to protecting the health, safety and economic interests of consumers. Furthermore, the EU must promote consumers’ right to information, education and to organise themselves to safeguard their interests.

According to the fifth edition of the Consumer Conditions Scoreboard of March 2011, consumers across the EU still face very different conditions. Forty-four per cent of consumers stated that uncertainty about their rights discourages them from buying goods from other Member States and that late delivery, non-delivery and fraud are the major factors preventing them from engaging in cross-border shopping.

I support the need to ensure universal access to broadband communications networks and broad access to goods and services online, including by removing distribution restrictions, tackling geographic segmentation and developing electronic payment services. To increase the number of consumers accessing goods and services online, we request from the Commission legislative initiatives on the mutual recognition of electronic signatures, electronic identity and the promotion of e-invoices. I support the removal of unfair contractual terms as part of the sale of goods and services.

  Dominique Vlasto (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The crisis that we are currently experiencing is a crisis of confidence which is affecting our banks and companies and poses a serious threat to economic recovery. In this climate of mistrust, it is imperative to sustain consumption by maintaining confidence between buyers and sellers. In this way, we shall contribute to ordered, informed consumption, which is indispensable for economic growth in the EU. Henceforth, the EU is clearly committed to this path with this report that I supported and which aims to give consumers, who form the core of the single market, even fuller information. Citizens should be provided with clear, accurate information on all the products they buy, be it in relation to health, safety or sustainability. I believe that a great deal remains to be done in some sectors, where pricing is deliberately made incomprehensible for the consumer, where switching suppliers is laborious and onerous, and where automatic contract extension on expiry is commonplace. It is high time that the Commission took on these hindrances to competition and to free choice for consumers.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) By May 2012, the EU Commission aims to publish a Consumer Agenda which goes beyond the scope of the 2007-2012 EU consumer strategy. The intention is to comply with the principle of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union that consumer interests must be taken into consideration in all major EU policies. The focus of the agenda will be on the following areas: food and product safety, health, generating inclusive growth, cutting CO2 emissions by means of local and regional food production, reducing inequalities among EU citizens (many of whom cannot pay their rent or afford to heat their houses) and financing welfare services which are accessible to everyone on the basis of solidarity. In addition, the acts must also take into consideration the rights and interests of digital consumers. I have voted in favour.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Empowered and better informed European consumers: this is the aim of the text approved today in the House, and I have voted in favour. Based on past experiences, and with a view to respecting the principles of competition and the free market as much as possible, the EU should aim towards a strategy which is capable of educating the consumer, enhancing protection with regards to cross-border transactions, while also facilitating access to basic banking services.

Report: Jürgen Creutzmann (A7-0342/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report, since it sets out balanced measures for better controlling online gambling. In this area, the most important thing is punishing and detecting illegal operators, so it is crucial that we remain up to date on an issue like this, which is continually expanding.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. – I am in favour of this report, which considers the growing economic importance of the online gambling industry and through which Members welcome the Commission’s initiative to launch public consultation in connection with its Green Paper on online betting and gambling.

The report indicates that efficient regulation of the online gambling sector must combat illegal gambling by strengthening technical and legal instruments for identifying and penalising illegal operators; guarantee effective protection for gamblers; preclude risks of gambling addiction; guarantee the integrity of sporting competition; ensure that part of the value of bets goes to sports and horse racing bodies; ensure that a considerable proportion of government revenue from gambling is used for publicly beneficial and charitable purposes; and ensure that gaming is kept free from crime, fraud and any form of money laundering.

Although we reject any European legislative act uniformly regulating the entire gambling sector, we nonetheless take the view that, in some areas – given the cross-border nature of online gambling services – there would be clear added value from a coordinated European approach in addition to national regulation. We also believe that a pan-European code of conduct for online gambling should address the rights and obligations of both service providers and consumers.

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I completely agree with the report by Mr Creutzmann on online gambling. As the rapporteur notes, around 10% of all gambling in Europe takes place using the Internet, mobile phones and interactive television platforms. In modern society, children have increasing access to new technologies. This exposes them to hidden perils such as cyber-bullying, online grooming and child pornography, the dangers of which they are unaware of.

Combating illegal gambling is worthwhile in order to avoid scams and combat the black market and gambling addiction, bringing in effective tools and safeguards to protect children and vulnerable adults. The Member States must be free to keep their own rules on online gambling. However, given the cross-border nature of the Union, it would be a good idea to institute EU-wide cooperation on measures to prevent illegal gambling – especially in order to protect children – through coordinated national legislation.

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The online gambling sector is steadily growing, which is, to some extent, outside the control of national governments, given that this sector is unlike other markets on account of the risks involved in terms of consumer protection and fighting against organised crime.

The different approaches to regulating this sector in Member States causes major difficulties in protecting consumers and combating illegal online gambling and potential crime associated with it at European level. Consequently, the key objective being pursued must be to curb this black market significantly. In order to achieve this objective, one option which I urge Member States to resort to is a total ban.

In addition, minimum standards need to be laid down at European level, not only for protecting minors and combating addiction, but also for combating money laundering and other criminal activities associated with gambling. I urge the Commission to devise standards applicable across Europe and binding on all licensed online gambling operators. This would allow Member States to set further criteria in the future. Resolute action by the Commission and Member States is important in order to ensure a uniform, high level of consumer protection across Europe.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The online gambling sector is attracting more and more users in Europe, and it generates substantial profits in the billions of euro. This infatuation for the sector, however, hides irregularities that primarily affect European consumers. Online gambling is not subject to the same rules in all Member States. The sector is also threatened by illegal operators who harm the internal market. That is why, for the sake of legal certainty and safeguarding European consumers, in particular minors, I voted in favour of the Creutzmann report, for which I was the rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. In my report for the committee, which was subsequently incorporated into the final report, I placed particular emphasis on safeguarding minors, combating illegal gambling and preserving the integrity of sport.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed this report. The online gambling sector is growing constantly, to some extent outside the control of the national governments, thus posing risks to consumer protection and bringing dangers associated with organised crime. Although gambling services are subject to a number of EU acts, such as the Audiovisual Media Services Directive, the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, the Distance Selling Directive, the Anti-Money Laundering Directive, the Data Protection Directive, the directive on privacy and electronic communication, and the directive on the common system of value added tax, there has so far been no specific European legislative act in the EU regulating online gambling. As the gambling sector is regulated differently in different Member States, this not only makes it difficult for regulated providers to provide lawful gaming services on a cross-border basis, but also for regulators to protect consumers and combat illegal online gambling. I agree that, in order to protect consumers, especially vulnerable and young players, from the negative aspects of gambling online, the EU needs to adopt common standards for consumer protection and ensure that principles for online gambling are laid down at EU level.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) There is a significant supply of, and demand for, online gambling in the EU, and the economic importance of this sector is constantly growing. The online sector is the fastest growing one in the gambling market, representing almost 10% of the overall take from this market.

The challenges posed by the coexistence of various regulatory models has led to the development of significant so-called ‘grey’ and illegal online markets in all the Member States.

This market should be open and sufficient initiatives should be created for companies to offer legal services; a licensing model is the best approach, provided that it is based on the principle of non-discriminatory competition.

An open and regulated market for online gambling presupposes an independent and powerful national regulatory body. Owing to the cross-border nature of the Internet, significant cooperation between national regulatory bodies is therefore essential, so there is a need for institutionalised collaborative arrangements, on the basis of the Internal Market Information system.

It is also important to lay down pan-European minimum standards for safeguarding minors and for combating gambling addiction, but also for combating money laundering and other crimes associated with gambling.

I voted for this report for the above reasons.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The task of protecting sport in Europe is becoming increasingly complex, especially as a result of the Internet boom and new means of fraud. Following on from the European Commission Green Paper on online gambling, we have adopted a report that represents a move in the right direction. While recognising the competence of the Member States in this area, we wish to point out that coordination at EU level could provide added value. I welcome the fact that the report advocates stepping up the fight against the black market and abuse, that it focuses on protecting minors and vulnerable consumers, who are more exposed to gambling addiction, and that it advocates setting up a blacklist of unlicensed gambling providers. Finally, the betting right, which France was the first to incorporate into its legislation, is recognised in this text. The idea is that it is necessary to recognise the property rights of sports event organisers over their events in order to secure a fair financial return so as to continue to protect the integrity of the sport and to strengthen the fight against fraud and match fixing.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the report by Mr Creutzmann because I think that it generally flags up and provides a good snapshot of the crucial issues surrounding the complex matter of gambling in Europe, suggesting targeted action. Indeed, although it does not put forward definitive or particularly innovative solutions, the report underlines the need, within the principle of subsidiarity enjoyed by Member States, for a level of cooperation and shared EU-wide rules to deal with the problem, in order to prevent unauthorised operators from exploiting the loopholes offered by individual and diverse national systems.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because it is very important to restrict the growth of the online gambling sector, enhance the protection of minors from online games, and combat money laundering and other crimes associated with gambling. Currently, there is no specific legislative act regulating online gambling in the European Union and the online gambling sector is growing with a market volume in excess of EUR 10 billion. Attention should be drawn to the fact that an increasing number of people are being exposed to the dangers of addiction, fraud, scams and underage gambling. Excessive online gambling can cause mental disorders which may take over a person’s private life and force them to relinquish many of their important work, social, family and material commitments. In order to reduce the amount of legal and illegal gambling in Europe, uniform laws concerning gambling licences and their regulation need to be adopted by all Member States.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The online gambling sector is growing constantly, accounting for about 10% of the gambling market, equivalent to a market volume of around EUR 10 billion per year. Imposing absolute bans would be a disastrous decision. On the contrary, the shadowy parts of the industry need to be combated and regulated through legal provision for gambling. That is why I voted in favour.

The difficulties of regulation and the legal fragmentation of the sector, including in view of the use of the Internet – which knows no boundaries – really make close cooperation between the licensing authorities of Member Countries a necessity. This could follow the Italian or French example, where a licensing authority may award an unlimited number of licences while, at the same time, carrying out thorough checks to prevent crimes such as money laundering or other gambling-related crimes being committed. However, there is a need to establish minimum applicable standards across the whole of the EU. These standards should be binding for all authorised operators who offer online gambling services and should grant Member States the power to come up with additional rules, so that they can protect minors and prevent gambling addictions more and more.

  Jan Březina (PPE), in writing. – (CS) I firmly believe that an open and regulated market for online gambling presupposes an independent and powerful national regulatory body. Such a body must determine and, above all, also be able to enforce, the environment for gambling. National regulators must therefore be given the necessary powers to penalise infringements and act against illegal providers. Given the cross-border nature of the Internet, however, Member States alone are not in a position to regulate all areas of online gambling. Very close cooperation between national regulatory bodies is therefore essential. To date, collaboration has been on a small scale, for example, through bilateral procedures. What is needed, however, are institutionalised collaborative arrangements, for example, on the basis of the Internal Market Information system, in order to share information efficiently and quickly. Only through a common European approach can unregulated providers be prevented from exploiting regulatory gaps and playing national regulatory bodies off against each other. The challenge for the Commission and the Member States is to act quickly, therefore, in order to safeguard consumers in Europe against untrustworthy providers.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – I voted against this report because the so-called added value to be gained by an EU-wide coordinated approach to illegal gambling by protecting children and vulnerable adults from addictions is actually an attempt to give the EU more competences. If we take into account that the Commission is called to examine the possibility of blocking financial transactions between banks or credit card issuers and blacklisted gambling providers, we can find a situation where the EU is controlling another area of the banking sector, notably electronic payment. I cannot agree with another call to set up common standards or introduce another framework decision on a European code of conduct which will not solve any problems for those afflicted with a gambling addiction.

  Cristian Silviu Buşoi (ALDE), in writing. – (RO) I welcome the adoption of this report because I think that recent trends, in particular, the growth of Internet-based services, have created a need for regulating aspects that have been unregulated hitherto. While services offering games of chance were not sold on a cross-border basis until now, this activity has become possible since the expansion of the Internet. At a time when Member States have fairly different regulations on gambling, with two models of regulation available, based either on a controlled monopoly or on licensing operators, it has become necessary to define a minimum set of rules, especially with regard to consumer protection and fraud prevention.

I also support the rapporteur’s idea that it is appropriate to adopt a set of standards for creating gambling operator licensing systems in a transparent, non-discriminatory manner for those Member States which use a licence-based system. Last but not least, I think that measures need to be taken against illegal gambling. This is why I cannot but support the rapporteur’s proposal to create a ‘white list’ of legal operators so that those who engage in gambling are afforded better protection.

  Antonio Cancian (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of Mr Creutzmann’s report on online gambling in the Internal Market because I think the time has come to regulate the rules on consumer protection and fighting criminality in a more stringent and uniform way. Gambling’s illegal side will be contained and, at the same time, will become a controlled environment that will prevent addiction and preclude young people from participating. All this will be possible thanks to the prediction that the Member States will secure additional income as a result.

Sport is an important aspect of the report, as it is all too often involved in general gambling. The political groups debated at length the right of mutual recognition, the right to bet and the concept of incrimination for sporting fraud.

Lastly, the report takes account of the principle of subsidiarity, while keeping the principles of transparency and competition as its keystones and, above all, expressing hope for effective cooperation between different regulatory bodies.

  Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The economic importance of online gambling is increasing constantly and it now accounts for nearly half the entire betting market. The Member States alone are responsible for legislating this sector. It is good that the EU recognises the particular nature of this specific market and the risks inherent in it in terms of consumer protection and combating organised crime. The Creutzmann report proposes a series of effective measures to wipe out illegal gambling and improve consumer protection. Although the report contains positive provisions, I abstained because it leaves the door open to deregulation/liberalisation of the online gambling market. This not only negates the above proposals in practice; it also increases the opportunities for illegal practices, such as match fixing, illegal betting cartels, money laundering, betting by minors and so forth.

  Lara Comi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of this report because I agree with the introduction of common minimum standards to better define this sector. It is not only a matter of market volume, though that is important. We are talking about an activity that creates addiction and hence, online gambling could be significantly different to offline gambling. I congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Creutzmann, for two reasons: the fighting stance adopted on addiction and abuse, on the one hand, and the steadfast respect for the principle of subsidiarity, on the other. I am somewhat baffled over the introduction of the concept of the right to bet. I am not sure that all the implications have been weighed up sufficiently, and I would also point out that this decision is in contrast to the decision taken by the Italian Government. I remain, in any case, confident as to the freedom that the aforementioned principle of subsidiarity will afford to each Member State’s discretionary powers. I await the new proposal by the Commission, hoping sincerely that the changes on the possibility of auto-exclusion can be taken into consideration.

  Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for regulations on online gambling. Consequently, the key objective being pursued must be to curb significantly this black and grey market. One option to which Member States can resort in order to achieve this objective is a total ban, which would, however, have to be strictly enforced. The principle of subsidiarity leaves it to Member States’ discretion to opt for this solution.

An open and regulated online gambling market presupposes the existence of an independent and powerful national regulator, capable of establishing framework conditions for the operation of gambling activities and, above all, of enforcing them. National regulators must therefore have the necessary powers to be able to penalise any infringements and act against illegal operators. I am concerned that the online gambling sector is constantly growing, accounting for 10% of all gambling activities in Europe and generating a total market volume in excess of EUR 10 billion.

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. – (PT) With the increase in Internet usage, the increasingly common investment in online gambling services and the fragmentation – or lack – of EU-level legislation, it is becoming necessary to take action on this activity at Union level, so as to control a market that is growing rapidly, and around 85% of whose activity is unregulated. By its very nature, the Internet is a platform for cross-border connections. In view of the nature of this phenomenon, there is a need to take regulatory measures that, firstly, monitor this activity and, secondly, harness it financially in the context of the European internal market.

In line with the subsidiarity principle, already confirmed by a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, gambling has been excluded from the Services Directive, so the Member States can continue regulating their markets provided that this regulation is consistent with the objectives being pursued, for example, combating addiction to gambling.

I am voting for this own-initiative report, since I believe there is a need to create an institutionalised network of cooperation, coordinated by the Commission and based on the Internal Market Information system, so as to share information within the EU in a faster, more efficient and more effective way.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report because I believe the Member States should continue deciding what regulation systems to implement in their own territories, in line with the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which is based on the subsidiarity principle and is in line with the needs of public order, and the different national cultures and traditions. I therefore believe that the EU has an important role in this area, not least in stepping up cooperation between the Member States’ regulatory entities, in which combating illegal gambling on the Internet is particularly important.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The online gambling market is continually growing, and today represents around 10% of all gambling in Europe, with a market volume in excess of EUR 10 billion. However, the market remains largely unregulated, with all the dangers to consumers that this represents. There are currently 14 823 online gambling sites in Europe, more than 85% of which are completely unlicensed. As such, this is an area requiring attention and its own regulation. However, and in line with the arguments of the vast majority of Member States, competences relating to gambling should remain with the Member States, with the EU able to set out guidelines that respect the subsidiarity principle.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The report drafted by Mr Creutzmann concerns online gambling in the European internal market. Increasingly widespread Internet access has been causing new problems for governments and the relevant control entities. One of the rapidly growing sectors on the Internet or on similar channels of distribution – mobile telephones or interactive television platforms – is the online gambling market, which currently represents around 10% of all gambling in Europe. While there are Member States where such gambling is properly controlled, like France, there are others that have no form of regulation or control. As well as representing a significant loss of income, this enables indiscriminate access to these platforms, particularly by children, who end up becoming addicted.

As the Internet is a cross-border medium, there is an urgent need for legislative harmonisation. This is not just because of equality issues in terms of unfair competition for licensed online operators from illegal ones, but also in order to control the black market and to prevent the avoidance of millions of euro in tax that could and should be spent on public works or social programmes. I therefore voted in favour and hope the Member States will quickly implement the measures that have just been adopted.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) Drafting common EU rules regarding online gambling is very problematic, given its specific nature and the social risks involved. It is important to take into account cultural issues and traditions in this area, which differ from one Member State to another. In some of them, there are public entities that control the gambling sector, and profits from it are channelled into social intervention, which is important for supporting the most deprived populations; that is the case in Portugal.

These particularities should be recognised and retained, by ensuring that it is always the Member States that control decision making in this area, with a view to the principle of subsidiarity and sovereignty. We also have concerns about the already serious problems of gambling addiction, which could be exacerbated if access to it is facilitated, particularly for young people. In fact, even with the precautionary measures suggested in this report, nothing guarantees that access to it will not become easier or that addiction problems will not multiply, particularly amongst young people.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) Drafting EU positions regarding online gambling is very problematic, given its specific nature and the social risks involved, to begin with, because it could serve to increase the already serious problems of addiction to gambling, thereby facilitating access to it, particularly for young people. Even with the precautionary measures suggested in this report, nothing guarantees that access to it will not become easier or that addiction problems will not multiply, particularly amongst young people.

In particular, there is a need to take into account the different cultures and traditions of the Member States, specifically in those where there are public entities that control the gambling sector, and profits from it are channelled into social intervention, which is crucial for supporting the most deprived populations; that is the case in Portugal. This should be retained and protected, by ensuring that it is always the Member States that control decision making in this area, taking account of the principle of subsidiarity and sovereignty.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) At present, almost 10% of all gambling takes place via the Internet or in a similar way. It is disconcerting that online gambling is on the increase. Online gambling recognises practically no borders and spreads without any major restrictions. However, the European market varies considerably as regards gambling. To a large extent, Member States themselves determine how they will regulate their gambling sectors. Such variation in regulation, however, substantially distorts the market, and has a negative effect on competitiveness. I therefore firmly believe that it is essential to restrict the unregulated black market that is operating in this way, and one of the options is a total ban – assuming that it would be strictly implemented and followed.

Another no less serious problem is the risk of dependency and the risk that young people will take up gambling. It is therefore also essential to support existing efforts to warn against gambling addiction through the establishment of Europe-wide standards aimed at protecting young people, combating pathological gambling, and also combating money laundering and other crimes connected with gambling. I firmly believe that such an effort at a common measure can be of key significance in securing a uniform high level of minimum protection for consumers throughout Europe.

  Robert Goebbels (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on online gambling in the Internal Market. This report highlights the need to let Member States regulate this sector. Already during the adoption of the Services Directive, the European Parliament and the Council had excluded the gambling sector from the advantages of the internal market rules. Gambling has no economic benefit and even has a dangerous social impact on addicted players. Even if it is very difficult to limit access to online games, Member States should have a free hand to block access to unauthorised sites. The gambling sector is an economic sector that is fundamentally unhealthy and must be combated as such.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. – (FR) In the end, I did not vote for the Creutzmann report on online gambling. In its initial version, it was not very clear, and at times contradictory, as to whether it respected the exclusive authority of the Member States to regulate online gaming, maintain national monopolies, decide how to spend the tax revenue from bets, enact any prohibitions they desire and establish the level of consumer protection. Moreover, it barely said anything about horse race betting, which nevertheless serves to support the equine sector, especially in France, yet it devoted several paragraphs to sports bets and the rights of sports event organisers to the events they run. However, the equine sector, also threatened by Brussels, which is attacking the legitimacy of the VAT rate applied to it, is of great economic and social importance in many rural areas. A little more attention to that activity and its specific issues would have been welcomed. As amended, the report infringes the principle of subsidiarity and no longer even mentions this sector.

  Françoise Grossetête (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Online gambling is booming in Europe and does not stop at borders. What is more, there is a vast non-regulated black market on the Internet. It would therefore be better to establish a lawful gambling market on the Internet. A licence model seems to be the best solution, provided it is based on the principle of non-discriminatory competition. With this system, which has already been introduced successfully in some Member States such as France and Italy, the national regulatory authorities set the conditions for issuing the licences.

Given the cross-border nature of this industry, a coordinated approach at European level could turn out to be very effective in tackling illegal gambling and in protecting children and vulnerable consumers. We must move towards more regulation in order to combat addiction risks and money laundering.

  Brice Hortefeux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I welcome the adoption by a large majority of the Creutzmann report, which defends the principle of controlled deregulation of the online gambling market. This report follows on from a Green Paper by the European Commission, published in March, and which sought to address an increase in fraud in what is a booming market.

This report successfully reconciles a coordinated approach at European level while highlighting Member States’ decision-making role by guaranteeing respect for the principle of subsidiarity.

Above all, it advocates the right to gamble as a property right, the revenue from which could be reallocated to fund, as far as horse race betting is concerned, equestrian sports and thoroughbred breeding. This support is essential for the protection and viability of the equine sector, which, in addition, contributes to the vitality of rural areas.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. – Whilst, as this report acknowledges, different countries have different gambling traditions which must be respected, the digital age means that gambling can increasingly have a cross-border nature. It is appropriate that the EU legislates in this area and I believe this report strikes the correct balance.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) The online gambling sector is growing constantly. Currently, about 10% of all gambling in Europe takes place on the Internet or via comparable distribution channels. As a result of ever increasing supply and the increasing number of gamblers, the current market fragmentation in this area in Europe is also becoming ever more obvious. In many Member States, there are total bans or bans with the possibility of authorisation, while others have a completely open and liberalised market. However, due to huge differences in traditions, the subsidiarity principle plays a particularly powerful role in this area. To a large extent, the Member States themselves determine how they want to regulate their gambling sectors. As regards the Internet, however, such considerable regulatory divergence also results in market distortions. Gambling service providers from Member States with open markets and low tax rates are also accessible in countries in which online gambling is banned, or are in competition with licensed online providers. It is virtually impossible for those providers, and for providers of physical, location-based gambling services from those countries, to compete. Furthermore, there is a large unregulated black market on the Internet. I agree that an open and regulated market for online gambling presupposes an independent and powerful national regulatory body. It must determine, and also be able to enforce, the environment for gambling. National regulators must therefore be given the necessary powers to penalise infringements and act against illegal providers.

  Anneli Jäätteenmäki (ALDE), in writing. – (FI) The online gambling market is growing fast. Estimates put its present value at more than EUR 10 billion. Pan-European, uniform minimum standards regarding the identification of the customer, for example, are vital to protect gamblers and consumers, to ensure that systems of gambling bans are effective, and to prevent underage gambling. Registration should be performed in such a way that the player’s identity is established. At the same time, we need to be able to ensure that players have access to no more than one gambling account per gambling company. Problem gambling must be tackled by means of bans on gambling, for example, and compulsory limits on expenditure over a particular period, albeit set by the customer himself. In addition, it is important to tackle problems of crime associated with gambling and money laundering. The passive retention of funds in gambling accounts should be prohibited.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report by Mr Creutzmann on online gambling in the single market because it highlights the importance of improving cooperation among the Member States in what is essentially a cross-border matter, particularly as regards consumer protection and the fight against fraud and money laundering, while recognising that the decision on market liberalisation is a Member State responsibility. The model put forward is one of ‘controlled’ opening based on a national licensing system.

  Edvard Kožušník (ECR), in writing. – (CS) I supported the report mainly because it respects the principle of subsidiarity, and one of its conclusions is to reject a Europe-wide regulation to govern this area. The fact that the report emphasised respect for the right of nation states to apply national laws to the organisation of gambling on their territory only strengthens my conviction regarding the correctness of the report. At the same time, I very much applaud the space the report devotes to the issue of sport, and especially to protecting the integrity of sport. I very much support cross-border cooperation in fraud detection and the transparent and legal operation of gambling, as well as cooperation in the preventive programmes directed towards the negative impacts of gambling and emphasising at-risk groups such as the young.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The online gambling and betting sector is growing at an exponential rate. Not taking account of the development of this commercial phenomenon would be to see Europe underestimate not only the benefits that this sector brings for the Member States, but also the risks associated with it. I voted in favour of the report by Mr Creutzmann because it must be praised for coordinating and looking closely at the risks and opportunities that the online gaming sector carries. In fact, in some countries, the percentage of addicted gamblers – pathological cases, that is – is as high as 2%. Considering facts like this and appealing for coordination between Member States on fighting crimes connected to the sector, including illegal betting, is the most proper legislative route to take so that we can, at the same time, make the most of the economic potential of online gambling and its positive connections with charity and sport.

  Constance Le Grip (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report by my colleague, Jürgen Creutzmann, on online gambling. Given the growth of this sector and its cross-border nature, in this report we call for greater cooperation between the national regulators, with the European Commission as coordinator, in order to develop common standards and take joint action against online gambling operators involved in illegal practices. With this report, we, Europeans, are adopting a firm position in favour of a supervised liberalisation of the online gambling market. This controlled opening must involve, in particular, a national licensing model.

The report also emphasises the need to ensure the integrity of sport in order to prevent fraud and match fixing, which have thrived as a result of the explosion in online gambling. Finally, this report stresses the importance of a fair financial return for all levels of sport and recommends the introduction of a right to bets, a sort of property right, which would enable sports event organisers to assert their rights in relation to online gambling operators.

  Morten Løkkegaard (ALDE), in writing. – (DA) I support the recommendations in the report on online gambling because they will result in a more open gaming market. At the same time, it is important to emphasise that it is not the easy access to online games that causes gambling addiction. Currently, only 85% of the 15 000 operators of online gambling in the EU have a licence, so there is a large grey market. That is something that we need to have dealt with when the markets are opened up. A common licensing system, whereby undertakings that have a licence in one country can provide their services in several EU countries, will give gambling operators an incentive to acquire a licence. I also support the fact that the report aims to combat money laundering and other crimes associated with online gambling. There is a particular risk that illegal gambling will lead to match fixing, which would severely undermine sport as a whole.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I welcome this report on online gambling which calls for strong measures to protect vulnerable consumers (especially minors) and strong instruments to tackle illegal gambling and related problems.

  Jiří Maštálka (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (CS) Despite the fact that the report rightly emphasises the shared view of the European Parliament and the Commission not to aim, under any circumstances, for the deregulation and liberalisation of online gambling, I was unable to vote in favour of the proposal. I welcome the fact that the report states results that unambiguously show the negative social and health effects arising from dependence on gambling. It rightly points out that pathological behaviour arising from such a dependency affects a high percentage of citizens in some Member States. Despite these statements, however, the proposed measures are, in my view, weak and therefore ineffective. There is, for example, a reluctance to introduce a regulatory approach to gambling through identification cards, and a reluctance to ban gambling advertising. The argument that such advertising forms part of sports’ promotion is rather vague. The health and social consequences arising from a dependence on gambling are comparable with the consequences of smoking or excessive alcohol consumption.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for the resolution on online gambling. Online gambling is becoming increasingly popular and represents EUR 10 billion in Europe. This new economic sector must be regulated to prevent fraud and illegal practices, which may affect our citizens. It is also necessary to take account of vulnerable people, who may easily enter into a relationship of harmful dependence on gambling and betting, especially since the Internet facilitates their access. These areas remain national competences, the Member States being in charge of public policy and public health. However, by virtue of the transnational nature of the Internet, it is also appropriate to strengthen cooperation between the Member States. It is a matter of improving the security of payments and the fight against illegal operations and of jointly reflecting on the problems of addiction.

  Marisa Matias (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report because its intention is to achieve two key objectives relating to gambling: protection of minors and prevention of addiction. The report argues that regulation of online gambling should be ensured by issuing gambling licences, which will also enable illegal gambling to be combated. These constitute more than enough reasons to vote in favour.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The constant growth of online gambling increasingly reveals the fragmentation of the European market. I agree with Mr Creutzmann that it is fundamental to ensure that national regulators work in close collaboration with each other. I am voting in favour.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. – Out of 14 823 active gambling sites in Europe, more than 85% are operated without any licence; strict legislation should therefore be introduced to regulate online gambling. I support this report and welcome its recognition that gambling can potentially harm, and that online gambling may involve greater risks such as addiction, fraud, scams and under-age gambling. I welcome the calls for the promotion of responsible gambling and the protection of minors and vulnerable groups. I welcome the proposals for a new Gambling Bill in Ireland, providing for the licensing of online services as part of a major reform of the gambling laws. Although I voted against paragraph 20, I acknowledge and support the right of Member States to draw on a wide variety of measures against illegal gambling, and I support measures to increase the efficiency of the fight against illegal online gambling. However, since there is no European legislative act regulating online gambling, the amendment could be seen as counter to the principle of subsidiarity as well as the principles of the single market, since it implies that an online gambling undertaking in one Member State may have to close if its activities are illegal in another Member State.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The online gambling sector is growing constantly. Current figures show that around 10% of all gambling in Europe takes place on the Internet or via comparable distribution channels such as mobile telephones or interactive television platforms, with a trend towards growth and a market volume in excess of EUR 10 billion.

The markets for physical, location-based gambling and the online gambling sector are characterised by a wide range of products: traditional lotteries, but also sports betting, poker, bingo, and totalisator betting on horse and greyhound races. By its very nature, the Internet is a cross-border medium. Online gambling therefore does not stop at borders. As a result of ever increasing offerings and the increasing number of gamblers, the current market fragmentation in this area in Europe is also becoming ever more obvious. In a host of Member States, there are total bans or bans with the possibility of authorisation, while others have a completely open and liberalised market.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – I agree with the special nature of gambling services and therefore stress that the main responsibility in regulating online gambling should remain the competence of the Member States. Common action might be needed in the field of protection of vulnerable consumers, fraud and money laundering.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) The number of online gambling games is constantly growing. Around 10% of all gambling games (lotteries, betting on sport, poker and bingo) take place on the Internet, over the telephone or via interactive television platforms, with a market volume in Europe in excess of EUR 10 billion. As a result of the subsidiarity principle, the legal situation in the different EU Member States varies significantly. In some countries, there is a ban with the possibility of authorisation, while others have a total ban and others still a completely open and deregulated market. As there are no borders on the Internet, gambling service providers from Member States with open markets are also accessible in countries where online gambling is banned. The inevitable result of this is the emergence of a black market which we now have to combat while taking into account the subsidiarity principle. I welcome the fact that the national regulatory bodies are to be given the necessary authority to penalise infringements of the law and to take action against illegal service providers, so that consumers in Europe are protected against untrustworthy operators. We also need legal room for manoeuvre in the case of accusations of fraud of the kind that have recently emerged. However, the proposal to pull the carpet out from under the feet of the black market by providing legal gambling opportunities on the Internet undermines the subsidiarity principle. For this reason, I have abstained from voting.

  Claudio Morganti (EFD), in writing. – (IT) This report serves to delineate some important issues with regard to a sector which, until today, has had very varied and fragmented regulations. It is right that Member States should retain their exclusive authorities, but only within a defined framework of collaboration and coordination on a continental scale. This can be very useful in tackling illegal online gambling, which very often comes from countries outside the EU – more precisely, from Asia. Online games can be an important source of revenue for Member States and it is therefore necessary to fight fraud and other forms of cheating, which could take away vast resources.

Moreover, the necessary warning, expressed many times in the report, is clear enough: attentive care should be taken to protect minors and weaker people from the potential risks encountered by playing online games. An important role could be assigned to greater collaboration within the sector to strive to detect and prevent fraud in sport, which is a phenomenon that has found its latest frontier with the Internet. This report underlines these and many other important points, which is why I decided to vote in favour.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) Recently in the European Parliament, we debated the issue of more intensive measures to properly regulate online gambling, and today we have expressed a stronger position. It should be noted that the online gambling sector is growing constantly. According to the latest information, currently, around 10% of all gambling in Europe takes place on the Internet, which has a market volume in excess of EUR 10 billion. In line with these trends, related problems are becoming increasingly acute, such as the risk of addiction involved in gambling. Minors are particularly vulnerable here – young players and other socially sensitive layers of society. Research shows that since the advent of online gambling, there has been a significant increase in the number of people approaching centres for gambling addicts for help. It has been established that compulsive gambling is a behavioural disorder which may affect up to 2% of the population in some countries. When discussing public health therefore, we should not forget the specific nature of online gambling. Online gambling is often identified with criminal activities and fraud. Owing to the cross-border nature of the Internet, national borders are no barrier to such gambling. This is one of the reasons why Member States alone are not in a position to protect consumers against the dangers. I am convinced that the national authorities responsible for supervision in the Member States should cooperate as actively as possible, and exchange information and best practices. Only by working together will we be able to end the exploitation of regulatory loopholes and the ineffectiveness of national regulatory bodies.

  Katarína Neveďalová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) Gambling and the gambling sector are highly controversial topics. This type of business often arouses concerns both among citizens and among politicians. However, the issue of whether or not this type of business is considered correct does not rest with us but with the public themselves. With online gambling, the situation is all the more complicated for the fact that the operator of the service can run his business from a different Member State to that of the user.

Despite this, I agree that the regulation of online gambling should remain within the jurisdiction of Member States. It is impossible to fight against this activity; the only option is to put up with it and regulate it according to a clear set of rules. Our duty is, first and foremost, to protect the vulnerable sectors of the population, such as children and young people, for example.

The other priorities include combating illegal gambling – as only the legal forms of this type of business can be duly taxed and the revenues used in a sensible way, for example, to encourage the development of sport.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of the report. However, I disagreed with paragraph 44 and voted in favour of the proposal to fund social works from lotteries. The online gambling market is one of the biggest in the EU. There are currently around 15 000 gambling websites. Over 85% are unlicensed, while the annual volume of transactions on this particular market is estimated at EUR 10 billion. The most important thing, however, is that this is, to a large degree, a habit-forming market which puts underage players at risk. Its fragmented operating rules, depending on the national priorities set by each Member State, are giving rise to different legal frameworks and divergent and often contradictory policies are being applied. A market governed by complex and fragmented rules is a market exposed to financial crime and fraud. Recent experience with match fixing proves that. The report is therefore a step in the right direction; it emphasises that match fixing and any action that undermines sport can and must be addressed with more effective measures at European level.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report on online gambling in the internal market has come at a time when the online gambling market is growing rapidly. Current figures show that around 10% of all gambling in Europe takes place on the Internet or via comparable distribution channels, with a trend towards growth and a market volume in excess of EUR 10 billion. Given the various cases of fraud in sports betting, which represent a risk to the integrity of sport, it is in the direct interest of all stakeholders – in other words: sports associations, fans, gambling service providers and players – to safeguard the integrity of sport and prevent betting fraud.

I therefore voted in support of the concerns of the sector in Portugal, and I agree with the rapporteur’s initial proposals, which better defended the fight against illegal betting and the dangers it causes. The precise amendments tabled subsequently reduce consumer protection, make the world of financial transactions more opaque, and prevent the effective combating of crime and fraud, particularly money laundering. I therefore voted against these amendments.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Despite the various rulings of the European Court of Justice according to which gambling is not a normal service, it is clear that the online gambling sector is continuing to rise in Europe, with relative increases in market share and turnover. The regulations in place in different Member States are not homogenous, giving rise to market distortions which, by exploiting the Internet’s capacity to offer services across borders without the problem of geographical obstacles, allow gamblers living in countries where online gambling is banned to reach online gambling providers in Member States where the market is open. The negative effects that gambling has on human beings, such as addiction, have been ascertained, and I concur with the solutions proposed by this report. I therefore voted in favour.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The online gambling sector has been growing robustly over the last decade. It is currently estimated to already represent 10% of the market. However, ease of access by consumers, irrespective of their age or where they are accessing from, firstly encourages an increase in situations of gambling addiction, and, secondly, makes it difficult for the Member States to monitor how these activities are exercised. As such, there is justification for a common EU approach, guided by the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. A way needs to be found, therefore, to enable the protection of the positions of the different Member States and consumers without making these economic activities less dynamic. I voted in favour for these reasons.

  Evelyn Regner (S&D), in writing. – (DE) I have voted in favour of the report on online gambling because I believe it is important for us to put a stop to illegal gambling on the Internet. In addition, the provisions relating to the protection of minors and common consumer protection standards for online gambling are highly desirable. One important factor that is taken into consideration in the report is safeguarding the subsidiarity principle. We should not standardise online gambling. It is important to me that the Member States should still be able to impose national restrictions because of the specific characteristics of gambling. The report calls on the Commission to introduce uniform quality standards for national licensing models. In my opinion, that is a positive development. Austria already has high standards of consumer protection and represents a good example of best practice.

  Frédérique Ries (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) It was a sensitive vote this lunchtime on online gambling, what with so many interests and views clashing between Member States, national lotteries and the many players that have a stake in this frantic business which is particularly lucrative on the Internet, estimated at EUR 10 billion, or 10% of all gambling in the European Union. I am delighted that the rapporteur has achieved the crucial balance, in a sector that is, by definition, a cross-border and sensitive one, since we are talking about protecting minors, cracking down on illicit games, but also prevention and addiction. I would mention two aspects in particular: firstly, I voted for paragraph 22 that supports the continuation of the many proceedings for infringement of European law, instigated by the Commission against quasi monopolies, sometimes going back a very long time. Although I understand their previous suspension when a legal grey area remained, these proceedings must be reasonably examined and the European Commission must fully play its role of Guardian of the Treaties, whatever those who wished to see these proceedings simply abandoned may say. Secondly, I also supported paragraph 45 so as to protect sporting events from outside commercial exploitation and to grant organisers property rights; this is a good measure and is likely to contribute towards combating fraud in sport.

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I offer my congratulations on the excellent work carried out by Mr Creutzmann. Member States should work together to tackle the problems of online gambling. Strong cooperation between the Member States and the introduction of common minimum standards or a framework directive are required to confront this issue.

Given the cross-border nature of this activity, it is necessary to coordinate a Europe-wide approach regarding measures to prevent illegal gambling and protect children and vulnerable adults. To fight black market online gambling, we ask Member States to introduce a licensing model to ensure security to gamblers, and to ensure that the national laws under which games operate are respected by those offering these services.

Moreover, the European Commission should examine the possibility of blocking financial transactions between banks and credit card institutions, and gamblers who appear on a blacklist. To protect young people and other vulnerable sections of society, age verification and restrictions on electronic payments before any gambling takes place should be requirements. I believe that a code of conduct for online gambling would be a first step towards stricter regulation.

  Robert Rochefort (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Currently, 10% of all gambling in Europe takes place online, both over the Internet and using mobile telephones or interactive television platforms. In this context, national regulation is no longer sufficient to provide proper protection for consumers or to effectively deter the operators of illegal or fraudulent gambling. It is therefore necessary to increase cooperation between the national authorities responsible for regulating this sector and to discuss the establishment of common minimum European standards, whilst respecting the principle of subsidiarity. I naturally supported the main points of this report: As regards the ‘right to gamble’, I welcome Parliament’s support for the idea of recognising the property rights of sports event organisers at a European level, as well as the introduction of legally binding agreements between the organisers of sports competitions and the operators. However, I opposed the idea of calling for regulation of spread betting. This type of betting is particularly dangerous for consumers and I should like to retain the option of banning it completely.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. The online gambling sector is growing constantly. Nowadays, according to current figures, about 10% – a figure which is rising – of all gambling in Europe takes place on the Internet or via comparable distribution channels such as mobile phones or interactive television platforms, with a market volume in excess of EUR 10 billion. The market for physical, location-based gambling and the online gambling sector are characterised by a wide range of products: traditional lotteries, but also sports betting, poker, bingo and totalisator betting on horse and greyhound races.

By its very nature, the Internet is a cross-border medium. Online gambling therefore does not stop at borders. As a result of ever-increasing offerings and the increasing number of gamblers, the current market fragmentation in this area in Europe is also becoming ever more obvious. In a host of Member States, there are total bans or bans with the possibility of authorisation, while others have a completely open and liberalised market.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of this resolution because I think it helps combat the black market and safeguard minors. Closer European cooperation must be brought in immediately in order to combat illegal gambling and protect vulnerable consumers. Each country must be free to keep their own rules on online gambling, though they must adopt a Europe-wide approach on measures to prevent illegal gambling and protect children and vulnerable adults. To fight unregulated online gambling, the Member States must also introduce a licensing model to ensure security for gamblers and compliance from service providers.

  Tokia Saïfi (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report on online gambling in the internal market. As the Internet, by its very nature, is a cross-border medium, European legislation in this sector is absolutely essential. I am therefore calling for collective action at EU level to combat illegal gaming, money laundering, addiction and fraud, notably in sport. As the report notes, this regulation should, in particular, channel the natural gaming instinct of the population by restricting advertising to the level that is strictly necessary in order to direct potential gamblers to legal services. It should also require all advertising for online gambling to be systematically coupled with a message warning against excessive or pathological gambling. It will be up to each Member State, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, to take the most appropriate measures in this burgeoning sector. This is another concrete action at European level to improve consumer protection.

  Matteo Salvini (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I would like to express my vote in favour of Mr Creutzmann’s report. The online gambling market is in a state of continual growth and its turnover has now exceeded EUR 10 billion. For these reasons, the issue of protecting consumers, specifically those who are weaker and more at risk, is extremely delicate and important.

At the same time, we must ensure that the revenue generated for Member States through taxation of online gambling is not curtailed by the worrying presence of illegal gambling games which, other than providing an opportunity to launder enormous sums of illegally obtained money, place less cautious consumers in grave danger.

I believe that it is of fundamental importance to ensure that national regulators work in close collaboration with each other. Greater exchange of information across Europe could prevent cases whereby unregulated providers exploit regulatory gaps and play national regulatory bodies off against each other. For this reason, the Commission and the Member States should take immediate steps to protect European consumers from bogus providers.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I fully share the Green Paper’s concerns regarding the extent of the illegal online gambling market and the Member States’ prerogative to ascertain and impose sanctions on operators who provide gambling services without concession and authorisation from the state in which the gambler resides.

Moreover, Mr Creutzmann’s report underlines the need to integrate national standards within a common framework across Europe (a ‘coordinated European approach’) to resolve cross-border issues, and asks the Commission to verify whether the common EU standards and regulations are appropriate for tackling common challenges such as consumer protection, the fight against illegal gambling and criminal activity, and protecting the integrity of the game and sport.

I am in absolute agreement as regards the urgency to adopt the necessary measures to protect the integrity of the sport and to implement better coordination between states and relevant organisations. I find particularly interesting the proposal to adopt a common definition of sports fraud and to recognise this as a criminal act all over Europe (in Italy, there is already a law of 1989 which defines the crime of sports fraud).

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This own-initiative report is the European Parliament’s position on the European Commission Green Paper on online gambling in the European internal market. The development of the Internet and the increased availability of online gambling services require particular attention, which the Commission is attempting to promote in its proposal through a number of issues: better defining and organising these services, protecting consumers, preventing fraud and money laundering, and guaranteeing the security of online payment systems.

However, in line with the position of the Court of Justice of the European Union, organising online gambling is a Member State competence, although the cross-border nature of this gambling means there should be significant cooperation between the various national authorities. The governing principle should be that online gambling operators may only provide services or apply for licences in a Member State if they are not in breach of the rules in another Member State.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of the report on online gambling in the internal market because it does not advocate deregulation/liberalisation of online gambling. In order to protect consumers effectively, especially young people and vulnerable players, from the downsides of online gambling, the EU needs to adopt common consumer protection standards. In this regard, given the cross-border nature of the Internet, extensive cooperation is required between national regulators. Cooperation in this area between Member States has only been evident hitherto in the form of bilateral procedures.

I think that a pan-European code of conduct is needed for online gambling which should deal with the rights and obligations of both the service providers and consumers. This code of conduct should ensure responsible gambling and a high level of protection for players, especially for minors and other vulnerable people. The code of conduct should also include support mechanisms at both EU and national level for combating cyber crime, fraud and misleading advertising, as well as a set of principles and rules which will provide online gambling consumers with uniform protection throughout the EU.

  Thomas Ulmer (PPE), in writing. – (DE) I have voted in favour of the report. I believe its content and Mr Creutzmann’s ideas are correct. The only aspect which, in my opinion, is missing is the belief that we will be in a position to keep service providers and operators from third countries out of Europe or to regulate them. The future will show to what extent we will be able to overcome the problem of more or less illegal gambling and whether new opportunities will emerge.

  Peter van Dalen (ECR), in writing. – (NL) The Belgian economist, Geert Noels, said gambling is a tax on stupidity. What I would add to that is that gambling is also a source of personal suffering: gambling leads to addiction and debt. The Creutzmann report urges the European Commission to come up with EU rules on online gambling. This scheme is supposed to make gambling transparent and – you will not believe it – even fair. Gambling can never become a fair sport, because providers of gambling services will always make a profit (the house always wins). If we introduce European rules for online gambling, those rules will not result in gambling providers from outside the EU complying with them. These providers will not be bound by EU rules. Although access to such websites within the EU can be limited, I would suggest the easy way out of this situation, namely, recognising that gambling is harmful to gamblers, their families and society, and therefore prohibiting online gambling throughout Europe.

  Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. – I welcome today’s report calling on the Commission to look at ways in which Member States can work together to protect Internet consumers and to fight illegal online gambling. Although rules on online gambling are made by Member States, I believe it is important to work together to regulate this cross-border issue. The Commission should listen seriously to calls from Parliament to look at the possibility of blocking financial transactions between banks or credit card issuers and blacklisted gambling providers. With 10% of all gambling in Europe taking place online, we need to make sure children and vulnerable adults are protected. I fully support suggestions made by the rapporteur to look at a number of different controls, for example, age verification and restrictions for electronic payments, which would help protect consumers.

  Dominique Vlasto (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The exponential growth of the online gambling market in recent years presents many dangers: addiction, especially among young people, cheating, criminality, the grip of money in sport, and data protection. The Internet cuts across borders, and the subsidiarity principle required rapid reaction from the Union, in close coordination with the Member States. I share the concern of my political family to guarantee the legal security of consumers, the integrity of sport and the enjoyment of the game. I therefore voted in favour of this report, which proposes clear solutions such as sanctioning illegal operators, restricting publicity and redistributing money fairly among sports bodies. However, I am disappointed that our request that horse racing bodies be mentioned separately in order to ensure that they continue to be financially supported at the current level was rejected. However, this is a strategic sector for my region, and it is closely linked to its heritage and to our land. I will remain vigilant to ensure that the interests of horse racing activities are preserved. The protection of our traditions and of all the activities derived from equestrian centres is at stake.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) Online gambling in Europe has a market share of more than EUR 10 billion and the trend is growing. Since there are competing responsibilities in this area, the Member States are able to make largely independent decisions on regulating their gambling markets. As a result, a significant black market has, of course, sprung up. The rapporteur refers to the French system as the model for the legal provision of gambling services. In addition, the report recommends measures for protecting minors. I have voted in favour.

Report: Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (A7-0359/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report. It is important to stimulate and develop this important sector, which is a source of revenue for around 600 000 Europeans. I would stress that, as an economic and social activity, it plays a key role in the sustainable development of rural areas, generates jobs, and provides an important service to the ecosystem through pollination, which contributes to increasing biodiversity by maintaining the genetic diversity of plants.

  Charalampos Angourakis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) Although the European Parliament report on honeybee health and beekeeping confirms the decrease in bee colonies and the impact on pollination and the need for disease control and monitoring of bee health in general, it does not ban the use of pesticides, even though they have been reported to have an adverse impact on bees. It does not oppose the ban on the cultivation of genetically modified organisms for use either in human food or in animal fodder. The common agricultural policy is predicated on safeguarding the profits of large monopoly business groups active in this sector. The lack of veterinary medicines to combat bee diseases referred to in the report is due to the fact that, in the capitalist economy, companies cannot be forced to conduct research in sectors which are not hugely profitable. This opposition can only be resolved by popular ownership of the basic means of production and by central economic planning, with power in the hands of the people to utilise arable and livestock production and research for the prosperity of the people.

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The beekeeping sector, as an economic and social activity, plays a vital role in the sustainable development of rural areas by creating new jobs. Beekeeping also provides an important ecosystem service via pollination, which helps improve biodiversity by maintaining the genetic diversity of plants and balance. I call on the Commission to focus research on technological developments and disease prevention and control, on defining sustainable agricultural practices, on promoting non-chemical alternatives, and on encouraging Integrated Pest Management techniques and the development of veterinary medical products to combat agents that cause diseases in bees. Member States also need to take action to mitigate the risks affecting bee health.

Research must be harmonised, with one very important consideration being that national authorities support the dissemination of appropriate scientific and technical knowledge about bee health among beekeepers. I voted in favour of this report. Beekeeping is part of Europe’s agricultural heritage and national traditions. We must combat together the decline in the number of bee colonies throughout Europe.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) During this parliamentary session, an urgent appeal has been launched to end increasing honeybee mortality. The presence of honeybees is, in fact, indispensable to the stability of our ecosystem. Therefore, I voted in favour of the Tabajdi report calling on the European Union to act to protect them by increasing investment for research into new veterinary products for bees, by informing farmers on the use of pesticides, and by monitoring imports from third countries.

  Liam Aylward (ALDE), in writing. – (GA) Since bees and pollination are very important to the European agriculture sector, with nearly 84% of plant species and 76% of food production in Europe dependent on pollination by bees, an effective coordinated strategy must be implemented to stop the high death rate among bees. I fully support what is in the report as regards requesting the European Commission to improve and to expand the monitoring of animal health in third countries and to implement very high standards of health in the case of imports to ensure that no foreign bee diseases spread throughout the European environmental system.

I agree with the rapporteur that the EU should do more research on new medical treatments to prevent an increase in bee mortality and to give more support to diagnostic laboratories and field tests at national level.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed this report. Beekeeping as an economic and social activity plays a crucial role in the sustainable development of rural areas, the creation of economic and social public goods, food security and maintaining biodiversity. Recently, increased bee mortality in the EU and throughout the world has led to a marked decrease in the number of bee colonies, which will have a negative impact on agriculture, food production and security, biodiversity, environmental sustainability and ecosystems. I welcome the call to increase the level of support for honeybee health-related research under the next financial framework (FP8) and to focus research on technological developments and disease prevention and control.

  George Becali (NI), in writing. – (RO) This is not the first time that we are debating this subject in Parliament, but I am pleased that an own-initiative report is involved on this occasion. We are aware from the previous debates that the number of bee colonies in Member States is in decline and that we have a problem with the state of health of these colonies. We are facing the repercussions caused by this problem not only in agriculture, but also in providing the necessary quantity of honey for consumption on the European market.

  Sergio Berlato (PPE), in writing. – (IT) This report on the health of honeybees and the production of honey in Europe is of particular importance not only for beekeeping enterprises in the Union, but also for all consumers of honey, for whom it is necessary to ensure that the product is safe and can be traced.

The proposed directive suggests taking actions to facilitate research and raise scientific awareness on preserving biodiversity of bees by means of effective and safe usage of veterinary products.

The beekeeping sector makes up an integral part of European agriculture and provides a primary or supplementary source of income for over 600 000 EU citizens. I welcome the establishment of an EU reference laboratory, but I would also underline the need to sustain diagnostic laboratories and field tests at national level.

I would point out to the Commission that this is an opportunity both to provide funding to laboratories that analyse the quality and security of apicultural products, and to communicate their findings all over Europe. While I welcome the Commission’s pilot surveillance programme on bee health, I would underline the need for further efforts to establish an appropriate surveillance system within the Union.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) The beekeeping sector is crucial for the survival of many plant species, for the quality and variety of food production, and for maintaining a good ecological balance. Despite modern technology and the progress made by science and agriculture, improving biodiversity has always been connected to honeybees and the pollination that they carry out.

In recent years, the sector has seen increasing mortality among bees. The causes of this phenomenon are not yet entirely clear and it has worrying repercussions on food production and the successful conservation of plant species. The report quite rightly pushes for greater effort from the EU institutions on this subject, in particular, from the Commission. On this point, I welcome the possibility of the Commission tabling a complete legislative proposal on animal health in 2012, which will pay due attention to the world of beekeeping and research into honeybee health. I am voting in favour.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because we are observing an ever-increasing decline in the number of bee colonies in the European Union. Bees make a very significant contribution to the improvement of biodiversity and to providing economic and social public goods. It is estimated that 84% of plant species and as much as 76% of food production in the European Union are dependent on pollination by bees, but their humming is becoming ever quieter. The economic value of bees is very important in the European Union, and action must therefore be taken as quickly as possible to determine how the causes of bee mortality can be reduced. It is believed that the main factors leading to increased bee mortality are the use of pesticides, climate change, air pollution and electromagnetic fields created by the equipment people use. In order to reduce these factors, action must be taken to improve the quality of the environment and reduce biocides and pesticides.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the report on honeybee health and the challenges of the beekeeping sector. This sector is an integral part of European agriculture and provides crucial services in maintaining biodiversity. It is estimated that 84% of the plant species and 76% of food production in Europe are dependent on pollination by bees, the economic value of which is much greater than the value of the honey produced, and is estimated at EUR 15 billion per year in the EU.

Due to the recent and widespread plague among bees, the sector has suffered significant losses, causing a crisis that has repercussions for the entire agricultural system. The reasons behind this are not clear, but the presence of toxic agents in the atmosphere, due to the improper and excessive use of pesticides, and issues relating to the use of genetically modified crops have certainly damaged honeybee health.

It is therefore necessary to intensify research in order to provide reliable data and platforms for exchanging scientific data in Europe, including though constant dialogue with beekeepers and the competent authorities. Furthermore, it would be well worth supporting ad hoc funding, both for diagnostic laboratories and research into specific veterinary products.

  Jan Březina (PPE), in writing. – (CS) In my opinion, it is essential to seek a solution to excessive bee mortality at European level. The problem is the lack of reliable and comparable data on the number of hives, beekeepers and colony losses in the EU. There is a great need to apply an effective harmonised surveillance system to estimate the extent of bee mortalities, and to develop more accurate knowledge on the extent and the causes of colony losses and other bee health problems. I welcome the Commission’s pilot surveillance programme on bee health and, in accordance with the Council’s conclusions, I invite the Commission to make the outcome available to all interested parties, while emphasising that further efforts are needed to create an appropriate surveillance system in the EU. The Commission should also support the establishment of a European network of reference apiaries to monitor bee health in relation to environmental conditions and beekeeping/agricultural practices. I also welcome the establishment of the EU Reference Laboratory. The reference laboratory should complement the activities of existing expert networks or national laboratories. I would also like to stress the need to support diagnostic laboratories and field tests at national level. Further to this, the Commission should provide financing for laboratories dealing with quality and safety analyses of apicultural products, and ensure the sharing of this information at European level.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – As much as I am concerned about problems within the beekeeping sector, I am absolutely against the EU using this sensitive situation in the agriculture sector to take over the power to decide about the honey industry. The Commission is willing, by using this resolution, to extend the harmonisation of legislation in agriculture matters and add regulatory burden where there is no such need. This is yet another attempt to take over Member States’ competences by using an important issue such as the current health problems in the bee population.

  Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the measures for protecting and improving the beekeeping sector, given that the current lax provisions on the quality of honey and the presence of external organic or synthetic components (including antibiotics) have created an uncertain situation as Member States are devising different methods for analysing the tolerance level, which could distort competition on the internal market.

Uniform legislation must be introduced regarding the antibiotic residue content permitted in honey and in other apicultural products, thereby ensuring the uninterrupted functioning of the internal honey market and eliminating competition distortion between beekeepers in different Member States. Typically, the minimum level of concentration of these substances does not pose any threat to human health, which means that No Action Levels (NAL) or Reference Points of Action (RPA) need to be introduced for honey.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) Given the lack of representative and comparable data at European level on bee colony losses, I believe that these losses need to be quantified and an appropriate monitoring system established which is common to all Member States. The European Commission and Member States must redouble their efforts to help the bees and beekeepers survive, as the health of bee colonies is affected by numerous lethal factors, and veterinary research and practice play a lesser role in the effective prevention or control of the diseases affecting them. Furthermore, I think that it is important to set up surveillance systems at national level and harmonised standards at European Union level for collecting data on bee health, so that informed and independent scientific scrutiny can be carried out. I also think that independent research needs to be conducted promptly into bee mortality.

  Marielle De Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Increased mortality among honeybees must be taken seriously. Honeybees play a fundamental role in ensuring environmental balance and food production in Europe. Indeed, roughly three quarters of European food production depends on honeybee pollination. Furthermore, the beekeeping sector provides income for 600 000 European citizens. That is why the European Union needs to do more to protect this near-threatened species. That is why we want to set up national surveillance systems and to develop harmonised standards at EU level to improve the collection of data on the health of honeybees. The Member States must also share the results of their research in this area. Most importantly of all, however, farmers must be made aware of the use of ‘bee friendly’ pesticides.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The gravity of the situation facing Europe’s beekeeping sector and the need to support it through concrete measures are the reasons why I voted in favour of the alternative proposal by the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance. I supported that proposal for a number of reasons: 1) it calls on the Commission to increase the level of support for research on honeybee health under the next financial framework and to focus research on disease prevention and control in particular; 2) it seeks to promote the setting up of appropriate national surveillance systems in close cooperation with beekeepers’ associations and to develop standards at EU level to allow comparison; 3) it calls for a timetable to be established, leading, in the long term, to the definitive withdrawal from the market of neurotoxic pesticides; 4) it invites the Commission to improve risk assessment methodology for pesticides and strongly supports prudent EU legislation as regards genetically modified organisms (GMOs), calling for a moratorium on the cultivation of GM crops until independent studies show that there are no negative effects on honeybees’ health. Indeed, the other proposals carefully avoided this issue.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this report because beekeeping is a vitally important economic and social activity which plays a crucial role in the sustainable development of Europe’s rural areas, by creating jobs and providing an important ecosystem service via pollination. At the same time, it helps improve biodiversity by maintaining the genetic diversity of plants, while bee colonies provide important environmental assets and food security.

I think that it is important for us to adopt urgent measures to protect bee health, taking into account the specific features of beekeeping, the diversity of actors involved and the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity. I supported the Commission’s pilot surveillance programme on bee health and I also support the setting up of a European network of reference apiaries to monitor bee health in relation to environmental conditions and agricultural and beekeeping practices. Last but not least, I agree that under the new common agricultural policy from 2013, the EU should give targeted support to young beekeepers in order to offset the unfavourable age structure of the beekeeping sector.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the report on honeybee health and the challenges of the beekeeping sector because it tables proposals to increase the funding available for the beekeeping sector, to support research and development into new veterinary medicines specifically for diseases amongst bees, and to promote the implementation of legislation on pesticides. It is important to stress that beekeeping is a crucial sector for society, given its contribution to biodiversity, to the sustainability of agriculture and to food security.

  Göran Färm, Anna Hedh, Olle Ludvigsson, Marita Ulvskog and Åsa Westlund (S&D), in writing. – (SV) We voted for the alternative resolution, as we believe that the acute situation requires effective measures, based on the precautionary principle, in order to get to grips with bee mortality in Europe. We need to limit the use of pesticides that have a negative impact on bee health and focus more on research with regard to both pesticides and GMOs.

However, we are opposed to an increase in funds for the common agricultural policy after 2013.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Beekeeping is a very old means for humans to gather food and has extremely long traditions on the European continent. There is a clear need to protect this sector and undertake studies intended to ensure the good health of bees, which face growing threats. Despite this sector’s most immediate relationship with honey production, the impact of bees’ activity is felt far more widely: the majority of plants are dependent on them as an intermediary in pollination. Therefore, as we know, bees are an essential element in the preservation of ecosystems; they should merit special attention from veterinary authorities and should be considered in the context of European agricultural policy.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The majority of citizens of the European Union are not aware of the role that bees play in the preservation of ecosystems and, consequently, in the survival of the human race. Albert Einstein said that ‘If the bee disappeared off the surface of the globe, then man would only have four years of life left’.

This report, by Mr Tabajdi, concerns the problems faced by the beekeeping sector, not least regarding bee health and the challenges faced by the sector. As well as a source of income for over 600 000 Europeans, beekeeping, which is an integral part of European agriculture, not only contributes to the preservation of biodiversity, but is also vital to agricultural activity because of pollination. Unfortunately, this sector has been weakened by the lack of support from the pharmaceutical industry. Moreover, the plant health products lobby is against removing active substances harmful to bees from its products.

I therefore welcome the adoption of this report, and hope these measures will be quickly adopted by all the Member States and implemented by farmers and, in particular, by beekeepers.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report tackles a problem for which no coherent solution has been found to date, and whose persistence constitutes a cause for serious concern: the general and continuous weakening of colonies of bees, and the decline of populations of natural pollinators. While it is true that some of the individual proposals included in the report could be important, especially in the short term, we do not believe its approach and underlying philosophy to be the most suitable. In particular, the report does not touch on the fundamental issue, which cannot be separated from this problem, which concerns the need to change current productive models and the policies – like the common agricultural policy – that support them.

That is why we voted for the alternative resolution which, unfortunately, did not end up being adopted. This resolution makes an important criticism of intensive farming models based on high incorporation of pesticides, and proposes alternative modes of production that are sustainable, and that respect and promote biodiversity, with specific proposals on how to achieve these. Nevertheless, it is not free of contradictions, particularly as regards genetically modified organisms and the clear reversal of the precautionary principle, since the moratorium on cultivation should be before the studies rather than after, as is wrongly being advocated.

  Carlo Fidanza (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Agricultural heritage is the foundation of European history and culture and the apiculture sector is an integral part of national traditions and a source of income for almost 600 000 European Union citizens. Bees provide an extremely important service for the ecosystem through pollination, which conserves the biodiversity and genetic diversity of plants, maintaining ecological balance. For all these reasons, I welcome the research proposals set out in the text, which aim to preserve the biodiversity of bees by means of effective and safe usage of veterinary products. To guarantee consumer safety, Parliament must also appeal for further care on aspects relating to production, food safety and protecting honey origins, bringing in a suitable monitoring system that will also safeguard the consumer and good producers.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report calls for increased support for research and development into veterinary medicines to combat the pathogenic agents currently affecting bees in the EU, especially the Varroa destructor mite. However, the report includes a number of contradictions. On the one hand, it states that the Commission should set out more flexible rules on authorising and making available veterinary products for bees, including medicines of natural origin and others that do not damage the health of insects. However, on the other, the report stresses the need to offer the pharmaceutical industry incentives to develop new medicines intended to combat diseases amongst bees.

Nevertheless, we agree when the report urges that more financial resources be made available for beekeeping, and that support for the beekeeping sector under the post-2013 common agricultural policy be stepped up, whilst ensuring that the existing programmes are continued and strengthened. The call for a security network or common insurance system for apiculture is also positive, in order to mitigate the impact of crisis situations on beekeepers, as is the call for support for training programmes for beekeepers on disease prevention and control.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The beekeeping sector provides primary or additional income for more than 600 000 citizens of the European Union, and is an integral part of European agriculture. It provides important ecosystem services via pollination. It is also part of the European agricultural heritage and of national traditions. Beekeeping is unique compared with other animal husbandry sectors as it involves the breeding of insects, semi-wild animals which cannot be domesticated or directly controlled like other species.

The Member States of the EU and other parts of the world have recently seen an increase in bee mortality, and a decrease in the number of bee colonies and the pollinator species that contribute to agricultural productivity. Changing climatic and environmental conditions, loss of plant biodiversity, land use change and mismanaged beekeeping practices may weaken colonies’ immune systems.

I therefore believe it is necessary to monitor the effect of environmental conditions, beekeeping practices and agricultural practices on bee health. Continuing support for scientific research in the area of honeybee health is also extremely important. Last but not least, it is equally important to achieve progress and strengthen relationships between beekeepers and beekeeping organisations in the individual Member States, since beekeepers themselves are striving to improve the health and living conditions of their bees.

  Elisabetta Gardini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) If we do not take effective action to contain recent bee mortality, this phenomenon could have an irreversible impact on our food production and on environmental stability in Europe. The wellbeing of bees is beneficial for the entire ecosystem. I will quote two simple statistics: around 84% of plant species and 76% of food production in Europe are dependent on pollination. That is what we were looking to protect in today’s vote. It is important for new, more flexible rules to be drawn up to facilitate the distribution of suitable veterinary products and increasingly effective vaccine research. Furthermore, I think all the Member States will have to bring in monitoring systems on imports of animals from third countries so as to avoid exotic illnesses or parasites entering the EU. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that beekeeping provides a source of income for around 600 000 European citizens. I hope, therefore, that Europe will do more to support this key sector, not only economically, but also in environmental terms.

  Françoise Grossetête (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I chose to support the report as it seems to me essential to highlight the role played by honeybees in our agriculture and our environment and to support beekeepers, who are currently facing difficult challenges.

Indeed, beekeeping plays a crucial role in rural areas and provides an important service to the ecosystem through pollination, which helps maintain biodiversity. It is currently estimated that 84% of the plant species and 76% of food production in Europe are dependent on pollination by bees, the economic value of which is estimated at EUR 15 billion per year in the EU.

A significant decrease in their number has been reported in recent years. They are threatened by new diseases, parasitic mites, the lack of pollen, possible phytosanitary interactions, with serious consequences for the food chain.

We must help our beekeepers to protect their hives. To gain a better understanding of these phenomena, we need better information together with pan-European surveillance. We must facilitate the development of new veterinary medicines specifically dedicated to them.

I tabled a number of amendments in order to highlight these points, and I am happy to note that we have been heard.

  Marian Harkin (ALDE), in writing. – I welcome the report, in particular, the call on the Commission to increase the level of support for honeybee health-related research under the next financial framework. The report also clearly states that the impact of increased mortality among honeybees and wild pollinators on agriculture, food production and biodiversity would be extremely negative if left unchecked.

I support the call to Member States to consider making beekeeping and bee health part of agricultural training. There is a real need for consultation with beekeepers by European and national authorities before any apiculture programmes are drawn up and, in particular, before any legislative proposals are put in place. Finally, given the systemic importance of apiculture to European farming, I fully support the call on the Commission to provide significantly more financial resources to this sector.

  Jim Higgins (PPE), in writing. – The issue of honeybee health is one which is also crucial to the human race, and is something we must continue to keep on the political agenda.

  Brice Hortefeux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The health of honeybees, while appearing to be a somewhat singular concern, does, in fact, have a significant impact on our environment, the preservation of the food chain and the economy. That is why I wanted to offer my support for this initiative, which raises the awareness of European players and citizens of what is indeed a specific problem, but one with far-reaching consequences.

It is estimated that 84% of the plant species and 76% of food production in Europe are dependent on pollination by bees. The economic value of honey is estimated at EUR 15 billion per year.

Increased mortality among honeybees is therefore a serious threat to the stability of the food chain and to an entire economy that earns its living from the production of honey-based products. That is why the Tabajdi report recommends a comprehensive analysis of the honeybee population, the beekeeping sector and colony losses in the EU. It also calls for more account to be taken of this problem in agricultural and research policies and in veterinary legislation.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) The beekeeping sector is an integral part of European agriculture. Apiculture also provides an important ecosystem service via pollination, which contributes to the improvement of biodiversity by maintaining the genetic diversity of plants and the ecological balance. The exact reasons for the recent increases in bee mortality are still unclear. There are several obstacles stalling the development of novel bee health products. The market for such products is relatively small compared to the other livestock sectors, and the return on investments is low. Therefore, producers of veterinary products are not interested in the development of new bee health medicines. I agree that one of the main barriers to effective action against excessive bee mortality is the lack of reliable and comparable data on the number of hives, beekeepers and colony losses in the EU. There is a strong need to apply an effective harmonised surveillance system to estimate the extent and cause of bee mortality. While a harmonised surveillance system is necessary at European level, Member States also have to take action to mitigate the risks affecting bee health. Research has to be harmonised and the scientific results have to be shared at European level in order to avoid duplication of efforts. National authorities in the Member States have to support the dissemination of appropriate scientific and technical knowledge about bee health among beekeepers. A permanent and structured dialogue is needed between beekeepers, farmers and the relevant authorities.

  Peter Jahr (PPE), in writing. – (DE) It will not be possible for us to maintain our successful agriculture industry in future without an adequate bee population. Bees are very important insects, because without them, we would have no pollination and, therefore, no food production. For this reason, the constant decline in the number of bee colonies over recent years must be seen as a clear alarm signal. Bees are important for us and for our ecosystems. Therefore, we must take responsibility for protecting the bee population. We urgently need to carry out research into the reasons behind bee mortality so that we can take appropriate countermeasures. In addition, we must also provide support for beekeepers and encourage young people to enter the profession in future.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) This is a very important report. We underestimate the role played by bees in our agriculture and our environment. Through pollination, apiculture helps to maintain biodiversity. It was with this in mind that I supported this report.

  Sandra Kalniete (PPE), in writing. – (LV) I supported the present resolution because I believe that we underestimate the problems existing in beekeeping. It is alarming that in recent years, bee colonies have been dying out in Europe. This not only causes economic losses, but also endangers the ecological system. The beekeeping sector is an integral part of European agriculture, which provides employment and income to a significant number of people. If we do not seriously address the problems of the beekeeping sector now in order to resolve them, we shall later have to invest ten times more resources to resolve these problems. I should like to assure you that the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development of the European Parliament will make every effort to provide the necessary support to farmers. Some people may not understand our position in respect to beekeeping issues, but bees play a very important role in agricultural crop pollination. Should the number of bees decrease, a decline in other cultivated agricultural products will also set in, which is something we cannot permit. I should like to thank the author of the report for his work, and I believe that today we have voted for a balanced report.

  Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE), in writing. – (DE) Beekeeping is a permanent feature of European agriculture and is of major environmental and economic importance. However, the beekeeping sector is faced with large-scale bee mortality. The EU must now take decisive action to combat bee mortality and must carry out research into its causes. Bees play a hugely important role in pollination and bee mortality represents a potential economic threat which will affect the entire food chain. The report sets priorities for research into bee diseases and measures to overcome them. Above all, I support the call for the use of more funding from the future EU Research Framework Programme to investigate the causes of bee mortality.

  Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE), in writing. – (PL) Recently, a rise in bee mortality has been recorded around the world, and this threatens the stability of the environment and the production of food. The institutions of the EU and the governments of the Member States are talking about the problem with increasing openness and are also moving to increase spending on protection of the honeybee species. Statistical data show, for example, that in Germany, there are only 720 000 honeybees, and there should be 5 million, and the situation is similar in Italy. There is no doubt that the beekeeping sector needs greater support, because the problem is a supranational one. I think there is a need to establish a special programme to help beekeepers as part of a direct system of assistance, and for reasons including this, I endorsed the Tabajdi report on honeybee health and the challenges of the beekeeping sector.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – The exact reasons of the recent increases in bee mortality are still unclear. There are several obstacles stalling the development of novel bee health products. The market in such products is relatively small compared to the other livestock sectors, and the return on investments is low. Therefore, producers of veterinary products are not interested in the development of new bee health medicines. Moreover, the current regulation of the MRL system does not ensure the proper protection of intellectual property rights, discouraging innovative producers from development. The Commission should deal with this problem in a balanced new regulation. Besides developing new medicines, prevention measures should be further examined and bee breeding programmes and gene conservation concentrating on disease and pest tolerance should be supported on a national level.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report on honeybee health and the challenges facing the beekeeping sector to combat the increasing mortality of bees and to coordinate actions to protect a species that will soon be under threat. The beekeeping sector is an integral part of European agriculture and, via pollination, provides important environmental, economic and social public goods, thus ensuring food security and maintaining biodiversity. It is estimated that 84% of plant species and 76% of food production in Europe are dependent on pollination by bees. A decrease in the number of bee colonies has been reported in both the EU and other parts of the world. That is why we are calling on the European Commission to take a number of measures in different areas such as research, veterinary products or the common agricultural policy (CAP) after 2013 in order to combat this phenomenon. This also requires remedying the lack of reliable and comparable data concerning the number of hives, beekeepers and honeybee colony losses in the EU.

  Marisa Matias (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) In Europe, 84% of plant species and 76% of food production depend on pollination from bees. The report acknowledges that pesticides and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) negatively affect these populations. It blames monoculture for the disappearance of melliferous flora. However, it calls for more monitoring and studies of the effects of pesticides and monoculture, but retains the paradigm of intensive, industrialised agriculture. It limits itself to calling for training on the use of plant health products that benefit bees.

The issue of GMOs is the most serious. The report calls for scientific research into their effects, but does not call for a ban as would have been hoped under the precautionary principle in force in the EU.

The report calls for incentives for the pharmaceutical industry. I disagree: there is a need to help producers adopt new modes of production and help combat the identified causes, but not to create a new pharmaceutical business to ensure the perpetuation of new practices and the creation of new risks.

I welcome the ban on importing exotic species of the genus Bombus sp., the harmonisation of labelling and the increased traceability of honey.

I consider it essential that Parliament identify the causes of the problems and this report does so. Nevertheless, it takes steps that are too small to resolve these causes, so I abstained.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The significant drop in the number of honeybee colonies should not be overlooked, as pollinating species contribute to the productivity of the agricultural sector. The report therefore rightly asks the Commission to increase the level of support for research on the health of bees within the next financial framework. I voted in favour.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. – The beekeeping industry provides income for more than 600 000 European Union citizens and its economic value in the EU is estimated to be worth €15 billion annually. The industry offers vital services for agriculture through pollination and contributes to the maintenance of biodiversity and it is, therefore, important that sustainable agricultural practices should be at the heart of the reformed common agricultural policy. I welcome the calls in this report for a harmonised surveillance system of the beekeeping sector across the Member States and the calls by the Commission to include bee health in the EU Veterinary Policy under the ‘Animal Health Law’ to be introduced in early 2012. I voted in favour of this report.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The mortality of bees is a serious problem that should be combated, since, if not, it will have a ‘a profound negative impact on agriculture, food production and security’. There is therefore a need for the Commission to step up support for research into preventing and controlling diseases that kill bees, and to allocate increased resources to beekeeping in the post-2013 common agricultural policy.

It is crucial to increase support for research and development into veterinary medicines to combat the pathogenic agents currently affecting bees in the EU, especially the Varroa destructor mite. Around 76% of food production in the EU depends on pollination from bees. With this statistic, we can evaluate the gravity of the problem for agriculture, for food production and security, for biodiversity, for environmental sustainability and for ecosystems. More flexible rules should be set out on authorising and making available veterinary products for bees, including medicines of natural origin and others that do not damage the health of insects.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The report drafted by Mr Tabajdi highlights the importance of supporting the beekeeping sector. Beekeeping plays a crucial role in the sustainable development of rural areas and provides income, directly or indirectly, for over 600 000 citizens. The report emphasises the need to stem the worrying trend of increasing bee mortality and the declining number of beekeepers in Europe, all of which could have a serious impact on food production. An estimated 84% of plant species and 76% of food production in Europe depend on pollination by bees. I completely support my colleague and voted in favour.

  Claudio Morganti (EFD), in writing. – (IT) Perhaps not everyone is aware of the enormous importance of beekeeping throughout Europe. Indeed, it has been estimated that over 600 000 people have jobs within this sector, which also has repercussions on European agricultural production as a whole in that 84% of plant species and 76% of food production in Europe depend on bee pollination.

Unfortunately, in recent years, bees have been subjected to a worrying plague whose causes have still not been properly identified. This report proposes some useful measures, such as the allocation of funds for a joint European commitment which seeks to resolve this very serious problem. Rigorous and coordinated monitoring of the health and condition of bees can, furthermore, be a useful way to evaluate and prevent risks. I have therefore decided to support this report as I am convinced that it can lead to the necessary steps being taken in order to help this sector that is currently in difficulty.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) Since time immemorial, people in my country have held bees in high regard because of their diligence. The quality of more than three quarters of Europe’s food is dependent on the work carried out by bees. Unfortunately, in an industrial society and agriculture based on chemical fertilisers, bee health is at particular risk, and modern science is not yet able to fight the dangers which pesticides and other chemicals pose to bees. The document we have adopted today considers in great detail the threats to the beekeeping sector and proposes means of combating them. Intensifying research, reviewing animal health requirements and proper attention to the beekeeping sector when considering reform of the CAP are the measures that are needed to preserve the beekeeping sector at its current level and prevent new problems in the food chain.

  Mariya Nedelcheva (PPE), in writing. – (BG) The situation in the EU’s beekeeping sector is worrying. Bee mortality is having adverse consequences for biodiversity, agriculture and the development of rural regions. It is time for us to take measures to protect bee health and to encourage and support beekeepers.

First and foremost, we need to tackle increased bee mortality. There is a declining trend in pollinator species. If we allow this trend to grow, we are at risk some day of agricultural producers in the EU being forced, like those in other parts of the world, to resort to human-assisted pollination. This would push up their costs, which is the last thing we want.

It is now time for us to urge special support for beekeepers via direct payments. The CAP is undergoing reform. What I want is for this support to be included as part of the thinking behind the new CAP, which will be greener. The Commission must consider the option of creating a special scheme to support beekeepers via the direct payments scheme. We should stimulate beekeeping in the EU by creating a bee colony payments scheme. We should attract young people to the beekeeping sector. Last but not least, we should reward beekeepers for their contribution to preserving biodiversity and agricultural productivity.

  Katarína Neveďalová (S&D), in writing. – I consider important, especially in times of crisis, that we send a clear message: that Europe is ready to support with concrete measures the sectors in crisis and that none will be left behind. There is a key link in this report between the need to preserve a quality driven agriculture and the fundamental challenge to preserve the biodiversity, and this should also be, in my view, the strong link behind the reform of the common agricultural policy. I am really glad to see that in the text, this link is present and that there is a constructive attitude to bring some constructive input also on that discussion that we are going soon to start. I would like to close by reminding the necessity to invest in a quality and sustainable agricultural system that could stand the competition with other regional markets and relaunch the consumption of 0km products. For this, I would like to welcome the proposal to boost also in the apiculture sector the EU origin labelling schemes that could recognise the work done by the beekeepers that want to invest in quality and biological productions.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Considering that the beekeeping sector is an integral part of European agriculture as it provides primary or additional income for over 600 000 citizens of the European Union, that it offers vital services for agriculture through pollination, and that it contributes to the maintenance of biodiversity, the recent increase in bee mortality deserves attention. Although the precise reasons for their mortality still remain unclear, one should take into account that one of the main barriers to effective action against excessive bee mortality is the lack of reliable and comparable data on the number of hives, beekeepers and colony losses in the EU. Given the need to apply an effective and harmonised surveillance system in Europe in order to estimate the extent of bee mortality and to develop more accurate knowledge on the extent and causes of the losses, I am expressing my vote in favour, with additional consideration for the possibility of developing new medicines.

  Rovana Plumb (S&D), in writing. – Beekeeping plays a crucial role in the sustainable development of rural areas and provides income, directly or indirectly, for over 600 000 citizens. The report emphasises the need to reverse the worrying trend of increasing bee mortality and the decline in the number of beekeepers in Europe, which could have a serious impact on food production. An estimated 84% of plant species and 76% of food production in Europe depend on pollination by bees. Therefore, it needs: to increase the level of support for honeybee health-related research on disease prevention and control, particularly the impact of environmental factors on the bee colony immune system; continuous research and development of veterinary medical products for current EU honeybee disease-causing agents; more coordinated action at EU level with a network of national surveillance systems and harmonised standards for data collection; more flexible rules for the authorisation and availability of veterinary products for honeybees; to encourage a greater degree of information-sharing among Member States, beekeepers, farmers, industry and scientists on ecotoxicological factors affecting honeybee health; adequate training for beekeepers on disease prevention, as well as for farmers on safe use of plant protection products; to boost financial aid for apiculture under the new CAP after 2013

  Pavel Poc (S&D), in writing. – (CS) As the shadow rapporteur in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, I decided to support the alternative resolution in respect of the report on honeybee health, and I did so for the following reasons: first, the alternative resolution includes an objective analysis of pesticide toxicity in relation to systemic neurotoxins in particular, criticises the lack of impact studies and complies with the precautionary principle. Secondly, it is not clear from the report submitted to the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development what dangers are posed by the use of neurotoxic pesticides, particularly those from the group of neonicotinoids, which act as hormonal and digestive disruptors. Scientific studies confirm the danger not only of nicotinoids, but also of the entire plants that contain these substances. Mere contact with the guttation dew from plants treated with neonicotinoids may have fatal consequences for bees. Thirdly, significant concentrations of the following active substances were measured: 47 mg/l for imidacloprid, 23.3 mg/l for clothianidin and 11.9 ml/l for thiamethoxam. In other experiments, however, far higher values were measured. Bees coming into contact with such poisonous dew stop flying within a few minutes and can only walk, or quickly die. The symptoms are irreversible. It was discovered that clothianidin and thiamethoxam are more toxic than imidacloprid, even in very low concentrations in guttation droplets. Neonicotinoids are banned in some Member States, and this ban should be extended to the entire EU.

  Phil Prendergast (S&D), in writing. – Given the importance of honeybees for the maintenance of biodiversity, the implications of Colony Collapse Disorder are significant, and we must act now to prevent this. Farming activity can have an impact on bee colonies, especially if it leads to food shortages for bees, poor food resources or to inappropriate pesticide applications. These can contribute to the weakening of bee colonies which may then become more vulnerable to pests and diseases. We should also ensure that there is well coordinated communication between beekeepers and farmers to minimise the potential impact of farming activity on bees. We must have more harmonised data on disease incidence and colony losses throughout Europe, not just among domesticated honeybees, but also among wild bee colonies. Local apiculture organisations, like the Federation of Irish Beekeeping Associations in Ireland, can have a role to play in relation to the collection of harmonised data and must be involved in whatever actions we decide to take. Beekeepers themselves are primarily responsible for the health of their bees and we must look at providing quality training programmes in order to develop and maintain a healthy bee population in the EU.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) As the rapporteur says, the European apiculture sector is part of European cultural heritage and the national traditions of some Member States. In this context, the Portuguese case stands out because Portugal is part of the group of professional beekeeping Member States. Although the economic scale of this sector is significant, with around 600 000 Europeans directly or indirectly dependent on it, it should be said that this is not the only important issue: it is also about the environmental effects, since bees play a central role in the ecological balance. There is therefore justification for a holistic approach suitable for confronting the sector’s problems: the recent increases in bee mortality, the presence of toxic agents that have been damaging the health of hives, and the increasing average age of beekeepers, which are jeopardising the subsistence of the sector. I voted in favour because I share these concerns.

  Frédérique Ries (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) As a signatory to the alternative resolution to Mr Tabajdi’s report on honeybee health and the challenges of the beekeeping sector, I can only deplore the vote cast at noon today by the European Parliament. A vote that gives priority to the interests of fertiliser and pesticide producers to the detriment of honeybee colonies that are disappearing from many regions in Europe. The European Parliament, however, has a pressing duty to provide better protection for honeybees and other pollinator species that are so important to the planet and biodiversity. Indeed, the explanatory statement says it all: ‘84% of the plant species and 76% of food production in Europe are dependent on pollination by bees, the economic value of which is much greater than the value of the honey produced and is estimated at EUR 15 billion per year in the EU’.

This is why I am still hopeful that a true plan for European support will be adopted, opening up a real future for the beekeeping industry. To do so, it is essential to ban the most toxic neonicotinoid pesticides and to propose a new agricultural model based on crop rotation and the measured use of pesticides.

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) In today’s part-session, Mr Tabajdi’s report was put to the vote. The beekeeping sector provides important services to the ecosystem through pollination.

One of the main obstacles for effective action against excessive bee mortality is the lack of trustworthy and comparable data regarding the number of hives, beekeepers and losses of colonies in the EU. It is important that the Commission propose an exhaustive directive on animal health in early 2012, which aims to replace the current basic veterinary legislation, and which includes the health of honeybees within the framework of European veterinary policy.

Furthermore, the rules for authorising veterinary products for honeybees and making them available should become more flexible, and pharmaceutical companies should be given incentives for the development of new products to combat the Varroa destructor mite, the main pathogenic agent responsible for around 10% of annual losses.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – Abstention. The Committee on the Environment was also useful as we took up many aspects they had voted through in their opinion but the Committee on Agriculture had rejected in its vote. The Committee on Agriculture had also stripped many references and after the Committee on Agriculture vote, there were many aspects not included in the report with sufficient rigour, such as: an objective critique of pesticide toxicity, in particular, the banning of systemic neurotoxins (such as neonicotinoids and phenylpyrazoles and pyrethrinoids) on the basis of a lack of a proper risk assessment, in line with the precautionary principle; the implications to the beekeeping sector of GMO contamination of honey and beekeeping products, as well as consequent costs of testing for contaminants and loss of income for beekeepers; the interaction of agriculture and beekeeping, a critique of monocultures, and the idea that wide-scale changes are needed in agriculture, including crop rotation to reduce (the need for) pesticide use, in order to reverse the sharp decline of pollinator populations. We need sustainable agriculture everywhere, and buffer strips and wildflower/melliferous beds are not enough on their own.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I have voted in favour of this text because the increase in the mortality of bees could have a very serious impact on food production in Europe and on the stability of the environment, given that the majority of plants are pollinated by these insects.

The European Union must increase its investments in research into new medicines, coordinating their efforts to protect bees which are fast becoming a species in danger of extinction. The European States should bring together their various threads of research on disease prevention, sharing their discoveries with laboratories, beekeepers, farmers and industries, in order to avoid overlaps and unnecessary wastage.

More than anything, the presence of toxic agents in the environment, such as pesticides, is causing a veritable massacre of these insects. For this reason, it is also necessary to intervene by supporting special training programmes aimed at farmers in order to make them aware of the effects of these products and of the possibility of using alternative methods which have a lower impact on the environment.

  Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) In most cases, beekeeping plays a marginal role when referring to agriculture in the European Union. However, this sector provides primary or additional income for more than 600 000 citizens in the European Union. It offers vital services for agriculture through pollination and helps maintain biodiversity. It is estimated that 84% of plant species and 76% of food production in Europe are dependent on pollination by bees, the economic value of which is much greater than the value of the honey produced, estimated at EUR 15 billion per year in the EU.

Unfortunately, during the last decade, apiaries have faced an increased mortality rate due to both the use of pesticides and specific diseases.

I voted for this report on bee health and beekeeping drafted by Mr Tabajdi because I believe that it has taken into account all the problems facing beekeeping in Europe.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) Almost 85% of plant species and over 75% of our food production is dependent on pollination by bees. The beekeeping sector is also an integral part of our agriculture because apian products are very important and exceptional agricultural products, not only as food, but for the production of medicines and other purposes. The beekeeping sector is, directly and indirectly, an important employer and a source of income for over 600 000 beekeepers in Europe. We are seeing an increased mortality among honeybees, which is threatening food production and environmental stability. However, there is a lack of fully representative comparative data on honeybee colony losses. There is a need to standardise national counting systems. To determine the cause of bee mortality, research in this field should be increased and made more specific, and joint programmes at European level should be undertaken. There is no unambiguous knowledge of the extent to which plant protection products or diseases and pests are the cause of bee mortality. One thing is certain, namely, that training of farmers in good practice in the use of plant protection products that are not harmful to bees should be supported. I want to point out that there is a lack of suitable research on the possible adverse effects of GM crops on the health of bees. Let us remember that agriculture cannot exist without bees, and bees cannot exist without agriculture. We need agriculture which is sustainable and produces food products of sufficient quantity and quality.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The number of pollinating insects has fallen drastically in Europe over recent years. The European Food Safety Authority’s scientific report on bee mortality and bee surveillance in Europe ends by highlighting the general weakness of most surveillance systems and a lack of representative national data – and comparable European data – on colony loss.

This can also be traced back to the general lack of standardisation and harmonisation that was observed in regard to monitoring systems, analysis of case studies and information gathering, which I think is essential if we want to combat the serious and widespread situation of bee mortality.

I would like to underline that there are several reasons behind the drop in honeybee numbers in Europe and that we know little of the causes or the risk factors. There is no doubt that it all depends on the way that the beekeeping is carried out, which can bring about stresses in the colonies, on biological agents such as viruses, on environmental factors such as qualitative and quantitative biodiversity loss, on climate change, on genetically modified organisms, electromagnetic radiation, and other factors such as a drop in the number of queen bees and immunosuppression. We cannot, therefore, focus our attention solely on pesticides, as is often the case.

  Peter Skinner (S&D), in writing. – I have voted today for the Tabajdi report, which provides a comprehensive package to support honeybees in Europe, and I would like to thank Mr Tabajdi for all his hard work on this. However, I have also been active in highlighting the plight of Europe’s honeybees and the harmful effects posed to them by neonicotinoids, and there has been strong support for this issue among my constituents in the South-East of England. Earlier this year, over a hundred members of this House signed a written declaration calling for their use to be banned until more conclusive research becomes available.

I note that this call was also in the rapporteur’s original text for this report and, like him, I was very disappointed that it was not in the final text. Therefore, in keeping with the essence of the written declaration, I supported the alternative motion put forward today, as it called for an EU ban on neonicotinoids. I congratulate the rapporteur again on his hard work and hope that, after the passage of this report, the Commission will consider implementing an EU ban, along with the measures called for here today.

  László Surján (PPE), in writing. – (HU) Today, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on honeybees which I, too, supported. The current honeybee losses, for which even the reasons are not entirely clear yet, are endangering the entire agricultural sector. The EP believes that more funds should be allocated to investigating the phenomenon, because without knowing the reasons, we have no way of stopping the process. A mere 10 million euro are currently allocated to the problem, which needs to be multiplied as we do not even know whether this is a transmittable disease or the result of environmental damage. However, this is not the only problem confronting honey supply. Low-quality, sometimes counterfeit, honey is flooding the market. Precise designations of origin and solid quality management are needed to ensure that beekeeping remains a profitable sector and to allow this healthy foodstuff to be widely available to European citizens. To this end, we must also find a solution for providing targeted support to the approximately 700 000 beekeepers of Europe.

  Alf Svensson (PPE), in writing. – (SV) The excessive mortality of Europe’s bees is very serious, not only in terms of declining honey production, but, first and foremost, on account of the vital role that bees play as pollinators of plants, many of which are food for us. The health of bees needs to be included in the EU’s general animal health policy. Research is needed in order to produce medicines tailored to bees, and veterinary surgeons need to be trained in this field.

In today’s vote on the report on honeybee health and the challenges of the beekeeping sector, I voted in favour, despite the fact that the text contains a few points that are not in line with my views on agricultural policy, and which also go beyond the scope of this particular report. The main point of the report – to work to reduce the excessive mortality in honeybees in Europe – is very important to emphasise.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Parliament’s Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development is proposing a series of measures to confront the challenges that have been emerging for the apiculture sector in recent years, and which have been contributing to a decline in products derived from the activity of bees. This document calls for more studies to be undertaken to understand the factors that have been leading to the disappearance of a high number of bees, whose activity is an integral part of European agriculture and contributes to the balance of ecosystems and biodiversity.

  Dominique Vlasto (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Honeybees are responsible for a decisive and necessary stage in the reproduction of plant species: pollination. By transferring pollen from one plant to another, they guarantee the sustainability and biodiversity of our crops, and therefore our food security. The misuse of pesticides, climate change, monoculture farming and parasitism have caused bee colonies to collapse. Their disappearance is endangering our agriculture. The survival of the vast majority of plant species and of our food production, but also the incomes of 600 000 people in Europe, amateurs and professionals, are at stake. What is more, because of the specific nature of this form of rearing, training for beekeepers does not exist; nor does awareness raising for farmers, or a specialised veterinary industry. Today, an emergency has been finally declared. It is important to protect this beekeeping industry as soon as possible through the following: by encouraging young people to become beekeepers, by supporting the research of the pharmaceutical industry in this field, by establishing a permanent dialogue between the different actors, and by creating a harmonised European registration network. The preservation of biodiversity, the quality of our food and the survival of the beekeeping industry will depend on our willingness to act.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) The beekeeping sector in the EU provides an income for around 600 000 people. A total of 76% of food production is dependent on pollination by bees and the annual economic value of this sector is approximately EUR 15 billion. This sector is currently faced with the challenge of very high levels of bee mortality. We need to identify the causes of this very quickly and with certainty. (A study carried out by the European Food Safety Authority in 2009 shows, for example, that genetically modified organisms represent a major stress factor for bees). The main concern of the common agricultural policy should be to introduce sustainable agricultural methods and to ensure that scientific and technical knowledge is shared by national authorities and beekeeping organisations on an ongoing basis and across national boundaries.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The beekeeping sector is of incalculable importance to European agriculture. As well as offering a source of direct or indirect income for around 600 000 European citizens, the sector actually provides an extremely important agricultural service through pollination and also helps maintain biodiversity.

Unfortunately, however, in recent years, we have witnessed a constant increase in honeybee mortality, and the lack of absolute figures on the number of hives, beekeepers and colonies in the EU makes the reasons for this rather unclear. Certainly, one of the stress factors is the presence of toxic agents in the environment, such as the improper or excessive use of pesticides.

As I am voting in favour, I therefore consider it necessary to appeal to the European institutions to try and protect the European beekeeping sector more carefully, also ensuring greater benefits in terms of the labelling of apicultural products.

Report: Peter Simon (A7-0371/2011)

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. – I am in favour of this report regarding the reform of the EU State aid rules on services of general economic interest (SGEI) in response to the Commission communication on the same subject. I am in favour of this report which notes the aims of the reform proposed by the Commission in seeking to clarify the application of the rules on aid for SGEI, demanding the Commission to provide clarification of the relationship between the rules of the internal market and the provision of public services and that it ensures that the principle of subsidiarity is applied in the definition, organisation and financing of public services. Accordingly, it calls for provisions to be framed in such a way as to ensure that they can be applied correctly and that they place no unnecessary burden on the public authorities. Committee calls on the Commission to come up with special de minimis arrangements for SSGI that can be assumed to entail no substantial detriment to trade between MS; to include investment costs for infrastructure necessary to the functioning of SGEI within the costs that compensation payments may cover, while emphasising the importance that SGEI be of high quality and universally accessible.

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Services of general economic interest contribute to Member States’ economic performance and competitiveness, thereby helping prevent and overcome economic crises. The provision of these services of general economic interest can help achieve growth targets in the areas of employment, education and social integration in particular, as well as attain a high level of productivity, employment and social cohesion.

I think that in order for social services of general economic interest to be able to perform their function, they must be open to all citizens, irrespective of income or resources. In addition, they must be of high quality and clearly defined under sector-specific rules. I voted for this report because social services of general interest play an important role in guaranteeing basic rights and make a vital contribution to promoting equal opportunities.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Public services are essential for Europe’s citizens as they meet basic needs. As the European rules applicable to their funding are about to expire, it is time to reform them. That is why the European Parliament has adopted recommendations for reform in an own-initiative report addressed to the European Commission. It is, in fact, up to the European Commission, which acts as the competition authority, to reform these rules. As the rapporteur for the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) on this issue, I welcome its adoption. We wished to send a strong message to the European Commission that public services should enjoy a clear, solid legal framework. It is important for public service providers, be they local authorities or private companies, to be able to provide accessible, quality services, whilst acting in accordance with the rules. Therefore, we have declared in favour of simpler, more transparent rules. We want to see eligibility criteria for State aid better adapted to local realities. We have also confirmed our desire to take into account the specific nature of the social services recognised in the Treaty of Lisbon.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) Services of general economic interest (SGEI) have an important place in the shared values of the Union and promote fundamental rights and social, economic and territorial cohesion, and are thus crucial to the fight against inequalities in society and to sustainable development. SGEI make a significant contribution to the Member States’ economic performance and competitiveness and thus not only help to prevent and overcome economic crises but also serve the cause of general economic wellbeing. SGEI can contribute to the implementation of the goals set by the Europe 2020 strategy, particularly in the areas of employment, education and social integration, in order to achieve a high level of productivity, employment and social cohesion. I agree that the Commission must provide clarification of the relationship between the rules of the internal market and the provision of public services and ensure that the principle of subsidiarity is applied in the definition, organisation and financing of public services.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) It must be stressed that the European Commission has taken a step in the right direction by recognising the special nature of services of general economic interest (SGEIs). Nonetheless, I do regret the legal basis that was selected: by choosing to base its proposal on Article 106 (State aid) alone, the Commission is choosing to ignore the innovations of the Treaty of Lisbon and the possibility of fully including the European Parliament by using Article 14. This is regrettable. The Simon report expresses this clearly and provides food for thought: yes, we need more clarification; yes, it seems perfectly relevant and necessary to provide a degree of flexibility when applying the rules relating to State aid. In particular, we have to exempt from notification the granted compensations that do not affect trade between Member States and take into account the exclusively local nature of some public services. Finally, we must not lose sight of the objective, which is to promote services of a high quality and that are accessible to all. Let us hope that the Commission will listen to the European Parliament’s point of view when drafting the revision of the Monti-Kroes package.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because I believe that it is very important to ensure legal certainty as regards the rules governing financing for public service providers. The European Commission decision setting out State aid rules for public service providers remains in force until the end of the year, and the Commission is currently deciding whether the rules governing financing should change in the new decision that will enter into force on 1 January 2012. Indeed, the content of these rules has been debated at length in recent years, and today, the European Parliament has presented its proposals on this issue. First of all, Parliament has called on the Commission to simplify these rules so that an unnecessary administrative burden is not placed on service providers. Secondly, Parliament has called on the Commission to clarify certain aspects of the rules, which are not worded clearly enough in the decision currently in force, with the consequence that the European Court of Justice is constantly required to explain them, a fact which does not provide any legal certainty to either local authorities or public service providers. Finally, Parliament has called for an increase in service provision price values and, if these are exceeded, a requirement that the Commission be informed about the provision of State aid. I am convinced that all these efforts are very important for ultimately improving the quality and accessibility of the public services provided to citizens.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I offer my congratulations to the rapporteur for the important work he has carried out, for which I voted in favour. Services of general economic interest (SGEIs) are services that are indispensable to society which would not be provided adequately, or at all, without state intervention. State intervention, therefore, aims to offer quality services accessible to all while also promoting social, territorial and economic cohesion within the Union.

Such services, which differ greatly among themselves, are determined by central, regional and local authorities. The compensation paid by the state should be subject to EU Treaties and, in particular, to rules on competition. Therefore, it is necessary to reform the rules on State aid regarding services of general economic interest because often, the administrative burden for implementing these rules is too great for small local authorities, and it would be beneficial to consider specific and higher thresholds for the amount of compensation given for delivering social services of general interest (SSGIs). Public services should thus be accessible to all, and without discrimination. A horizontal reform of the system will surely entail the drawing up of specific and sectoral regulations for certain types of services.

  Jan Březina (PPE), in writing. – (CS) I welcome the Commission plans to reassess the rules on the provision of state support for services of general economic interest (SGEIs), with the aim of exploiting the potential of these services in terms of social solidarity, environmental sustainability and economic prosperity. They highlight the potential of the industries that are defined in Member States as SGEIs, and their importance not only for the competitiveness of Europe and its sustainable economic growth in accordance with the EU 2020 terms and targets, but also as potentially emerging, globally competitive industries, as proven, for example, by the telecoms sector. I welcome the Commission proposals to further clarify State aid procedures for the benefit of local and regional authorities. I firmly believe that undistorted competition and the transparent application of State aid rules to SGEIs are key to avoiding protectionism, to reinvigorating the single market, and to providing better public services. The way compensation for the provision of SGEIs is granted affects public finances and the efficient use of public resources. We must therefore ensure a high level of transparency through strict reporting obligations and the availability of information on all State aid allocations in connection with SGEIs.

  Cristian Silviu Buşoi (ALDE), in writing. – (RO) I voted against this report because I think that the rapporteur’s approach to State aid for services of general economic interest (SGEI) is inappropriate and contrary to the objective of a competitive internal market. At the moment, there is no single, clear definition of an SGEI and, given their diversity in Member States, it is probably very difficult, if not impossible, for us to have such a definition. I think that it is counterproductive in this area for us to harmonise rules just for the sake of harmonisation, as each Member State applies a definition according to its particular domestic situation.

Against this background, I feel that a horizontal directive on SGEI is inappropriate as we cannot draft a law without having a definition of the legislative object first. The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) very clearly sets out how the competition rules are applied to these services, obviously with the proviso that the public service objective is not jeopardised. The aim of the rapporteur’s proposals is to remove SGEI from the competition rules, especially the one referring to the exemption from notification, without setting a ceiling for State aid for hospitals, social housing and so on, or the one for raising the ceiling for the de minimis rule. There is no objective justification for these proposals and they jeopardise competition.

  Antonio Cancian (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I decided to vote in favour of Mr Simon’s report on reform of the EU State aid rules on services of general economic interest (SGEIs) because it constitutes an appropriate response to the communication from the Commission on the next revision of the SGEI State aid package.

In a context in which globalisation now prevails, I believe it is of fundamental importance to ensure a more rigid legal framework on a number of topics, such as the distinction between non-economic and economic activity or the concept of thresholds for exemption from the requirement of notification of state compensatory payments for the same SGEIs. Finally, I believe it is certainly important to recognise fully the special role of national, regional and local authorities in the management of SGEIs.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this directive, which provides for the reform of the EU State aid rules on services of general economic interest (SGEI). These services are crucial for individuals, and also play an extremely important role in the wellbeing of society as a whole.

The amendments proposed in this reform focused, above all, on clarifying the application of the rules on State aid, taking into account their enormous diversity, particularly the clarification of the relationship between the internal market and the provision of public services, ensuring that the principle of subsidiarity is applied in the definition, organisation and financing of SGEI. It has also been stressed that any legal instrument should have to ensure satisfactory legal certainty.

  Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The Simon report is based on the Commission proposal for the forthcoming review of State aid rules on services of general economic interest. These particular services are especially important for all citizens; however, without State aid, there would be no such services or they would be inadequate. One of the general objectives of the review presented in the report is to increase the contribution that services of general economic interest can make to economic recovery in Europe as a whole. Similarly, it rightly states that citizens need services of general economic interest of high quality, especially social services that moderate the social impact of the crisis. Unfortunately, however, although the report rightly recognises the importance of services of general economic interest to citizens, the guidelines it contains for their application come within the framework of the antisocial EU 2020 strategy. Thus, the application and funding of services of general economic interest are determined mostly by provisions to prevent distortions of competition and their role is clearly undermined. That is why I abstained on this particular report.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The importance of services of general economic interest (SGEI) in promoting fundamental rights and social, economic and territorial cohesion is irrefutable. They contribute to combating social inequalities and fostering sustainable development, as well as to improving the Member States’ economic performance and competitiveness. They should, without a doubt, play an important role in the EU 2020 strategy as regards the pursuit of growth targets, particularly in the areas of employment, training and social integration. In order to properly serve the public, these services should be characterised by high levels of quality, safety, and affordability, by equal treatment, and by promotion of universal access and users’ rights. Despite the measures introduced in the ‘Altmark package’ in 2005, there is still a need to make legal instruments clearer, simpler, more proportionate and more effective, so as to ensure a satisfactory minimum of legal certainty. I welcome the Commission’s plans to reform the State aid rules on SGEI, so as to increase the contribution that these services could make to relaunching the EU economy, in general, and to promoting sustainable economic growth.

  Lara Comi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I am in favour of reforming EU State aid rules on services of general economic interest (SGEIs). SGEIs have an important place in the shared values of the Union since they promote fundamental rights and social, economic and territorial cohesion. They are thus crucial to the fight against societal inequalities and to sustainable development. I think access to compensation for undertakings is essential as this represents an important economic and financial condition for the correct operation of the tasks assigned to them by public authorities, especially in these times of crisis, in which public services are playing a vital role as an automatic stabiliser. SGEIs can thus be of high quality and accessible to all sections of the population, bearing in mind the social mix and universal access. It is also important to introduce greater flexibility and transparency in the monitoring of compensation. Lastly, I would underline that State aid should help stimulate local entrepreneurship and the local economy, create jobs and promote competition in the telecoms market and elsewhere. The services provided thus make an important contribution to economic performance and competitiveness, thereby supporting the achievement of the goals set out in the Europe 2020 strategy for growth.

  Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the reform of the EU State aid rules on services of general economic interest because they are crucial to the general public and are of paramount importance to the wellbeing of society as a whole. In the EU, it is up to national, regional and local authorities to determine the services to be offered in the public interest, regarded as particularly important to all citizens, but which would not be provided, or would not be provided adequately, without state intervention. The state intervenes to ensure that all citizens have access to these services and that high-quality services are provided to all citizens at an affordable price.

In light of the crisis, the support being given for the retention of the existing exemptions without thresholds for hospitals and companies involved in building social housing is encouraging, as is the Commission’s statement that it intends to exempt other categories as well from the requirement to notify about the State aid they have received.

  Cornelis de Jong (GUE/NGL), in writing. – I voted in favour of the report but have the following observations to make:

- I oppose any innovative mechanisms which enhance financial risks such as the EU 2020 project bonds mentioned in paragraph 14;

- according to the Lisbon Treaty, the EU has no competence in the fields of culture and education (referring to paragraph 31);

- I interpret paragraph 22 as follows: any EU bilateral trade agreement should meet the highest standards and requirements, including the acceptance of the public sector provisions of SGEI and SSGI in partner countries.

  Luigi Ciriaco De Mita (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The social dimension of our communities – particularly small and medium-sized ones – is more significant than their economic weight. In this vein, I would like to underline that some essential services, such as those relating to people’s health, the environment (including the water and waste cycles) and local public transport, should be thought of as directly connected to fundamental human rights. This is because they can be defined, in political terms, as public goods and services, even if they are managed by private entities. Making them more efficient, effective and economical, while pursuing increased and higher quality standards is another thing. Moreover, denying access to many sections of the population, especially the most vulnerable and neediest, whenever we apply the rules of the market plain and simple to these sectors is something else entirely. That is why, given their special status and social relevance, in the next reform being drawn up, we must retain a precise distinction between the rules that regulate State aid for services of general economic interest and the rules that govern other forms of State aid. The adopted report partly upholds this view.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the report, since it advocates greater simplification, clarity and proportionality in the application of the EU State aid rules on services of general economic interest (SGEI). This report is in line with the need to create a more effective legal framework to support these services. The measures advocated will also help to dispel uncertainty about what should be considered legitimate grounds for SGEI or constitute an unjustified violation of the European Treaties.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Pursuant to Article 106 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the compensation awarded by the state or the public authorities to companies charged with providing services of general economic interest (SGEI) are subject to the general State aid rules. In the context of reform of the EU State aid rules, it should be ensured that the competition rules do not prevent undertakings entrusted with the operation of SGEI from being appropriately compensated, given the importance of the services provided for promoting fundamental rights; for social, economic and territorial cohesion; for combating social inequalities; and for promoting sustainable development.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The quality of life of the European public – a maxim included in all the Treaties – involves the existence of services of general economic interest (SGEI) that are fully operational. These are basic services, of which we are only aware when something goes wrong, like the refuse collection service going on strike, damage to a high-voltage line leading to a blackout, or a broken water main preventing us from taking a shower in the morning.

This report, drafted by Mr Simon, concerns reform of the EU State aid rules on SGEI. Their social role and promotion of economic and territorial cohesion are unquestionable, and they also promote the Europe 2020 strategy in the areas of employment, training and social integration. As such, we cannot expect them to be lucrative services; rather, they will benefit from State aid. Nevertheless, given the current economic and financial crisis, it is essential to improve the rules on allocation of such aid. I therefore welcome the adoption of this report establishing a new legal framework for SGEI aid, based on the principles of simplification, clear legislation and proportionality.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report undeniably includes some positive aspects, including several comments that contradict the neoliberal vision that dominates this Parliament, viewing public services as areas of business, from a mercantilist perspective. We have been advocating some of the positions expressed for some time, but they have frequently been rejected by the majority, including the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament and the other main political groups. Examples include the position that public services should be of a high quality and universal; that investment in modernising infrastructure in various areas should be stepped up; that the Commission should not use the various forms of free trade agreement – association agreements, economic partnership agreements, etc. – to impose the liberalisation of public services on third countries; that compensation payments for all services of general economic interest (SGEI) that the Member States consider to be satisfying essential social needs should be ensured; and that the existing exemption without thresholds for hospitals and social housing should be retained.

Nevertheless, the report stresses the difference between services of general interest and SGEI, with which we disagree. Many of these services are subject to competition rules, and the state’s capacity for intervention in defence of the common good and pursuit of national interests is severely limited. That is why we abstained.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) We would highlight some positive measures in this report, since, in some ways, it contradicts the neoliberal line that, unfortunately, predominates when Parliament debates public services. Positions that we advocate, but which are not always welcomed by the majority in this House, are examples of these measures, not least that public services should be of a high quality and universal; that investment in modernising infrastructure in various areas should be stepped up; that the Commission should not impose the liberalisation of public services on third countries; that compensation payments for all services of general economic interest (SGEI) that the Member States consider to be satisfying essential social needs should be ensured; and that the existing exemption without thresholds for hospitals and social housing should be retained.

Regrettably, however, it stresses the difference between services of general interest and SGEI, which, in itself, weakens the scope of the report. It is only for these that it provides for State aid as compensation awarded by the state or the public authorities to companies charged with providing SGEI, often subjecting them to competition rules. That is why we abstained.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) Services of general interest are not only crucial to individuals but are also tremendously important to the wellbeing of society as a whole. These services are relatively diverse and they have this much in common – they are services regarded by the state or state authorities as particularly important to members of the public. Provision of these services also reinforces social, economic and territorial cohesion in the EU. It bolsters the successful implementation of the Europe 2020 growth strategy, especially in the areas of employment, education and social inclusion.

Of particular significance are social services of general interest (SSGI), which have an important role in underpinning basic rights and which make a major contribution to equality of opportunity.

The effort to simplify the rules on the provision of these services can help even more in their better application. It cannot be doubted that services of general economic interest have to be of a high standard and must be available to all sectors of the population. At the same time, the special remit and character of SSGI should be protected. If these services are to fulfil their specific role in an appropriate way, all citizens of the individual Member States must have equal access to them, regardless of their income or assets.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. – (FR) I voted against the Simon report. It is, admittedly, a step in the right direction, which is that of relaxing the rules restricting public support for services of general economic interest (SGEI). However, it is not based on sound premises. The petty distinctions between services of general interest, social services of general interest, and services of general economic interest, can simply be put down to hair-splitting by the Commission to deny the very principle of public service and the absolute right of States, recognised by the Treaties, to define public services, to organise them, and to decide how such services are to be funded. It also serves, in network activities, to cream off the markets to the benefit of the private sector, to break national monopolies only to replace them with private oligopolies, to nationalise losses and to leave it to public authorities, meaning the taxpayer, to construct and maintain the networks. There are two possibilities: either the service is a public service, whether economic or otherwise, or it falls within traditional economic activity. In the first case, it is not subject to the vague and fluctuating shifts in the ultraliberal policies of the European Union. However, it must be totally excluded from the scope of competition rules and the rules governing public subsidies.

  Louis Grech (S&D), in writing. – I fully support the approach for more simplification, more clarity and more proportionality in the future revision of the State-aid package on services of general economic interest (SGEIs). Any future review of EU State aid rules on SGEIs should ensure that we are not dogmatic in our approach in order to reflect and be aligned with the present economic problems and social realities of Member States. The introduction of a more practical and pragmatic approach towards State aid rules in the sector could potentially help to contain the re-emergence of protectionist attitudes at Member State level, which act as a direct threat to the completion of the single market. That is why it is important to watch out for protectionist policies. Last but not least, I believe that a high standard of social services is essential to achieving the fundamental objectives of the European Union. Therefore, a future framework establishing a level playing field, common principles and conditions for the operation of SGEIs, while respecting the subsidiary principle between the Member States, would serve as minimum guidelines for high-quality standards, accessibility and affordability of services for the benefit of all EU citizens.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I supported Peter Simon’s report because we definitely need more simplification, clarity and proportionality when it comes to State aid for public services of general interest. Indeed, we must insist on the fact that services of general economic interest (SGEIs) have a major role to play in the EU in helping to achieve the objectives of economic, social and territorial cohesion. In particular, I supported a reference whereby, without the state intervening, these services would be lacking or would not be provided at all. That is why we are emphasising the reference to Article 14 and Protocol 26 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU and the discretionary role played by Member States in financing, organising and providing SGEIs. As far as social services are concerned, it is necessary to take their huge diversity into account, especially by means of new notification exemptions. Finally, we must demand universal access for SGEIs and reiterate our request to the European Commission for a proposal for a horizontal legal framework for SGEIs by the end of 2011.

  Mikael Gustafsson (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (SV) I abstained in the vote on the report on reform of the EU State aid rules on services of general economic interest. This report indicates the central role of the public sector in society. It is a report, which, in its core elements, runs counter to the dominant neoliberal thinking within the EU. However, there are also a number of passages in the report that I cannot support, including statements to the effect that it would be in the citizens’ interest for there to be competing private undertakings within the health care and welfare sector in society. In my view, there should not be any profit-making interest at all within this sector. The disturbing scandals that are being exposed right now in Sweden within geriatric care demonstrate this very clearly.

  Gunnar Hökmark, Anna Ibrisagic and Alf Svensson (PPE), in writing. – (SV) We Swedish Conservatives and Christian Democrats today voted in favour of an own-initiative report on reform of the EU State aid rules on services of general economic interest. We did so because the report contains clear statements to the effect that this type of aid must not distort competition or exempt these services from competition in connection with public procurement. The fact that competition and diversity can define the provision of these services, too, is crucial for ensuring quality and the cost-effective use of taxpayers’ money.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. – This report ‘asserts emphatically that public services must be of high quality and accessible to all sections of the population’. In parts of the UK, this assertion is increasingly being challenged by a right-wing unionist government intent on selling off key services, thereby pricing many people out of the market. Fortunately, the people of Scotland are shielded from many of these policies by a Scottish National Party government committed to a vibrant public sector.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed this document because services of general economic interest (SGEI) are not only crucial to individuals, but are also important for the wellbeing of society as a whole. These are services regarded by the state or state authorities as particularly important to all members of the public but which cannot be provided, or cannot be provided adequately, without state intervention. The state intervenes to ensure that all members of the public have access to these services or that they are of a high level of quality and provided for all members of the public at an affordable price. Successful implementation of the Europe 2020 growth strategy, particularly in the areas of employment, education and social integration, is furthered by the provision of these services. The legal instruments need to be clearer, more straightforward, proportionate and effective. The administrative burden involved in applying the rules is too heavy, particularly for small local authorities. The burden is often completely out of proportion with the impact of the measure. We need to achieve more clarity and ensure a more diverse and proportionate approach to the different types of SGEI. The aim of simplifying application of the State aid rules, so that the administrative burden on the public authorities concerned is proportionate to the impact of a given measure on competition in the internal market, could also improve the way that the rules are implemented. SGEI must be of high quality, and universal access to them must be promoted.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I support this resolution seeking to protect services of general economic interest from State aid rules. Services of general interest are not only crucial to individuals but are also tremendously important to the wellbeing of society as a whole. Such services are highly diverse, and national, regional and local authorities within the EU have discretion in determining what constitutes a service of general interest, i.e. which services ought to be offered in the interests of the general public. However, all such services have this much in common: they are services regarded by the state or state authorities as particularly important to all members of the public but they cannot be provided, or cannot be provided adequately, without state intervention. The state intervenes to ensure that all members of the public have access to these services and/or that they are provided for all members of the public at an affordable price and a high level of quality.

  Marisa Matias (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report because the reform advocated therein is a move towards enabling services of general economic interest (SGEI) to be subject to much clearer and simpler State aid rules. However, I believe there is much to be done in this area and that the report does not fully respond to all the needs identified. I believe that universal, high-quality SGEI cannot be achieved without public funding, so we should establish demanding and fair financing rules. As this is still a step towards a fairer society based on solidarity, I voted in favour.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Services of general economic interest play a fundamental role not only for individual citizens, but also for the wellbeing of the whole of European society. I agree with the rapporteur on the fact that services of general economic interest should be of high quality and accessible to all. I voted in favour.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Services of general interest (SGI) are not only crucial to individuals but are also tremendously important to the wellbeing of society as a whole. Such services are highly diverse, and national, regional and local authorities within the European Union have discretion in determining what constitutes an SGI; in other words, which services ought to be offered in the interests of the general public. However, all such services have this much in common: they are services regarded by the state or state authorities as particularly important to all members of the public, but that cannot be provided, or cannot be provided adequately, without state intervention.

The state intervenes to ensure that all members of the public have access to these services, and that they are provided for the benefit of all citizens at an affordable price and at a high level of quality. Successful implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy for growth, particularly in the areas of employment, education and training, and social integration, is furthered by the provision of services of general interest. Of particular significance are social services of general interest, which have an important role in underpinning basic rights and make a major contribution to equality of opportunity.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – It is high time we wanted more simplification, more clarity and more proportionality, insisting on the need to respect the subsidiary principle. On social services, the report points out the need to take their diversity into account, notably through further exemptions from notification. On local services, the report supports the introduction of the ‘de minimis’ rule and calls for appropriate thresholds for this rule. It would be nice if Commission officials attentively examined this document and stopped producing stupid directives.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) Services of general interest are those services which the state believes to be particularly important for the population and which cannot be provided adequately for all citizens without state intervention and subsidies. These include, for example, running hospitals, providing resources for education, building social housing and supplying energy. The European Union recognises the necessity for subsidies of this kind, but also stipulates in Article 106(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union that compensation paid by the state is subject, in principle, to EU rules on competition, unless the application of these rules obstructs the performance, in law or in fact, of the particular tasks. The Commission is responsible for investigating whether State aid meets these requirements on the basis of the four Altmark criteria. It is absolutely clear that services in the areas described are far too important in terms of prosperity and social order in the EU Member States for the European Commission to be able to decide whether the aid is being provided efficiently and cost-effectively. Instead, it should be left to the Member States to evaluate whether the subsidies which they are granting are necessary. Therefore, I have voted against this motion.

  Katarína Neveďalová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) Although State aid for services of general economic interest is primarily the responsibility of the individual states, and it is essential to respect the subsidiarity principle in this context, as far as the economic and financial conditions are concerned, this area ought to function on the basis of principles and conditions that are part of a legislative framework.

I therefore welcome the fact that, as part of its dialogue with stakeholders, the Commission has begun to discuss reviewing and clarifying the rules governing the financing of services of general economic interest. I also welcome the Commission’s approach to simplification, greater transparency and proportionality regarding legal instruments and reducing the administrative burden. Services of general economic interest must be available to all citizens and must be of the highest possible standard. It is mainly necessary to ensure that Member States make social services accessible to all sectors of the population without distinction. In order for them to give greater weight to considerations of efficiency, they should not focus on economic criteria alone, but should also take account of the social, territorial and environmental aspects and consider criteria such as quality, results and sustainability.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The intention of this report is to reform the EU State aid rules on services regarded by the state or state authorities as particularly important to all members of the public, but that cannot be provided without state intervention. The state intervenes to ensure that all members of the public have access to these services, and that they are provided for the benefit of all citizens at an affordable price and a high level of quality.

The aims of the reform proposed by the Commission are to clarify application of the rules on State aid for services of general economic interest (SGEI), and to ensure specific and proportionate treatment for the different types of SGEI. I voted for this report because I agree with these premises.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I value the emphasis on the social character of services of general economic interest such as those services that the state or state authority considers to be particularly important for all citizens and which are therefore provided in the interests of the community. I agree with the intention to promote realisation of the objectives established within the framework of the Europe 2020 strategy for growth, as I also believe that the EU rules anticipated by the report should be reformed. I voted in favour, in the hope that these reforms can contribute significantly to economic performance and competition and promote social, economic and territorial cohesion within the EU.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In one sense, services of general economic interest are a reflection of the EU economic model. Without seeking to stop guaranteeing the universal provision of a given range of fundamental services, the intention is to allocate the operation of these services to the private sector, so as to achieve a greater level of efficiency. However, since they are obliged to provide these services universally, these private entities have the right to compensation to cover the non-profitable element of their activity. As such, a proposal to reform the system for this compensation has been subjected to Parliament’s scrutiny. With regard to this, I believe that, while we should ensure transparency in the application of rules for allocation of compensation, there is also justification for speeding up the procedure, thereby making this process more efficient. I therefore voted in favour.

  Robert Rochefort (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Services of general economic interest (SGEIs) play a role in social, economic and territorial cohesion, as well as making a considerable contribution to the economic performance and competitiveness of the Member States. Preserving their specific nature whilst guaranteeing a minimum of competition to ensure that they operate in an optimum way is a major challenge for Europe. This report follows on from the proposals made by the Commission in September on the review of the funding rules for SGEIs. I voted in favour of it. It especially emphasises the specific nature of regional and local SGEIs which, as they have no effect on competition in the internal market, should be subject to a simplified procedure. Similarly, the text calls on the Commission to adapt the rules by simplifying them for social services of general interest (SSGIs) as there is no fear that they will affect trade between the Member States. It also supports retaining the existing exemption from notification, without thresholds, for hospitals and social housing, along with the Commission’s proposal to extend this exemption to further categories of SSGI.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. Services of general interest are not only crucial to individuals but are also tremendously important to the wellbeing of society as a whole. Such services are highly diverse, and national, regional and local authorities within the EU have discretion in determining what constitutes a service of general interest, i.e. which services ought to be offered in the interests of the general public. However, all such services have this much in common: they are services regarded by the state or state authorities as particularly important to all members of the public but they cannot be provided, or cannot be provided adequately, without state intervention.

The state intervenes to ensure that all members of the public have access to these services and/or that they are provided for all members of the public at an affordable price and a high level of quality. The services provided make an important contribution to economic performance and competitiveness and promote social, economic and territorial cohesion in the EU.

  Tokia Saïfi (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported this report in plenary because it establishes clear guidelines for the future reform of EU State aid rules on services of general economic interest (SGEI), namely transparency and simplification. Transparency is necessary: public funds must be allocated and managed in accordance with rules that are known to all, where every service provider is on an equal footing. Simplification is just as necessary: local authorities and local service providers must be able to understand them and to implement them easily, which is not always the case today, and which may raise issues of legal certainty. However, I will remain vigilant on one point: simplification cannot be to the detriment of transparency. Finally, I welcome the fact that the rapporteur reminds the Commission that public services must be of a high quality and accessible to all sections of the population.

  Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD), in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of the report by Mr Simon because I believe that services of general interest play not only a decisive role for individual citizens, but are also of huge importance to the prosperity of society as a whole. Services of general interest are services which the state or state authorities consider to be especially important to all citizens. These services make an important contribution to the performance and competitiveness of the economy and strengthen social, economic and territorial cohesion in the EU. However, it is important to guarantee that the rules are applied correctly, so that undertakings responsible for providing public services are in a position to discharge in full the duties allocated to them.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The report by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) highlights the need to simplify and streamline the rules, in line with the results of public consultations. There are certain key concepts underlined in the report and contained in the Commission’s reform proposal that are in need of clarification – for example, those that relate to the distinction between economic activity and non-economic activity – in order to provide greater legal certainty.

In the opinion, it is also proposed that, on the basis of the consultations, the Commission should raise the thresholds that determine implementation of the decision concerning exemption from providing notification of certain compensation payments. To sum up, it is a call for greater transparency and flexibility. I believe, then, that it is necessary to emphasise that the proposals to reform the Altmark package, as prepared by the Commission, do not seem to amount to genuine simplification in this area.

The excessive quantity of texts, between communications, decisions and regulation, runs the risk of further confusing the normative framework rather than contributing to a genuine, functional and practicable update of the evaluation criteria for compensations and of State aid for services of general economic interest (SGEIs). In fact, despite being under profiles of a different nature, the various acts reiterate the same principles and elements of analysis, so as to render the fundamental objective of the reform less evident and harder to distinguish at first glance.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Services of general economic interest (SGEI) play a key role in society and are of the greatest importance to the public. The state intervenes to ensure quick and efficient access to the services in question, and attempts to make them available at a high level of quality and an affordable price.

I agree with the report, which aims to clarify application of the rules on State aid for SGEI, to avoid recourse to the Court of Justice of the European Union, and to provide public services that operate more effectively. I should also like to stress that SGEI occupy an important place in the European Union’s shared values, as they promote fundamental rights and social, economic and territorial cohesion. It is crucial to adopt measures to simplify the State aid rules within the framework of a more diverse approach.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the reform of the EU State aid rules on services of general economic interest (SGEI). They are services which could not always be provided, or would not be provided adequately, without state intervention, whereas social services of general interest (SSGI) play an important role in guaranteeing basic rights and make a contribution to equal opportunities.

Protocol No 26 on services of general interest, which is annexed to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, highlights the importance of services of general interest. SGEI must provide a high level of quality, safety and affordability, equal treatment and the promotion of universal access and user rights. I voted in favour so as to make the implementation of, and compliance with, Protocol No 26 easier, as part of the reform of EU State aid rules on SGEI.

Substantial investment is needed to upgrade the infrastructure, especially in the regions where it is lacking, in the energy, telecommunications and public transport sectors, in order to enable the provision of future smart energy or broadband communication. The EU helps create and develop trans-European networks in the transport, telecommunications and energy sectors. This is why specific services need to be available and affordable for all European citizens.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this resolution setting out the European Parliament’s approach to the reform of State aid rules on services of general economic interest (SGEI), which the Commission proposed last October. This report broadly incorporates the proposals of the Public Services Intergroup, of which I am the vice-chair, along with Peter Simon, the rapporteur for this text from the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats).

While some of the statements contained in the report may not be of minor importance, overall, this report is a step in the right direction because it supports the need to take more account of the specific features of public, economic and social services (SSGI).

In addition to the demand for an increase in State aid thresholds and an expansion of the exempted sectors, I particularly welcome the reaffirmation of the principle of subsidiarity, the demand for SSGI not to be seen as services reserved for the disadvantaged, and the demand for the specific nature of intervention by regional and local authorities and how they come together to be taken into account. I also welcome the European Parliament’s position in highlighting the fact that this reform of State aid is only one part of the necessary clarification of the legal provisions for SGEI.

I therefore voted in favour of this resolution so that the European Parliament will put pressure on the Commission to soften its doctrinaire stance …

(Explanation of vote abbreviated in accordance with Rule 163 of the Rules of Procedure)

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) Services of general economic interest (SGEI) are services which states and public authorities believe to be necessary for all citizens and which can only be provided adequately by means of state intervention, in other words, by guaranteeing general access to these services and by providing high quality at affordable prices. In 2005, the Commission took measures to prohibit and control State aid in the SGEI framework. The legal instruments must have a clearer structure and the amount of administrative work must be reduced. I have voted in favour.

  Glenis Willmott (S&D), in writing. – State aid rules are often controversial and cause a great deal of uncertainty, particularly for governments and public bodies. The case of the Royal Mail in the UK is just one example of how a lack of confidence in these rules can prolong and complicate decision making, to the detriment of employees, taxpayers and the service-using public. I am therefore pleased to have voted for this report, which calls for a firm legal framework for public ‘services of general economic interest (SGEI)’, which include social services, health services and public transport. The European Commission promised action to strengthen the position of these services, and we hope to see this when new State aid rules are proposed this year.

Report: Frédéric Daerden (A7-0370/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report, and would stress the fact that the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament continue to fight for an EU based on solidarity and not exclusively marked by extreme austerity. The objective of reducing the number of poor people by around 20 million by 2020 should be retained as the overriding priority and, to that end, the necessary budgetary resources will need to be allocated.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. – As the increasing poverty in the EU is currently being exacerbated by the economic and financial crisis and by soaring food prices in the context of almost inexistent food surpluses in the EU, and that 43 million people are currently at risk of food poverty, Members call on the Commission to boost the involvement of organised civil society, of all stakeholders, in the development of a European strategy at all levels of governance (European, national, regional and local), inviting the Commission to play a coordinating role and guide the Member States in meeting the current challenges and combating poverty and social exclusion. I am in favour of this report which calls for a framework directive on the quality and accessibility of social services of general interest, in particular, in the areas of health, education, public transport, energy, water and communication.

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) In Europe alone, over 80 million people are at risk of poverty and 25% of them, or 20 million, are children. In the current context of the crisis, the circumstances of these people and, in particular, those categories that are most vulnerable, such as children, the disabled and the elderly, can only deteriorate further. The Union should therefore adopt a concrete and immediate course of action to realise the objective of lifting at least 20 million people out of poverty by 2020. In order to be able to respond effectively to the needs of the population, Member States and European and national institutions must be coordinated.

Above all, it is important to take steps to prevent factors which can contribute to the progress of the state of poverty. The Union should make greater investments in inclusive education systems to tackle the phenomenon of early school leaving, in particular among disabled children, of whom less than half are accepted onto courses of higher education, and to offer accessible and high-quality services, above all for the elderly, but also for working women and mothers.

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Poverty and social exclusion are key social factors influencing health and living conditions. There are still crucial disparities between rich and poor when it comes to appropriate access to health and social services, as well as differences in income and wealth, which are continuing to widen in some areas. I think that poverty is a multi-faceted problem requiring an integrated response which takes into account the different stages of life and citizens’ different kinds of needs, and which is also based on guaranteeing access to rights, resources and services, in order to meet the basic needs of any individual. It is impossible to reduce exclusion and poverty without combating inequality and discrimination or guaranteeing the growth of national economies and solidarity with the most vulnerable groups in society, in other words, without allocating national wealth fairly and appropriately.

This is why I urge Member States to adopt serious measures for promoting access to fundamental rights for deprived groups, as dire poverty is a violation of human rights and a serious attack on human dignity, encouraging stigmatisation and injustice.

  Pino Arlacchi (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report because it clearly reaffirms the commitment made by the EU at the start of the Lisbon strategy to have ‘a decisive impact on the eradication of poverty’. I would like to underline that it is impossible to reduce poverty or to boost inclusive growth if nothing is done to combat inequality and discrimination, or if there is no solidarity with the weakest groups in society. We should also consider that the most vulnerable groups, such as the elderly and people with disabilities, have been those most severely affected by the financial, economic and social crisis. For this reason, the austerity measures must not undermine employment and social protection, worsen the situation for the most disadvantaged, or put at risk of unemployment or poverty millions of people who were previously still managing to live on their wages or retirement pensions. With this text, we call on the Commission to play a coordinating role and to guide the Member States to meet the current challenges, and combat poverty and social exclusion. Indeed, the objectives of decreasing the number of poor people by 20 million in the EU by 2020 must remain a top priority.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) In a context of crisis, inequalities between rich and poor have a tendency to increase. One in five Europeans is currently at risk of falling into poverty. Therefore, Europe has set itself the objective of reducing the number of people at risk of poverty by 20 million as part of the Europe 2020 strategy. In order to achieve this, a comprehensive approach that takes into account all the stakeholders concerned (NGOs, social service providers, etc.) must be adopted. Better use of European funds will also help to achieve the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Committed to the principles of solidarity and social cohesion, I voted in favour of the Daerden report.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report. Upwards of 116 million people in the EU are at risk of poverty and around 42 million live in conditions of severe material deprivation. Social inequality is increasing in some Member States, in particular, as a result of economic inequality in terms of income and wealth distribution, labour market inequalities, social insecurity and unequal access to the social functions of the state, such as welfare, health, education, etc. The European Platform against Poverty is one of the seven flagship initiatives of the Europe 2020 strategy aimed at reducing the number of people in poverty and reducing social exclusion. The scheme for food distribution to the most deprived people in the Union, set up in 1987, currently provides food aid for 13 million people suffering from poverty, and its distribution chains involve some 240 food banks and charities. I welcome the Council agreement to cancel the cut in funding for this important scheme.

  George Becali (NI), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this report with complete conviction. The figures are shocking: 116 million people in the EU are facing poverty, in other words, a quarter of its 500 million inhabitants. The risk it poses has a direct impact on rural areas, women and young people.

I concur with the notion that poverty can be regarded as a violation of human rights. Homelessness is one of the most serious forms of poverty. Poverty affects the state of health of those in question and reduces their life expectancy. I believe that we need Member States’ actions in this area to be coordinated by the Commission. Member States need technical assistance.

I support the report and I, too, call on the Commission to provide sufficient funding for the initiatives for tackling poverty and social exclusion, especially those concerning leaving school early and tackling poverty among children.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Whilst the crisis is continuing, resulting in more poverty and a more insecure society, and whilst austerity plans, which, although necessary, are insufficient, are hitting hard at groups that are already in a weakened situation, there is no time to waste for the 116 million people in the EU who are threatened by poverty and social exclusion. This report is not legislative but it has the merit of establishing a fairly comprehensive view of the situation and identifying several ways to improve the situation by putting forward a model of society based on ‘social’ values. The development of a suitable European action will require the development of national platforms to fight poverty and the full use of the existing options in the Treaty of Lisbon, in the first instance, the famous horizontal social clause. It is only by truly taking into account the social impacts of every European policy that we will achieve this famous social dimension to the EU that seems to be so far off at present. As the preservation of social rights in the Union is fundamental, the specific nature of services of general social interest must be recognised and the discussion of sectoral legislative initiatives on the quality and accessibility of these services must continue.

  Sergio Berlato (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Although the European Union is one of the richest regions in the world, there are more than 80 million people living at risk of poverty, including 20 million children and 8% of the working population. This situation is incompatible with the European values of justice and solidarity enshrined in the Treaties.

The European platform against poverty and social exclusion is one of the seven flagship initiatives of the Europe 2020 strategy and intends to provide the Member States with a plan of action with a view to pursuing its main objective of lifting 20 million people out of poverty by 2020. In recent years, poverty and social exclusion have increased despite the Union’s commitment, while the consequences of the recent economic and financial crisis have further exacerbated the problem, putting pressure on the most vulnerable sections of the population.

In my opinion, given that poverty is a multi-faceted problem, it calls for an integrated response which actively involves the various tiers of public authorities, both at the local and the European level. Although, in fact, the fight against poverty and social exclusion is primarily the responsibility of national governments, the EU can and should play an important role in raising awareness of the problem, coordinating actions aimed at fighting poverty, and financing these same actions.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) The European platform against poverty and social exclusion contains proposals with which I do not agree, as these anticipate a commitment on the part of the European Union and the Member States in favour of categories that do not fall under the heading of social emergency in this time of crisis. As is often the case, we are, in fact, speaking of policies in favour of Roma populations and their social inclusion, when instead we are dealing with an ethnic group which, quite simply, does not demonstrate any desire to become integrated into the social fabric of our societies. Furthermore, we talk of guaranteeing quality housing to categories of immigrants, all the while forgetting that, before such people, national and EU authorities should be concerning themselves with the destitute in our own countries who number so many, and with those disadvantaged categories that are suffering the disastrous effects of the current financial crisis, such as the elderly, young couples, and so on. Indeed, these are the people who should be helped by making every financial effort possible, before we squander yet more hundreds of millions of euro, as we have done in recent years in our pursuit of imaginary objectives such as inclusion of the Roma. I voted against the report.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted for this report because, in my opinion, there were certain shortcomings in the Commission’s proposals on combating poverty and social exclusion, and the European Parliament’s proposals could eliminate them. I am particularly delighted that the report focuses on the issue of the working poor. In my opinion, the main cause for the spread of this phenomenon is that the minimum wage is set too low in the Member States. This must be debated more widely in future, both in Brussels and the Member States, because it is the first and most effective means of reducing the level of poverty throughout the EU. I am also pleased that the report draws attention to the issue of poverty among elderly women.

In this context, the proposal to consider the validation of leave for those caring for family members throughout the EU seems very sensible. Such a decision would allow the problem of calculating women’s length of service to be resolved because currently, women caring for relatives and family members lose years out of their length of service, and their pensions subsequently suffer as a result. I also agree with the idea of considering the question of setting minimum pensions throughout the EU.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the report by Mr Daerden, which puts the spotlight on a very concerning aspect of the current economic crisis. Indeed, recent years have seen an increasing number of EU citizens in economic difficulties. There are more than 80 million people at risk of poverty, including 20 million children. Despite Europe’s robust efforts, poverty and social exclusion have increased markedly, which obviously affects the most vulnerable sections of society. That is why I voted in favour of this report.

While we are aware that the fight against poverty is essentially the responsibility of Member States, there is, however, no doubt that the EU ought to play an active and more inclusive role in raising awareness, coordination and funding, since reducing poverty is a driving factor behind growth. Within the context of the EU 2020 strategy, which aims to lift 20 million EU citizens from economic difficulty, we need to provide integrated solutions that involve all institutions, from Europe to the individual countries and regions, promoting innovation, optimising the use of European funds and more effective social protection. The most vulnerable sections of society need to be put at the heart of the European project in order to ensure sustainable growth.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – I voted against the report because as much as I believe that people in need should receive help and that social exclusion and poverty must be eradicated, it should be solely the onus of nation states to decide how they want to help their citizens. The creation of umbrella funding for social protection in Europe, alongside the definition of minimum income, should instead be determined on a national level and based upon the idiosyncratic circumstances within a country. The imposition of taxation upon Member States must never be a competence of the European Union.

  Lara Comi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of this report because I strongly believe in the need to tackle this social plague in a coherent manner. Eradicating poverty and avoiding the resulting social exclusion is one of the duties of all Member States, which must protect the human rights of their citizens. Therefore, Parliament and the Commission ought to harden the political commitment assumed under the Lisbon strategy, thereby making a decisive impact on reducing poverty. Poverty is a problem that affects various aspects of the social, economic and political life of an individual and, hence, I think an integrated approach could provide a suitable way to ensure respect for the needs of individuals. In order to guarantee indiscriminate access to rights, services and resources, some measures need to be adopted in order to monitor the Member States’ pursuit of the established targets, facilitate the use of open cooperation, create jobs and establish a minimum income.

  Ole Christensen, Dan Jørgensen, Christel Schaldemose and Britta Thomsen (S&D), in writing. – (DA) The Danish Social Democrats in the European Parliament have chosen to vote in favour of Mr Daerden’s report on the European platform against poverty and social exclusion. The report contains many good ideas for how we can better combat poverty and social exclusion. However, the report also contains several passages that we do not support. For example, we would like to see the phasing out and abolition of the EU’s food distribution scheme, we do not want the EU to set a poverty threshold or a minimum income for Denmark, and we believe that the area of taxation should remain a national matter.

  Marije Cornelissen (Verts/ALE), in writing. – I voted in favour of this report because I believe it makes an important call on the Commission and Member States in the midst of an economic crisis to step up their efforts in combating poverty in the EU as they have committed themselves by endorsing the EU 2020 strategy. Just before the vote on this report, the Council reached a compromise to prevent a sudden ending of the food distribution scheme for the most deprived by continuing it until 2013. I am relieved that Member States and food banks will now have the time to prepare themselves for the consequences of a reformed common agricultural policy. This report calls for a continuation of the scheme for the period 2014-2020 as well. I personally believe that the Commission and Member States should work towards social and employment policies that enable people to live a life in dignity, without having to rely on free food distribution. I therefore do not support a structural continuation of the food distribution scheme in the EU, making it a permanent element in the EU’s anti-poverty strategy.

  Andrea Cozzolino (S&D), in writing. – (IT) In the context of the very broadest aims of the Europe 2020 strategy, the European platform against poverty and social exclusion should be thought of in view of the unique characteristics of what is an intrinsically complex, multifaceted and multiform phenomenon which, as the economic crisis has made itself felt, has taken on even more striking and worrying dimensions.

The gradual increase in the number of areas affected, or at risk of being dragged into a state of poverty or ‘severe material deprivation’ as a result of the financial crisis, means that we have to strengthen and differentiate our responses. Vice-versa, we are watching with concern at the distortive effects which, in this sector too, may be caused by the reckless decision not to exclude investment from Stability Pact funds.

Even in a context of scarce financial resources, the platform offers a positive message that is in line with the need to develop specific, Europe-wide, socio-economic initiatives, moving beyond mere emergency action or temporary support and thus heralding a genuine reversal of this trend.

Specifically, it highlights the importance of launching a much sought-after global initiative to bring in a guaranteed minimum income rule, which – if it can be adjusted to and made compatible with economic development – will help reduce and prevent poverty and social exclusion.

  Rachida Dati (PPE) , in writing. – (FR) The extent of poverty in Europe, which affects some 116 million people, calls for strong measures. I voted for this report as it helps to promote the European values of justice and solidarity. The diversity of deprived groups calls for a coordinated strategy that will allow for the greatest possible protection for each of them (women, young people, poor workers and so on). To this end, the EU could play a pivotal role in awareness raising, coordination and financing. I was very pleased, in particular, to see that this report has a paragraph supporting the maintenance of the budget for the European programme of food aid for the most deprived at a level that is at least equivalent in the coming years.

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Poverty is multifaceted and combating it should be the target of policies, each tailored to the age group for which it is intended and to the objective needs of each individual or group of individuals. These should be based on the universal principles set out in the European Convention on Human Rights, since poverty and social exclusion are not compatible with the European social model that we are so proud of advocating.

It is important to take EU-level measures, not just in terms of prevention and awareness-raising, but also through greater coordination of measures for effectively combating poverty and social exclusion, and, obviously, through funding specific micro-level policies implemented by the various Member States, provided these fit with the targets set out in the Europe 2020 strategy. This mission is even clearer given the commitment the EU has already made several times towards eradicating poverty and social exclusion, and to territorial cohesion. In general, I agree with the content of the report, so I voted in favour, largely because of the compromises made by the rapporteur after listening to the other groups, particularly the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats).

  Karima Delli (Verts/ALE), in writing. – (FR) The adoption of this report calling on the Commission to work towards introducing binding legislation on an adequate minimum income at the poverty threshold level, which is an indispensable tool for achieving the realistic objective of lifting 20 million people out of poverty by 2020, is a major victory. To fight poverty, it is not enough to make speeches on growth: with 8.4% of workers poor in the EU, employment no longer protects against poverty. I am pleased that the proposal by the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance to tax high incomes has been approved. It is high time that the Heads of State or Government understood that they are not there to serve the interests of the richest 1%, but to defend the 99%. I am pleased that people living in poverty will play a crucial role in the establishment of this platform. Today, policy must be drawn up ‘with’ and not just ‘for’ the poorest. I regret that our call for a framework directive on the quality and accessibility of social services of general interest was rejected. Universal access to public services is fundamental to the protection of the poorest.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I have just one thing to say: poverty and social exclusion have increased in recent years in Europe, despite the commitments made by the European Union to reduce them. As a result, in 2010, the number of people at risk of poverty was still around 116 million, which is more than 20% of European citizens. The – non-binding – resolution that was voted on at noon proposes that the Member States develop minimum income schemes based on at least 60% of the median income of each Member State of the European Union and calls once again on the European Commission to work towards introducing appropriate legislation. This is vital. In addition, paragraph 73 of the resolution, which I, of course, supported, also calls for a framework directive on the quality and accessibility of social services of general interest, in particular, in the areas of health, education, public transport, energy, water and communication.

  Bas Eickhout (Verts/ALE), in writing. – I voted in favour of this report because I believe it makes an important call on the Commission and Member States in the midst of an economic crisis to step up their efforts in combating poverty in the EU as they have committed themselves by endorsing the EU 2020 strategy. Just before the vote on this report, the Council reached a compromise to prevent a sudden ending of the food distribution scheme for the most deprived by continuing it until 2013. I am relieved that Member States and food banks will now have the time to prepare themselves for the consequences of a reformed common agricultural policy. This report calls for a continuation of the scheme for the period 2014-2020 as well. I personally believe that the Commission and Member States should work towards social and employment policies that enable people to live a life in dignity, without having to rely on free food distribution. I therefore do not support a structural continuation of the food distribution scheme in the EU, making it a permanent element in the EU’s anti-poverty strategy.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report because I believe that, while combating poverty and social exclusion is essentially the responsibility of national governments, the Union should play a more important role in terms of awareness-raising, coordination and funding. This platform, which is part of a strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, will play an important role in reducing poverty, optimising EU funds and making social protection systems more effective.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The present economic and financial crisis is a cause of fear that poverty and social exclusion will be exacerbated a little throughout Europe. Unfortunately, the ambitious objectives set out by the Lisbon strategy were hard to achieve. Given the multiple problems and their scale, there is a need for increased European coordination in this area if we are to fulfil the ambition of the Europe 2020 strategy of pulling 20 million people out of poverty. Beyond announcing grand objectives and declarations that lack realism, the European Union should not lose sight of the fact that it exists for the people. Any initiatives that it undertakes against poverty and social exclusion should bear in mind the issue of each human being’s dignity, and should not confuse the establishment of large bureaucratic structures with actually helping those most in need. While the multidisciplinarity of the problem makes it advisable to give it a multidisciplinary response, the programme’s sensitivity makes it advisable not to lose sight of the fundamentals of each human being, bearing in mind the financial difficulties that the Member States are experiencing and the realism that this limitation imposes.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) One of the Europe 2020 strategy’s targets is to reduce the number of people in precarious situations by 20 million by 2020. One of the seven flagship measures of this strategy is the European platform against poverty and social exclusion, whose framework for social and territorial cohesion was tabled by the Commission on 16 December 2010, when the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion was about to finish.

This report, drafted by Mr Daerden, concerns the European platform against poverty and social exclusion, and argues that solidarity between the Member States and the citizens has to be a priority for the European Union. The economic and financial crisis, which started in 2008, has been an obstacle to economic growth and, consequently, to job creation, which is one of the pillars of combating poverty and social exclusion. The EU should encourage the Member States to ease their austerity policies with new investments, both public and private.

I welcome the adoption of this report and I hope it will contribute to significantly reducing the number of Europeans at risk of poverty from 80 million, 20 million of whom are children.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) We regret that our proposals denouncing the causes of poverty and proposing the alternatives needed for its eradication were not adopted. Specifically, our proposals were:

- to condemn so-called austerity policies and programmes that are exacerbating poverty and social exclusion; to insist on the need to change profoundly EU economic, financial and social policy, which is the root of current poverty: in particular, the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP), the Euro Plus Pact, and the liberalisation and privatisation of essential public services;

- to demand the rejection of the SGP and the Euro Plus Pact, and to call for their replacement with a social progress and development pact that prioritises jobs with rights, social inclusion and poverty eradication;

- to consider that poverty, which is affecting people who already have a job, does not reflect equitable working conditions, and to call for efforts to be focused on changing this situation, in order that pay, in general, and minimum wages, in particular, might be able to ensure a dignified standard of living, irrespective of being laid down in law or by collective agreements.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) Although the European Union is one of the richest regions in the world, 80 million people living in the EU are at risk of poverty. Of these, 20 million are children, and 8% are of working age. In addition, the most vulnerable groups of people in our societies are the worst affected by the economic crisis. The situation of people with the lowest earnings has continued to deteriorate, and these people today confront a much greater risk of debt and bankruptcy.

The fight against social exclusion and the promotion of social justice and basic rights have long been main aims and priorities of the EU, which is based on the values of respect for human dignity and solidarity. The European Parliament and the Council declared 2010 the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion. In addition to this, in December 2010, the European Commission published a communication entitled ‘European platform against poverty and social exclusion’, a European framework for social and territorial solidarity. It is one of the seven flagship initiatives of the Europe 2020 strategy, the aim of which is to reduce the number of people in an insecure situation by 20 million by 2020. The effort of the platform is mainly to promote innovation and the reduction of poverty in various forms. Poverty is a multi-dimensional phenomenon, requiring an integrated response, including different levels of public authority – from European to local level.

  Elisabetta Gardini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) In order to achieve the ambitious objective of lifting 20 million people from poverty and social exclusion by 2020, the European Union must work to do more on awareness-raising, coordination and funding. Above all, I think European funds should be used in a much more targeted and efficient way in order to combat the increased discrimination and social marginalisation that more often than not represent the cause and the direct consequence of poverty. Furthermore, fighting poverty cannot fail to involve combating unemployment. I would like to underline, however, that frequently, having a job is not enough to ensure an escape from poverty. Accordingly, more action is needed to combat the phenomenon of poor workers and ensure access to decent, long-term employment. Unfortunately, the European Union is currently home to more than 80 million people living at risk of poverty, equivalent to 8% of the working population. We must face up to this dramatically worsening situation, remembering that poverty is a shared responsibility and a challenge for the whole of society; it must not be stigmatised or seen as the failing of individuals who find themselves in economic difficulty or socially excluded.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. – (FR) As usual, this Parliament is focusing on minorities, preferably the minorities from outside Europe who are already given excessive assistance. I refer to those minorities whose presence results in an enormous social cost for society as the vast majority of their members do not work. Due to their family and social situations, they have priority for social housing to the detriment of less well-off European citizens. Their massive and continuing arrival – 200 000 a year in France alone – inevitably creates tensions in rents for an inadequate housing stock. I would have preferred the report to emphasise the 42 million Europeans deemed poor and also the 116 million threatened with poverty. These figures are frightening and are not just due to the crisis, because the downward pressure on Europeans’ incomes goes back a long way: competition from immigrant workers, competition from countries with low wages, ECB policies against hypothetical wage inflation, pension reforms and so on. The general impoverishment of pensioners, unskilled or low-skilled workers, the working class and, increasingly, the middle classes, is the direct consequence of your policies. There is, of course no mention of this in this report. I therefore voted against.

  Estelle Grelier (S&D), in writing. – (FR) The report on the European platform against poverty and social exclusion, submitted by Frédéric Daerden, highlights a depressing paradox: whilst 116 million Europeans are threatened with poverty and 42 million of them are experiencing extreme material deprivation, the EU 2020 strategy only sets a target of 20 million in terms of reducing the number of people threatened by poverty. Is this an acknowledgement of weakness or an admission of the abandonment of the principle of solidarity, one of the Union’s founding values? Unfortunately, it can be seen in this way, given the ‘solution’ for the Food Distribution Programme for the Most Deprived Persons of the Community: it will be safeguarded for 2012 and 2013, but with unacceptable conditions, namely, the definitive scrapping of this programme and the abandonment of any EU-level social policy from 2014. This proposal is a provocation at a time when citizens are sorely affected by the crisis and austerity plans. It threatens to reinforce the impression of economic, social and moral regression. This is why, out of respect for the idea of a progressive, supportive Europe, we must continue to rally round this programme: for my part, I shall be paying particular attention during the negotiations on the financial perspectives after 2013.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I supported the report by Frédéric Daerden because it is absolutely essential for the European Union to mobilise and act to combat poverty and social exclusion. The figures speak for themselves and are incontestable: poverty affects around 115 million Europeans. This report proposes concrete, multidimensional solutions to combat poverty, such as access to education and professional training for all. However, we should also ensure that budget austerity policies do not affect social and employment protection. This is why I place a great deal of importance on the necessary role of national and European budgets, including the European Social Fund and the food aid programme. I also support the report’s call for the introduction of an evaluation mechanism involving the European Parliament based on precise indicators to ensure that the Member States follow up their fight against poverty, which is an essential condition to ensure the effectiveness of our fight against social exclusion and poverty.

  Marian Harkin (ALDE), in writing. – I support the report because I believe the European Parliament must deliver a strong, coherent message to its citizens on the issue of poverty and social exclusion. The proposals in the report will go some way towards addressing the situation of the 80 million European citizens at risk of poverty and are, in some way, a counterbalance to the endless proposals on austerity that are being implemented throughout the EU.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. – This report states that 116 million people in the EU are at risk from poverty, a truly shocking figure. Too many people in my own country are living in dire conditions, and Scotland remains one of the few places in the world to have discovered oil yet got poorer. Years, decades and centuries of London rule have brought about this situation, and only with Scottish Independence will we be able to build the fair and just society that our nation should take for granted.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) Poverty and social exclusion have increased in recent years despite the Union’s undertakings to reduce them. The impact of the crisis has further exacerbated the problem by putting pressure on the most vulnerable groups. I believe that this situation is incompatible with the EU values of justice and solidarity. In order to ensure sustainable, inclusive growth, it is essential to make the most vulnerable groups a central focus of European integration since poverty reduction will be a driver of future growth. Poverty is a multi-faceted problem which calls for an integrated response involving the various tiers of public authorities, from European to local level, in partnership with those working on the ground. I voted in favour of this report which is based on a great deal of input from the relevant players, in particular, as regards the proposals it puts forward with a view to helping eradicate the scourge of poverty and social exclusion.

  Kent Johansson (ALDE), in writing. – (SV) I chose to abstain in the final vote on the European platform against poverty and social exclusion.

This is a report that sheds light on and draws attention to poverty in Europe and I support this aim whole-heartedly. However, I am doubtful as to whether measures at EU level are the right way to go about things in this case. Instead, I think we should take action at local, regional and national level to deal with poverty and social exclusion. I therefore chose to abstain in the final vote on the European platform against poverty and social exclusion.

The Member States of the EU ought now to take the plan for combating poverty that already exists as their starting point and continue to work in a consistent manner at local, regional and national level to combat poverty and social exclusion.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) 116 million people in the EU are at risk of poverty and 42 million live in conditions of severe material deprivation. The economic and financial crisis and soaring food prices have plunged 43 million people into food poverty. In such a situation, it is crucial to boost the involvement of civil society in the development of a European strategy at all levels of governance. That is why I supported this report.

  Tunne Kelam (PPE), in writing. – I voted in favour of this report. Fighting poverty and social exclusion on all levels is especially important in difficult times as today. I would especially like to underline the importance of tackling poverty among children and young people. We need to ensure that all children and young people receive a quality education that is fully accessible and affordable. We need to ensure that all children and young people have full access to health care. We have to take care of the vulnerable in our society, ensuring that if, for whatever reason, their parents are unable to take care of them, they still can obtain education, health care and thus are able to provide for themselves and their families at a later stage of their lives.

Youth unemployment is not a new phenomenon that has arisen during the last years; it has been a constant problem in Europe for a long time and is currently nearly 20%. Europe needs reforms and it needs bold reforms now to educate its children and young people and to integrate educational systems with the real needs of the labour market. Europe will not be able to continue its success story without educated, working and healthy young people.

  Bogusław Liberadzki (S&D), in writing. – (PL) I voted in favour of this report because there are more than 80 million people at risk of poverty living in the European Union. I believe that initiatives in relation to this matter are an important and necessary step in the fight against poverty and the current state of affairs. The problem also affects residents of the EU who do have a job. In recent years, we have noted increased poverty in the European Union. Combating social exclusion and poverty should be of interest not only to the authorities that have competence to deal with this, such as national governments, but also to European institutions such as the European Parliament.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I welcome this resolution and, in particular, the paragraph dealing with children that ‘Calls for the fight against child poverty to focus on prevention through the provision of equal access to high-quality early childhood education and child care services, in order to prevent children from starting school life with multiple disadvantages, and to other facilities for children (such as activity centres available during term-time and holiday periods, and extracurricular cultural and sports activities), ensuring that the network of such services and centres covers all areas adequately; calls for financial support for services having proven their worth and for the systematic integration of policies designed to support poor families into all relevant areas of activity, combining a universal approach with targeted measures for the most vulnerable families, in particular, the families of children with disabilities, single-parent families and families with large numbers of children; calls for the parent-child relationship to be given particular attention in programmes to combat poverty and social exclusion, so as to prevent children being placed in care as a consequence of severe poverty’.

  Marisa Matias (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report has come at a time when we are witnessing rising poverty in Europe. More than 116 million people are at risk of poverty in the European Union, and around 42 million people are living in situations of extreme deprivation. There is a need for social protection standards, and it is crucial to that the European Union and its Member States create a road map in this serious economic and social situation. However, if we really want to eradicate poverty, we have to put a stop to austerity policies and focus on job creation. That is why I abstained.

  Iosif Matula (PPE), in writing. – (RO) A large number of people in the European Union are facing poverty, with a rate of 8% of the working population. The statistics include 20 million children, which significantly reduces their chances of success in life. Furthermore, the financial and economic crisis has affected even more the situation of the most vulnerable sections of the population, such as young people, women, the elderly, migrants, people with disabilities or the Roma population.

As it is a complex problem, poverty must be tackled using an integrated approach, involving not only European, but also local, regional and national decision makers, in both the public and private sectors. The authorities must take into account the different stages in life and take measures to guarantee access to resources and services for the vulnerable sections of the population. As a flagship initiative of the Europe 2020 strategy, the European platform against poverty and social exclusion has an ambitious mission: to reduce in the coming years the number of people living in precarious circumstances by 20 million. To achieve this, I think that it would be useful for us to implement an open coordination method so that all European citizens enjoy equal opportunities in life.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the report by Mr Daerden. Above all, I agree on contesting the Commission’s decision to revise downwards, from EUR 500 million to EUR 113.5 million, the budget for the 2012 food distribution scheme for the most deprived people in the EU.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. – Currently, 116 million people are said to be at risk of poverty in the EU. The Commission’s proposal, as part of the Europe 2020 strategy, to take 20 million people out of poverty by 2020, is welcomed in this report. I welcome that objective and encourage an integrated response across the Member States, particularly in these difficult economic times.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Although the European Union is one of the richest regions in the world, there are more than 80 million people at risk of poverty, including 20 million children and 8% of the working population. This situation is incompatible with the European values of justice and solidarity enshrined in the Treaties. However, poverty and social exclusion have increased in recent years despite the Union’s undertakings to reduce them. The impact of the 2008 crisis has further exacerbated the problem by putting pressure on the most vulnerable groups.

While the fight against poverty and social exclusion is primarily the responsibility of national governments, the Union can nevertheless play an important role in terms of awareness-raising, coordination and funding. In order to ensure sustainable, inclusive growth, it is essential to make the most vulnerable groups a central focus of European integration, since poverty reduction will be a driver of future growth.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The priorities of our group are the following: an improved budget for the fight against poverty, stronger European action on minimum income possibility of a legislative initiative, legislative initiatives on social services, food distribution to the most deprived, EU strategy against homelessness, Roma, housing, child poverty, better care and decent pensions for older citizens. I completely support this report.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) The EU is constantly described as one of the wealthiest regions in the world and it donates aid amounting to billions of euro to developing countries. At the same time, estimates indicate that more than 80 million people in the EU are at risk of poverty and some of them are the working poor. In this context, it is clear that the increase in so-called ‘Mac’ jobs and the practice of forcing employees into bogus self-employment are becoming growing problems. The EU is still failing to come to grips with these issues. Combating poverty is, in principle, a matter for the Member States, which is why national reform programmes are needed. A European platform would, on the one hand, swallow up additional funding and, on the other, increase the bureaucratisation of the EU and its centralising tendencies. Therefore, I have voted against this report.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) Combating poverty must not stop with the end of the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion. Poverty and social exclusion, just like the fight against them, is a complex issue requiring complex solutions, not simply in the area of combating unemployment, but in other fields such as balancing the budget, health care, reducing discrimination and protecting human rights. As is the case with many issues associated with social security, combating poverty is, above all, a matter for the Member States, and the EU institutions thus often only play an advisory role. Unfortunately, this report of ours will not, in itself, reduce poverty. I nevertheless hope that the Member State governments will draw attention to the measures proposed in it and, when mutually coordinating their actions, even at a difficult time economically, will take steps which help to reduce poverty.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. – (DE) In many EU Member States, poverty has been a major problem for a number of years and it is having an increasing impact on the economy. The deficits in the public budgets are growing and European competitiveness is being reduced. Long-term unemployment affects one-third of the jobless. I endorse the call on the EU in the report to play a coordinating role and to guide the Member States, in order to enable them to overcome the current challenges and to combat poverty and social exclusion, while being mindful that the responsibility for eliminating poverty lies primarily with the national governments. Ultimately, I decided to vote against the report.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution providing for measures which will make an important contribution to achieving the EU’s priority objective of reducing the number of people at risk of poverty or exclusion by 20 million by 2020. We must make every effort to ensure that, in every Member State, the main objective of income support schemes is to protect people from poverty and social exclusion. A state’s greatest asset is not its land or its factories. Its greatest asset are its people, and states must care for them, above all else. A state must ensure a positive business environment in the country and concern itself with the employment of its population. The minimum wage must guarantee people a decent standard of living. The constantly rising costs of food, energy and housing are among the main reasons for deprivation, poverty and homelessness. Given the current situation and the implementation of the objectives set, I agree with the proposal for the Commission to draw up a framework directive on the quality and accessibility of social services of general interest and a set of framework guidelines and principles with a view to ensuring adequate and sustainable European pension arrangements.

  Antigoni Papadopoulou (S&D), in writing. – (EL) The Daerden report is an exceptional report. It sets out the causes of poverty and social exclusion and proposes solutions. However, theoretical approaches do not solve problems. The Commission must: a) demonstrate the real political will to secure adequate funding for initiatives and programmes to combat poverty and social exclusion throughout Europe under the multiannual financial framework 2014-2020; b) coordinate national reform programmes under the flagship initiative to reduce the number of people living below the poverty line by 20 million under the EU 2020 strategy and c) ensure that the European Social Fund makes a rational and transparent contribution to the fight against poverty among children, women, the elderly and mobile workers. I absolutely agree that we need to develop a common platform against poverty and exclusion in every Member State of the European Union and a European strategy at all levels of governance, with the active participation of NGOs and European citizens.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) The financial crisis gripping numerous Member States is not simply preventing a reduction in poverty and social exclusion; on the contrary, it is causing a worrying deterioration. For example, even though the EU is one of the richest areas on the planet, it has more than 80 million people at risk of poverty, of whom 30% are children. In the countries hardest hit by the crisis, such as Greece, one-third of the population is at risk of poverty, compared with a much lower EU average. This particular report, which I supported, recognises that, under these circumstances, Europe will be unable to meet its strategic objective of reducing the number of citizens at risk of poverty by 20 million by 2020, despite its pledges. It therefore calls on the Commission to increase and target funding for programmes to combat poverty and on the Member States – and this is an important point for Greece – to reinforce social health, care and education services, in order to bridge the skills gap, promote social integration and combat poverty and social exclusion.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Poverty and social exclusion have been increasing in recent years despite the European Union’s undertakings to reduce them. The impact of the 2008 crisis has further exacerbated the problem by putting pressure on society’s most vulnerable groups.

While the fight against poverty and social exclusion is primarily the responsibility of national governments, the Union can nevertheless play an important role in terms of awareness-raising, coordination and funding. To this end, and in order to ensure sustainable, inclusive growth, it is essential to make the most vulnerable groups a central focus of European integration, since poverty reduction will be a driver of future growth. Listening to the actors on the ground was the concern that guided the drafting of this report, to which the parties involved contributed significantly by tabling proposals intended to eradicate the scourge represented by poverty and social exclusion. I voted for this report for these reasons.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Although the European Union is one of the richest regions in the world, a large percentage of the population is affected by poverty and social exclusion. This situation is incompatible with the European values of justice and solidarity, so in this vein, the Union has, for years, been committed to polices and interventions to reduce it. However, it is worth considering that despite the Union’s action, poverty and social exclusion have increased in recent years, exacerbated by the crisis of 2008 which worsened the problem further. In light of the facts, I am voting in favour in order to ensure sustainable and inclusive growth. I think it is important that the platform is intended, in particular, to promote innovation and social experimentation, reduction of poverty – in its various forms – at all stages of life, better use of EU funds and more effective social protection.

  Marit Paulsen, Olle Schmidt and Cecilia Wikström (ALDE), in writing. – (SV) We chose to abstain in the final vote on the European platform against poverty and social exclusion.

We would like to stress that the report contains many important aspects of this growing problem, while, at the same time, we believe that several of these problems can, and should, be resolved at national level. The aim of the report, to raise awareness of and problematise the increasing incidence of poverty and social exclusion, is something that we support and consider to be very important. For that reason, we are choosing to abstain rather than vote against the report as a whole.

At the same time, we consider the fact that the report indicates the extension of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund to be problematic. We do not consider the fund to be compatible with our liberal values, nor do we believe that it should continue to operate after 2013.

We hope that the Member States of the European Union will take note of this problem and the plan for combating poverty that already exists, and that they will take measures immediately at national level to counter this continuing negative trend.

  Rovana Plumb (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The European Union has more than 80 million people at risk of poverty, including 20 million children and 8% of the working population. The European platform against poverty and social exclusion, devised by the Commission, completely ignores the gender aspect of poverty and social exclusion. The Commission and Member States must adopt a gender-specific perspective in order to eradicate poverty and combat social exclusion, and must take the gender dimension into account in their national recession recovery plans.

I call on the Commission and Member States to take measures to prevent feminisation of poverty by promoting women’s employment and entrepreneurship, combating the gender pay gap, facilitating the reconciliation of work and family duties, developing child care facilities, through a system of services for dependents, and by promoting flexible working arrangements. The fight against child poverty must focus on prevention, through the provision of equal access to high-quality early childhood education and child care services and to other facilities for children, by ensuring that the distribution of such services and centres provides adequate cover at regional level.

  Phil Prendergast (S&D), in writing. – I think this report highlights and explains the need for more detailed and more specific information and statistics on social inclusion. More detailed information is needed if programmes such as the convergence objective of EU structural funding are to achieve their stated aim of helping the least developed Member States and regions close the gap between them and their neighbours. It is important to remember that these programmes are supposed to improve the lives of the people who live in these regions. In this regard, greater information would lead to a more targeted approach to solving problems of poverty and social exclusion. Broad, one-size-fits-all approaches are inappropriate when dealing with regionalised and localised problems of unemployment, globalisation, lack of education and inequality. In the case of Social Fund allocations and European Structural Fund allocations, it is important that decisions about whether or not an area belongs in the convergence objective category, or the regional competitiveness and employment category, or the territorial cooperation category, are taken on as local a basis as possible.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Poverty and social exclusion translate to obstacles of the first order for the integrated development of various communities. A society with severe social asymmetries is, in fact, inclined to suffer situations of enormous instability, with clear dangers to the public, above all. Unfortunately, even today, almost 20% of Europeans live on the so-called poverty line. As such, there is justification for the EU authorities to adopt policies that help Member States to confront the social inequalities being experienced, so as to reduce – and, ideally, eradicate – remaining situations of poverty, which, in total, encompass 80 million Europeans. I therefore voted in favour.

  Frédérique Ries (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for Mr Daerden’s report on the European platform against poverty and social exclusion, which aims to focus attention on the economic insecurity or risk of insecurity that threatens more than 80 million Europeans. This is a particularly important initiative when we realise that the economic crisis that has been raging for over three years has mainly affected those who are most vulnerable. Unlike my group, I also supported paragraph 95 on a European minimum income. As it is certainly premature to discuss a figure, it is, however, our duty to agree on the principle and to call on the Commission to examine the possibility of legislation on the issue, while respecting the principle of subsidiarity.

I frequently have to repeat myself. The European Union has a social vocation. However, it can only exercise the competences that are conferred on it by the Member States and the European Parliament. So when ‘Europe says no’, it is often the Member States who are really doing the blocking. For proof, just take at look at the recent saga regarding food aid. We must, therefore, continue to fight against such national reluctance, scepticism and selfishness to advance towards a Europe of solidarity.

  Robert Rochefort (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Forty-two million Europeans live in conditions of severe material deprivation and cannot afford to live a decent life in Europe. Faced with these figures and with the economic prospects for the coming months, the European platform against poverty and social exclusion is crucial. The report from Frédéric Daerden contains several key ideas. Thus, the text calls for the Commission or Eurostat to compile a comprehensive scoreboard on poverty and social exclusion, and for national statistics on poverty to be improved and made more comparable. As regards the minimum income, it expresses the desire for the Commission to launch a consultation on the possibility of a legislative initiative in this area. In addition, on the creation of new jobs, it calls for action in accordance with the basic principles laid down by the ILO, putting into practice the concept of decent work and quality jobs. It also recommends appropriate taxation of very high salaries to help fund social protection systems and the minimum wage. I think these are fair ideas and I wished to support them in this vote.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. Although the European Union is one of the richest regions of the world, there are more than 80 million people at risk of poverty, including 20 million children and 8% of the working population. This situation is incompatible with the European values of justice and solidarity enshrined in the Treaties. However, poverty and social exclusion have increased in recent years despite the Union’s undertakings to reduce them. The impact of the 2008 crisis has further exacerbated the problem by putting pressure on the most vulnerable groups. While the fight against poverty and social exclusion is primarily the responsibility of national governments, the Union can nevertheless play an important role in terms of awareness-raising, coordination and funding.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Too often when we think about people living in poverty, we think only about the lack of financial resources. Instead, there are other hardships which exacerbate this state of precariousness and stand in the way of its eradication: the right to a home, a job, a family, to food, health care, education and justice. People who are unable to make their own contribution to society in an equal measure to others are also poor. Poverty and social exclusion contribute to the poverty of the entire society.

Europe’s strength resides in the potential of single individuals. By approving this report today, Parliament has adopted a genuine action plan in which the fight against child poverty and the creation of new jobs are the key elements. The fight against exclusion requires national, regional and local policies that ensure an equilibrium between economic growth and social objectives, and which are complemented by strategies that favour vulnerable people. Only united can we win our battle.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. – (IT) The report on this initiative follows the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion. People living in poverty today number over 80 million, and this phenomenon has been exacerbated by the economic crisis.

There can be agreement on some areas of the text: where, for instance, it refers to women who, due to differences in salaries, are more exposed to the risk of poverty; and where it recognises the need to enhance cohesion policy to support the weakest members of society, such as the elderly and the disabled.

Unfortunately, this report also tends to favour immigrants and minorities. In particular, the Roma are considered to be objects of discrimination and segregation who require ad hoc measures for integration.

For this reason, I am voting against the report, because the risk here concerns safeguarding and protecting others to the detriment of European citizens who are experiencing a time of financial difficulty. Housing is becoming more and more of a problem and it is therefore necessary to intervene in such a way as to be able to guarantee access to affordable homes to the poor citizens of Europe.

  Judith Sargentini (Verts/ALE), in writing. – I voted in favour of this report because I believe it makes an important call to the Commission and Member States, in the midst of an economic crisis, to step up their efforts to combat poverty in the EU, as they undertook to do by endorsing the Europe 2020 strategy.

Just before the vote on this report, the Council reached a compromise to prevent a sudden ending of the food distribution scheme for the most deprived, by continuing it until 2013. I am relieved that Member States and food banks will now have time to prepare themselves for the consequences of a reformed common agricultural policy. This report calls for a continuation of the scheme for the period 2014-2020. However, I personally believe that the Commission and the Member States should work towards social and employment policies that enable people to live a life in dignity without having to rely on free food distribution. I therefore do not support a structural continuation of the food distribution scheme in the EU, making it a permanent element in the Union’s anti-poverty strategy.

  Joanna Senyszyn (S&D), in writing. – (PL) I endorsed the report on the European platform against poverty and social exclusion. As a member of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality, I have a particular interest in poverty among women. On 8 March 2011, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on this issue. This resolution and other strategies for preventing discrimination should be put into effect in parallel with the political strategies adopted as part of the platform.

Gender equality is a precondition for the sustainability of development, employment, competitiveness and social cohesion. As the rapporteur for the opinion on European cooperation in vocational education and training to support the Europe 2020 strategy, I consider it essential to pursue programmes for lifelong learning, distance learning, vocational training and informal learning and to ensure equal access to these programmes.

I appeal to the Member States that, in programming Structural Funds, they maintain as a priority the need to invest in ways to extend the range of education and training available and in a strategy of support for pathways from training to work. Sixteen per cent of the European Union’s population live below the poverty line. For this reason, all the proposals adopted in the resolution are extremely important. The Commission must ensure that there are sufficient funds in the EU budget to enable support for the key initiatives identified in the Commission communication on the European platform against poverty and social exclusion, as well as in the Europe 2020 strategy.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) I am full of praise for the report which has been debated and adopted, and for the discussion we have had in Parliament on this subject. I cannot imagine that during an economic crisis, we should not tackle the growth of poverty, which has been caused mainly by rising unemployment and falling support for the poorest. We have allocated huge sums to the support of banks and a variety of financial institutions, so we must also find many times smaller amounts for the fight against poverty. In this work, we must pay particular attention to children and people who are unemployed, homeless or excluded, and this is just for today, because with tomorrow in mind, we must give an important place to education, support for families with many children and ending unemployment. Put simply, what is important is economic development and tackling the crisis.

Against this backdrop, the lack of action and the lack of a decision on the part of the Council of the European Union on free distribution of food to the poorest is incomprehensible, and we should be ashamed about this. The attitude of some Member States, which are blocking a solution to this problem, is also incomprehensible.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Mr Daerden’s report concentrates on a number of elements considered essential to fighting poverty effectively, from raising awareness and developing cooperation between Member States on strategies for the fight against poverty relating to the most disadvantaged (minors, the disabled, the homeless), passing through a series of requests to the Commission to contribute effectively towards the realisation of more hard-hitting policies in the fight against poverty (elaboration of evaluation mechanisms, conceiving a new basket of basic goods and services, efforts to resolve the issue of the food distribution scheme for the most deprived people in the EU). This is, therefore, a well-balanced report which receives my full approval.

Allow me to reiterate some statistics from my own country. Italy has drawn up its own national programme for reforming its own objectives and programmes concerning the fight against poverty: EUR 3.9 billion have been invested for social inclusion. Of this figure, EUR 2.4 billion is set aside for inclusion in the labour market of women and other disadvantaged people such as immigrants and ethnic minorities. The remaining EUR 1.5 billion will instead be used to improve the offer of collective social health services.

The struggle against poverty, which sees all the Member States united in their efforts to overcome it, is an endeavour which is included in one of the Millennium Development Goals undersigned by the United Nations.

  Claudiu Ciprian Tănăsescu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I supported the creation of a European platform against poverty and social exclusion precisely because 22.4% of Romania’s population have an income below the national poverty line. The per capita GDP in 2010 was roughly 55% lower than the average per capita GDP in the European Union. Not only is Romania allocating in these circumstances just 14% of GDP to social welfare, while the EU average is 27% of GDP, but Romanians’ purchasing power has also fallen drastically in the last year due to the austerity measures adopted by the current government.

Since, at the moment, the measures taken by the Romanian Government are simply destroying the foundations of the European social model, excluding the fact that it is actually social welfare which has reduced poverty by 38% in the European Union, I think that this platform is needed to help countries like Romania combat poverty and social exclusion.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The EU dedicated 2010 to the problem of poverty and social exclusion, so as to demonstrate the institutions’ commitment to eradicating poverty, as set out in the Lisbon strategy and the Europe 2020 strategy initiative, and the European platform against poverty and social exclusion. This platform will provide the Member States with a multi-dimensional approach and a ‘framework for action’, with a view to achieving its objectives and to lifting 20 million people out of poverty by 2020.

The EU has more than 80 million people at risk of poverty, including 20 million children and 8% of the working population. The multiplying effects of this problem require an approach that is integrated but is simultaneously individualised, since poverty and social exclusion express themselves in various ways. I think it is important to use the open method of coordination, so that monitoring of the targets achieved in this struggle in the Member States can be regulated and the sharing of best practices can be enabled. Another point that I should like to stress is the appearance of what is known as hidden poverty, which is affecting the middle classes in European countries.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the European Parliament resolution on the European Platform against poverty and exclusion because many European citizens have seen their quality of life decline as a result of the financial and economic crisis.

I voted for Amendments 6 and 7, which called for Member States to agree on an EU target for minimum income schemes and to adopt minimum wages (via legislation or as part of collective agreements), in order to ensure equal remuneration of at least 60% of the (national, sectoral, etc.) average wage.

I voted for Amendment 8, which calls on the EU to support the introduction of social and ecological minimum standards so as to prevent poverty and social exclusion, in particular, energy poverty and rising rents, which lead to evictions and homelessness.

I voted for paragraphs 71 and 95, which repeat Parliament’s call for sectoral legislative initiatives in relation to the quality and accessibility of social services of general interest, in particular, in the areas of health, education, public transport, energy, water and communications, and encourage Member States to guarantee a minimum income based on at least 60% of the median income in each Member State.

  Georgios Toussas (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) We voted against the European Parliament report on the so-called platform against poverty and social exclusion because it is a very blatant insult to the workers, who are being condemned by the policy of the EU and the bourgeois governments of the Member States to destitution, misery and impoverishment. The EU’s own statistics illustrate that the number of people living below the poverty line in Europe has exploded from 80 million to 116 million in the two years since 2009 and is continuing to rise. Poverty is not a result of, it is prerequisite to the capitalist system. Poverty is not merely a product of the capitalist crisis; it exists and increases even under conditions of capitalist growth. Poverty cannot be eliminated without overturning the anti-grassroots policy of the EU and of the governments and parties of capital that support it, without overturning the economic and political power of the monopolies. Poverty will be eradicated only when the producers of wealth take over, so that they can enjoy the wealth that they produce.

  Emilie Turunen (Verts/ALE), in writing. – (DA) Paragraph 18 of this report calls for the food distribution scheme for the most deprived people in the EU to continue for the period 2014-2020. I am opposed to the continuation of the food distribution scheme in the EU. I believe that the EU should work towards social and employment policies that put people in a position to live a dignified life without having to be dependent on free food hand-outs. I voted in favour of the report, however, because I believe that it contains very many positive elements and because I consider it to be crucial that, in the midst of an economic crisis, the Member States step up their efforts to combat poverty in the EU.

  Viktor Uspaskich (ALDE), in writing. – (LT) As the report has observed very accurately, the financial crisis has increased problems linked to poverty and social exclusion, with the heaviest blow being dealt to the most vulnerable sections of the population. According to official statistics, in Lithuania, poverty threatens not just the unemployed. The rate of poverty among working people in Lithuania is higher than in other Member States. Approximately 10.4% of working people in Lithuania are threatened by poverty, compared to 8.4% in the EU 27. Information from a survey on low-income families has shown that the main causes of the risk of poverty are a lack of education and a high number of dependents. The rate of poverty among working people in Lithuania who have a lower than average education is 21.1% (EU 27 – 16.4%). Both Lithuania and the EU should try to improve education across all generations. The latest EU reports show that the majority of workers on low incomes live in rural areas. Around 32.7% of people living in rural areas experience poverty, while in urban areas, the figure is 14.7%. Together, we must reduce social and economic disparities between urban and rural areas.

  Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. – I voted in favour of this report because, as one of the flagship initiatives in Europe 2020, the European platform against poverty and social exclusion increases the awareness of this important issue. Poverty and social exclusion have increased in recent years; with more than 80 million people in Europe at risk of poverty, the EU must act to help the most deprived citizens. The financial crisis has put increased pressure on vulnerable groups and more must be done to help them become an important focus of European integration. I support the report, which adopts an improved budget for the fight against poverty with the important objective of decreasing the number of poor people in the EU by 20 million by 2020. In addition, it is very important that EU funds are better used to address these issues, as part of an integrated strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) National governments are primarily responsible for introducing measures to reduce poverty and prevent social exclusion. However, the Union plays an important role in coordinating and financing these activities. The Europe 2020 strategy is intended to generate inclusive and sustainable growth. The European Union is attempting to improve the European funds on the basis of information provided by the Member States concerning their reform programmes and implementation measures. I have voted in favour.

  Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR), in writing. – My home constituency of London has some of the highest rates of poverty and inequality in the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, I voted against this report on poverty and social exclusion. I voted against the report, not because I think that we should not be confronting poverty, but because of the naïve proposals put forward in this report. The only way to tackle poverty is by improving the economy, by cutting red tape and regulation to create the conditions to boost businesses and create jobs. Plans for a legally-enforceable, Europe-wide minimum income are more likely to hurt employment than to help it. And do we really think that we can solve poverty through a series of EU-wide ‘poverty awareness seminars’? I do not believe that the EU should be pressing governments to spend more money on state benefits at a time of economic austerity. I do not believe that the EU should ever be pressing governments to spend more money on state benefits! We need realistic proposals to combat poverty and, most significantly, these should be generated at the national level. The last thing we need is another unwanted, unserviceable decree from Brussels which fails to help those most in need.