Verbatim report of proceedings

Wednesday, 15 February 2012 - Strasbourg

1. Opening of the sitting

IN THE CHAIR: MARTIN SCHULZ
President

(The sitting opened at 09.00)

2. Implementing measures (Rule 88): see Minutes

3. Delegated acts (Rule 87a): see Minutes

4. Preparation for the European Council meeting (1-2 March 2012) (debate)

  President. – The next item is the Council and Commission statements on the preparation for the European Council meeting on 1 and 2 March 2012 (2011/2918(RSP)).

  Nicolai Wammen, President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, the Spring European Council is, as you know, the European Council’s annual rendezvous to discuss economic and social issues, and the next meetings of Heads of State or Government will be no exception. The European Council will seek to address the current economic crisis, notably, by providing guidance on Member States’ economic and employment policies, putting particular emphasis on accelerating structural reforms to increase competitiveness and create more jobs and on fully exploiting the potential of green growth.

However, let me stress that this is not to say that we are in a business-as-usual mode. Indeed, we cannot afford complacency. Because of the crisis, we need more than ever to make full use of our new tools – the European Semester and the ‘six-pack’. This is an important priority for the Danish Presidency and we will work in all relevant Council formations to ensure strict implementation of the new rules in order to ensure their credibility, but also to provide opportunity for anchoring this process at the level of Heads of State and Government.

The European Council will conclude the first phase of the European Semester on the basis of the Commission’s Annual Growth Survey and the discussions held in the different formations of the Council. It is the Presidency’s intention to summarise all these contributions in a synthesis report. Furthermore, the EPSCO and Ecofin Councils will adopt conclusions.

In this context, the European Council will identify the main challenges facing the EU and give strategic advice and guidance to Member States on the different policies. Let me recall that a number of orientations have already been set out at the informal European Council on 30 January regarding stimulating employment, especially for young people, completing the single market and boosting the financing of the economy, in particular, of the SMEs. Those measures requiring actions at the national level are to be duly reflected in Member States’ national reform programmes.

As regards measures to be taken at EU level, the Council will report back on the implementation in June. We expect the March European Council to assess the economic situation and express the EU’s determination to continue to take all necessary measures.

Regarding guidance to Member States on their national reform programmes and stability and convergence programmes, the European Council will discuss the implementation of the 2011 European Semester country-specific recommendations and commitments under the Euro Plus Pact. It will call on Member States to give priority to the areas identified in the Commission’s AGS and in the Council discussion on the European Semester and to reflect this in the NRPs and SCPs. The European Council will also call on the Member States taking part in the Euro Plus Pact to update their commitments and to make them more precise, time-limited, operational and measurable.

Regarding innovation and following up on the orientations set by the European Council, the Danish Presidency will prepare reports setting out progress achieved in this field. On that basis, we expect the European Council to stress the areas where more progress is required to unlock innovation potential, for instance, a single innovation indicator.

On the second issue on the agenda – international summits – the forthcoming G8, G20 and Rio+20 meetings will address issues important to the EU. The difficulty is, of course, that they will take place in June and the March European Council should therefore take stock of preparation and signal those issues of particular importance.

On the G20 and the G8, the Mexican Presidency has identified the following priorities for the summit: economic stabilisation and structural reforms as foundations for growth and employment; strengthening the financial system and fostering financial inclusion to promote economic growth; improving the international financial architecture in an interconnected world; enhancing food security and addressing commodity price volatility; promoting sustainable development, green growth and the fight against climate change.

The Mexican Presidency will organise preparatory ministerial meetings on foreign affairs, tourism, agriculture and labour. The EU position at the meeting will be thoroughly prepared in the coming months in the relevant Council formations in order to ensure a strong and coordinated EU position.

The UN Rio+20 conference: at this conference, it is an important priority for the Danish Presidency that we should promote a strengthened global institutional framework for sustainable development and advance work on global and coherent post-2015 goals for sustainable development.

The European Council is expected to underline its strong commitment to an ambitious outcome of the UN conference to be held in Rio de Janeiro in June of this year and stress the need for strong participation from the private sector and civil society. The Council will further develop the EU position on Rio+20 in order to ensure a strong European voice in Rio.

In accordance with the conclusions of the European Council in December 2011, the European Council will also take up the issue of status as candidate country for Serbia. As you are aware, the European Council, on 9 December 2011, noted that considerable progress has been made by Serbia towards fulfilling the political criteria. With a view to granting Serbia the status of candidate country, the European Council tasked the General Affairs Council to examine and confirm that Serbia has continued to show credible commitment and has achieved further progress in moving forward with the implementation, in good faith, of agreement reached in the dialogue, including on IBM, has reached an agreement on inclusive regional cooperation, and has actively cooperated to enable EULEX and KFOR to execute their mandates.

In the light of its examination, the General Affairs Council will take the decision on candidate status on 28 February, to be confirmed by the March European Council. I hope that a decision can be taken to give Serbia status as a candidate country but that will, of course, also require that Serbia has done what is necessary to live up to the criteria formulated in December.

Finally the European Council is expected to address foreign policy, probably with the focus on the Southern Neighbourhood and the Arab Spring.

  Maroš Šefčovič, Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, Europe is in an unprecedented economic situation. After the years of crisis, our forecasts show that growth is at a virtual standstill and will remain slow for the foreseeable future. Unemployment, especially youth unemployment, is unacceptably high and may remain so for many years.

This is the background against which we need action and against which the actions of European institutions and national governments alike will be judged. We need to deliver on the greatest concerns of our citizens – jobs and growth – and we need to mark a turning point in the way we have addressed this crisis until now.

As we already said in our road map last October, we need decisive action to address Greece’s problems and restore public finances to health. We need to strengthen the European banking system and to build credible firewalls for the euro area, and we need stability and discipline to prevent a repeat of recent events, but unless we can also get our economy growing and creating jobs, we will only have a partial solution and we will not win the support of our citizens.

That is why the informal European Council was such an important stepping stone for the Spring European Council. It represented agreement among Europe’s leaders to concentrate on a few immediate priorities with substantial potential for growth and employment – first and foremost for our young people and for our SMEs, to help them to grow and to create jobs again. This message was already at the core of our 2012 Annual Growth Survey (AGS), adopted by the Commission last November, and with this AGS, we are launching the new European Semester. As you know, our survey is a contribution to the Spring European Council and we will call upon the European Council to give very strong backing to the priorities we have identified. I hope that we can also count on the support of this House to do so.

The Annual Growth Survey points to the number of priorities we have to achieve in the future and the priorities which should guide the Member States in drawing up their own new national programmes, which are due to be presented in April. On the basis of this, the Commission will put forward country-specific proposals for the discussion in May and adoption at the June European Council.

What is very important is that very little of what is in the Annual Growth Survey is completely new. There is, and has been for some time, a broad consensus on the need to cover jobs and growth as well as getting public finances in order. We need a balanced approach, covering growth and jobs and the improvement of fiscal consolidations and public finances, but what we need even more is implementation and respect for the commitments which we have already undertaken.

As far as new ideas are concerned, we have to remind ourselves that we already have a policy for jobs and growth. It is called Europe 2020. We also have a European Semester which represents a quantum leap in economic policy coordination in Europe. For the first time this year, the semester will take place within our strengthened system of economic governance based on the ‘six-pack’ legislation that the European Parliament played such an important role in developing. What is needed now is a firm commitment at national and European levels to picking up the pace of the reforms and to carrying that commitment through to 2012.

The Commission has already put forward a proposal regarding the problem which is probably the most burdensome and most difficult for our citizens – namely, youth unemployment. We cannot accept the fact that we have 7.5 million young people across Europe classified as NEETs, which means that they are not in employment, education or training. They definitely do not deserve this.

We need to tackle these high levels of youth unemployment and we need to do so in a sustainable manner. Getting young people on to the labour market is an essential element of our efforts to ensure future growth. We have already set up action teams that will visit the eight Member States with the highest youth unemployment rates and they will examine, together with national authorities and social partners, what we can do better, how we can make better use of EU and national funds, and how we can focus our efforts on social policies, SMEs and job creation for young people. I am very happy to report that our initial contacts with the Member States have been very encouraging and I hope that we will already be able to bring a positive report to the Spring European Council on this matter.

But these actions must be part of the wider reform of labour market policies aimed at getting more Europeans on to the labour market and increasing their employment opportunities. I am sure that these issues will be discussed again at greater length in a moment when you debate the Cornelissen, Gauzès and Berès reports.

I started my presentation in a slightly downbeat fashion, but I would like to conclude on a more optimistic note. While no one is brave enough yet to suggest that we have turned the corner, that the worst might be over, and that we might finally be back on the road to growth, I think it is fair to say that we now at least have far greater control over our future. The new measures that have been proposed by the Commission and agreed by this House – now I am talking about the ‘six-pack’ and other measures – are giving much more visibility to the European Semester and are allowing us to take action far earlier than before and to avoid the kind of fire-fighting that has dominated our discussions until now.

Yesterday, the Commission adopted its first alert mechanism report according to which the 12 countries should be subject to a more in-depth review. Our recommendations will now be discussed in the Council and Eurogroup and, of course, the feedback from this House into this discussion would be very welcome. This might not seem particularly optimistic, especially for the 12 Member States concerned, but it underlines the rapid and effective improvements that have already been made to the way in which public finances are managed in Europe.

We need to have the right tools in place to monitor progress, address risk and propose remedies well before a crisis hits. We must make sure that the crisis that we are now going through will never again be repeated. Thanks to widespread agreement between the Commission, Parliament and the Council, we now have the tools and, although it is early days, I would say that we have very strong indications that they are working. I fully expect the positive spirit of the informal Council to continue through to the Spring Council, that the Heads of State and Government will endorse the guidelines for growth and, more importantly, that they will meet their commitments on the ground.

  Joseph Daul, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, trust is the foundation of the single market, the foundation of the European Union. However, the financial crisis has undermined this trust, the trust that our fellow citizens have not only for each other but also for policy makers, and this distrust continues to grow. In the face of this danger, we must be unambiguous. We need measures to restore confidence in the good management of our finances and the Treaty to be signed next month will be one of the cornerstones of this.

We also need measures to restore confidence in the governance of the euro and this cannot be achieved by issuing contradictory statements. In this regard, I am very surprised by the statements made by Commissioner Neelie Kroes, Vice-President of the Commission, who is of the opinion that it would not be a tragedy if Greece left the euro area. I ask the Commission: is this your official position? I would ask the Commission to address this matter.

Ladies and gentlemen, after years of imprudent management of public finances in many of our countries, now is the time for change. This applies even more to Greece of course, but we will not avoid spending cuts —and Greece cannot take any more. Our Latvian friends showed the way some years ago, by reforming their public management without any outside help and accepting painful sacrifices that led to a return to growth.

That is why, for my part, I also trust in the Greek people’s enormous sense of responsibility and I am not among those who would have them believe they will immediately overcome the crisis without reforming.

That said, as I stated just after the last European Council, it will take more to build the economy than growth and employment reforms. However, the package proposed to us at this stage is not, in any way, up to the challenge. I firmly believe this is no longer the time for business as usual. It is time to make commitments on a par with those of the post-war Marshall Plan or even the 1992 single market project.

Ladies and gentlemen, the time has come for Europe to be ambitious. The time has come to establish a project which mobilises all our resources to restore growth and employment.

My group expects the European Commission to propose a legislative package of this kind, in close cooperation with Parliament, as we did with the ‘six-pack’. This package could include measures as ambitious as completing the internal market. We need to know which countries are still blocking this market. The Single Market Act, the Services Directive and the European Patent are all being blocked by an absurd dispute over location. This package must also reduce the burdens imposed on our businesses which stifle their competitiveness. In return, leave it to them to commit to providing more employment, above all, for young people. Ultimately, there is no magic formula for overcoming this crisis unless we demonstrate political will, have the courage to tell our fellow citizens the truth and see through our commitments.

As a former manager, I can tell you, I have lived through many crises and I would ask the Commission and the Heads of State or Government who are always thinking of the next election — I understand this and therefore, it is up to us, in Parliament and in the Commission, to show them the way, to put forward proposals, bold proposals for major projects, for example — to establish the internal market and condemn those who do not.

These are measures, small measures, which together will perhaps allow us to quickly return to 1% growth.

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

  Ashley Fox (ECR), Blue-card question. – I welcome Mr Daul’s comments about the need to reduce youth unemployment. Mr Daul, do you agree with me that a good way of doing this would be to repeal the Working Time Directive?

  Joseph Daul (PPE), Blue-card answer. – (FR) Mr Fox, no, we need rules, and I am a firm liberal like you. However, allow me to explain my liberalism for you.

Imagine a football pitch. There are two teams playing. I hope the best team wins, but there is still a referee and rules to be respected. That is what I call liberalism.

  Hannes Swoboda, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (DE) Mr President, Mr Wammen, Mr Šefčovič, the Council is finally intending to come to grips with the important problems relating to growth and employment. For a long period, for many years and months, nothing has been done in these areas. The Council is also planning to resolve the imbalances in economic policy. This subject is also mentioned in the report which the Commission has published. However, perhaps too little has been said about the fact that both sides, the countries with deficits and those with surpluses, must do something to correct the imbalances, as Germany promised in the G20 meetings and resolutions.

As far as the rules are concerned, Mr Fox, you should take a look at reality, at the empirical facts. Many countries are following the rules, in particular, countries like Germany and Austria, which have the lowest levels of youth unemployment. We need to focus on reality and not on the ideology.

Of course, I support what the Council and the Commission are now doing. However, I doubt whether there has really been a change of direction, particularly when I look at what is going on in Greece. A lot of decisions have been made and a great deal of what has already been said today brings to mind the G20 summit in Cannes, for example. I will come back to that subject this afternoon. The case of Greece shows that we have not yet learned to change our way of thinking. The economic situation in Greece is being put at risk by radicals who are setting fire to Athens. It is being endangered by those people, and Mr Daul is right in this respect, who are not prepared to take over political responsibility in Greece. It is also being put at risk by a Troika which is calling for changes that will only make the situation in Greece worse and I do not know on whose behalf they are doing this, definitely not on behalf of social democracy or of many of the people of Greece. What will the extreme cuts in pensions, salaries and minimum wages achieve? A deeper recession and greater poverty. This will reduce people’s purchasing power, lower tax revenues and increase the deficit. This is the policy which the European Commission is unfortunately also supporting, together with the European monetary fund, for Greece in particular. We want to see a change of direction.

If wages and pensions are cut, but there is no increase in competition, because there are so many restrictions on competition, for example, then prices will rise and there will be more poverty. What the Troika is demanding, with the support of some members of the Commission, in other words, cuts in social security and dismantling the system of social dialogue, is in stark contrast to what has been said at G20 summits and in many other meetings. For us, social dialogue and the role of the social partnership is absolutely essential, in particular, as regards the reforms in Greece.

People are saying that the trade unions must take responsibility, but they must also be given responsibility. If we take responsibility away from them, we cannot expect them to assume responsibility.

There is an alternative route to the one suggested by the orthodox Troika. For this reason, I have proposed that three prominent Members of my group, three former ministers, should travel to Greece and investigate, together with the Greeks and the people who want to introduce the reforms, which measures will really effectively reduce the deficit, because they will lead to more growth and create more jobs. That is also the difference in our approach. To a certain extent, Greece is being blackmailed by the Troika and it has no say in the matter. This is putting democracy at risk. We want to work together with Greece on these issues. Greece does not need a headmaster from Germany or from elsewhere with a cane in his hand. Greece needs help and support. It needs to be advised, not dictated to. We want to give Greece advice. We want to work together with Greece to help it to emerge from this serious crisis, just as the Americans did with the Marshall Plan for Europe. We must not threaten the Greeks. We must help them, because help for Greece is also help for the euro area and for Europe.

(Applause)

  Alexander Graf Lambsdorff, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (DE) Mr President, as Mr Wammen has just said, the Spring European Council meeting is traditionally the European Union’s rendezvous with social and economic reality in Europe. However, we have all heard that the finance ministers yesterday cancelled their meeting in Brussels at which they intended to approve the second aid package for Greece. What does that mean? What does it mean for Greece and for Europe?

I believe that our common goal is to keep Greece in the euro area and I would like to respond to Mr Daul on this subject. I do not agree with what Ms Kroes has said about Greece remaining in the euro area, but the reason why she has said it and why so many people are so impatient, is the behaviour of her sister party, Nea Dimokratia, in particular. If they could just call Mr Samaras to order, it would be very helpful. I believe it would be better for all of us.

We want Greece to stay in the euro area, but it is important to make one thing clear. In the past, the Greek Government has made a lot of promises, but has delivered very little. The introduction of another austerity package does not by any means indicate that what is being promised will actually be put into practice, and that is exactly what this is all about. It is about structural reform, which will lead to further aid being made available. If it takes the right course, Greece can count on our support. However, we no longer need preliminary work; instead, we are looking for action.

It has been said here that the situation in Greece is genuinely dramatic. In addition to the savings which are needed, Mr Swoboda, from 1991 to 2007, in other words, before the crisis, Greece had an average annual national deficit of 6.6%. Greece is now having to pay the bill for its poor policies in the past. Of course, we do not envy the Greeks. That is absolutely clear. We want to get the country and the economy going again and the trade unions will be an important part of this. Trade unions have played a constructive role in increasing competitiveness in Germany over many years.

Economic performance has fallen by 7% over the last three months. This is why we now need genuine structural reforms, in other words, a tax reform which is worthy of the name. Progress must be made with privatisation in important sectors such as energy generation, ports and lotteries, every area where the state is too heavily involved. The proposed cuts in the bloated civil service are also needed. Parts of the Greek political system have been based on this. People simply found positions for their supporters in a ministry, a public authority or a public company. In other words, the state sector is completely bloated.

I would like to remind everyone in this context that it was the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe which called for a sort of Marshall Plan some time ago. We call it the Hercules Plan and we will be happy to work on it. However, after the last Council meeting, our group also made three very specific proposals for measures to promote growth and create jobs. These proposals are addressed to the Council: the implementation of the European patent, the deployment of unused funding from the European Union budget and a plan to reduce the risk of infection within Europe. We want a debt redemption pact for the whole of Europe. We expect the Council finally to tackle this problem.

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

  Joseph Daul (PPE), Blue-card question. – (FR) Mr Lambsdorff, I do not wish to be rude but although I know Ms Kroes well, as she has been with us for a long time, I see things differently. If Greece files for bankruptcy, there are some insurers who will pay out 75% to certain companies. If it does not file for bankruptcy, these companies will be forced to give up 75%, or even 100%, of what they have invested in Greece. I am simply asking the question and we will ask Ms Kroes whether she ever thought about this.

Secondly, I spoke to Mr Samaras on the telephone yesterday evening. He expelled 21 members from his party on Sunday. That is what I call a brave man. Have you ever expelled 21 members because they didn’t vote in favour of a text? It is clear to me that Mr Samaras does not lack courage. He proved this on Sunday evening.

  President. – It would have been nice if you could have told us which question you were asking Mr Lambsdorff.

(Heckling)

The question is whether you have already excluded 21 Members.

  Alexander Graf Lambsdorff (ALDE), Blue-card answer. – (DE) Mr President, I am looking around and I do not want to exclude any of the Members who are sitting behind me.

It is important to make it clear that we must not attach too much importance to these remarks. It is obvious that many people really have run out of patience. We want to see something happen in Greece. We are prepared to help and to show solidarity, but the phase of promises must be replaced by a phase of taking action. I believe that this is what lies behind these remarks. They are made on a pars pro toto basis. This is not just one voice speaking. Many, many people are saying the same thing.

  Daniel Cohn-Bendit, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, very often after I have listened to the speeches by the Council and the Commission, I find that I do not know which world we are living in. However, apparently, we are able to function on different planets.

Mr Šefčovič from the Commission, you mentioned 2020 and it made us think that once upon a time, there was 2020. A lovely fairytale. Once upon a time, there was also the Lisbon strategy. These were goals which were formulated, but were ultimately never put into practice. I am really very pleased that the Council has finally realised that we have high rates of youth unemployment. This has been the case for about the last eight years and they have just discovered the fact. Welcome to the real world! Perhaps you will discover other things which are happening in the world over the course of the next eight years. When you talk about youth unemployment, you could make the link with Greece. How do you plan to resolve the problem of youth unemployment in Greece? Now we come to one of the Commission’s central problems. If the neoliberal Taliban are in power in the Commission, then the Member States will have a hard time. I can tell you what is going on in Greece at the moment, and Mr Swoboda is right. It is not only irresponsible of the Troika, but I would almost say that it is criminal.

I will give you an example. I do not know which officials had their fingers in the pie. The Council and the Commission are saying that the Greeks need to save EUR 326 million. The response of the Greek Government and Mr Samaras, after they had attempted rather belatedly to put the situation in order, was that they would make the savings from the defence budget, to which some of the Commission officials replied that they must make the cuts in pensions. How did they come up with this idea and why? It is right that the money should be found from the defence budget. This is what I call the neoliberal Taliban.

You are all calling on Greece to make savings. Mr Lambsdorff, it is not true that nothing is happening. First of all, without taking into account interest, Greek debt fell last year from 10% to between 3 and 4%. They have reduced their debt by 6% of GDP. We cannot say to these people that they have done nothing. The situation is slowly starting to become outrageous. Sometimes I think I am going mad. We want to give the Greeks EUR 130 billion. Now there is a problem with EUR 380 million and we are putting a stop to everything because of the EUR 380 million. Not to beat about the bush, this is coercion. It is coercion of the Greek people and it is not a solution.

Therefore, I would finally like to say that if everyone here believes that this is the way to save Greece, then they are wrong. You cannot introduce reforms without the support of the people. If you constantly provoke the people, then they will make the wrong decisions. It may be that the people of Greece currently have the wrong ideas about certain subjects, but you will not solve this problem by making them walk on their knees. They must be able to walk upright.

I would like to say one thing to the Germans in this House. When Germany occupied Greece, it transferred 486 million from the Greek central bank to Berlin. This money has never been repaid. Taking inflation into account, this amounts to EUR 81 billion that Germany owes Greece. Why do you not tell the Germans this? This would pay off one-sixth of Greece’s debts. This is how European history can be explained. It is known as the European narrative in European history.

(Applause)

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

  Alexander Graf Lambsdorff (ALDE), Blue-card question. – (DE) Mr President, I would be very grateful if Mr Cohn-Bendit could explain to me what he believes the Taliban are. I am not familiar with the phrases ‘liberal Taliban’ and ‘neoliberal Taliban’. Mr Daul has just outed himself here as a liberal. I do not believe that he is a member of the Taliban, not even the neoliberal Taliban. We should stop all this nonsense. What is really important, and I would like to say that Mr Cohn-Bendit is right about this, is that we should all treat each other with respect. That also applies to the different peoples of Europe, including the Greeks, the Germans and the others. Treating each other with respect within the European Union should always be more important than wonderful rhetorical flights of fancy which are actually rather disrespectful.

  Daniel Cohn-Bendit (Verts/ALE), Blue-card answer. – (DE) Mr President, I would like to mention just one name. A Commission official by the name of Marco Buti made the following reply in an Ecofin meeting when he was told that the German banks had said that Portugal, Ireland and Greece would not be able to repay their debts in this way. Our colleague or comrade Marco Buti – an ayatollah, if you prefer that to the word Taliban, a neoliberal ayatollah, I am happy to correct myself – said: If anyone in my Commission were to submit these figures to me, he would be dismissed immediately. That is what I call an ayatollah. This is a person who puts religion before reality and many neoliberal officials in the Commission do just this. Reality is one thing, but with their ideology, they will destroy Europe. That is all I wanted to say.

(Applause)

  Martin Callanan, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, European politics is no longer anchored in reality. EU summits are becoming a political ritual, somehow divorced from the real world.

Every summit – and we have seen lots of them in recent months – comes and goes with the same old mantras and demonstrations of hope triumphing over experience. A little bit more austerity and immediately confidence in the euro will somehow magically come flooding back. Another Treaty package to tinker with the rules and the markets will suddenly realise that they have been wrong all along and the euro is, in fact, completely sound. And then at the end of them all, we see the same ritual – the stern-faced leaders emerge, they gaze at the cameras and they repeat the same old mantras: ‘we will do all we can to save the euro’. But they never actually quite specify exactly what they are going to do to save the euro.

If politics has traditionally been seen as the art of the possible, the EU is turning it into an art of delusion. Surely, eventually, this nonsense needs to stop. The risks are becoming too great for yet another of the many summits that come and go, and which fail to face reality.

Let me start with Greece. I was amazed that neither the Commission nor the Council mentioned anything about Greece in their opening statements, as if it has suddenly disappeared off the map. Nobody believes that the latest package will save Greece. None of the MPs in Greece who voted for it on Sunday night seem to believe this, none of the international commentators or economists believe it; even the German Finance Minister who insisted on it does not seem to believe that it will save Greece. Because even if all of the measures that were voted for on Sunday night are implemented – and, given Greece’s record, that is probably unlikely – then by 2020, after eight more years of grinding austerity, Greece would still be in a worse position than Italy is today.

Greece is suffering from a 30% loss of competitiveness against Germany. How do you eliminate such a deficit? Economic reform in the long term will clearly be essential, but in the short term, there really is now only one solution: a default, coupled with a devaluation, is the only way now to salvage something from the wreckage of the Greek economy, and to save a generation or more of young Greeks from a miserable economic inheritance.

All of the energy currently being devoted to drafting and ratifying a new Treaty that is completely irrelevant to the ongoing crisis would be better employed drafting and implementing a plan for the orderly withdrawal of Greece from the euro, including carefully prepared support for the banks that will be most affected. That is the sustainable solution and everything else is just a very expensive way of further kicking the can down the road.

  Lothar Bisky, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the European Council spring summit is traditionally devoted to discussing the economic and employment policies of the European Union, more recently in connection with the so-called European Semester. This year, however, the debate is likely to be overshadowed by the dramatic situation in Greece. Greece is the ideal example on which to base a discussion about the failure of the economic and financial policies of the European Union. The predominant global policy of deregulation and privatisation has plunged the European Union into the most serious crisis it has ever experienced. As a result of this policy of deregulation, the global financial markets and also the commodity markets have got completely out of control or, more accurately, have fallen victim to speculators. The Greek crisis is also a result of EU policy, because the existing macro-economic imbalances between the Member States will be significantly exacerbated by the Europe 2020 strategy. These imbalances are what the financial speculators are now gambling on.

It is not only Greece which is fighting for survival. A policy which has had such disastrous consequences in Greece and in other countries, such as Portugal, Spain and Italy, needs fundamental changes. In fact, it must be reversed. Austerity measures are making the economic recession worse, as the fall in the gross domestic product figures of these countries has shown so dramatically. My group was strongly opposed to the Europe 2020 strategy and the imposition of one-sided austerity and debt reduction policies right from the outset. Instead, we need programmes to stimulate sustainable growth and to create jobs, together with programmes for investment, for the environment and for education.

A policy which involves axing social services, abolishing social legislation and restricting fundamental democratic and parliamentary rights, while at the same time supporting the banks to the tune of hundreds of billions of euro, can only lead to outrage and social unrest. The Greek Government is losing its political base, the parties which belong to it are losing their members and the structure of society is collapsing. This is the result of Greek and European policy and it requires a fundamental change in the EU’s approach in favour of one which serves the interests of the people rather than those of the banks.

One scenario could begin with the financial markets. Let us imagine that the European Central Bank (ECB) could lend money directly to the Member States via a public bank. This would enable the Member States to circumvent the international financial markets and to obtain the loans they need at favourable interest rates. No one could gamble on Greek, Portuguese or other bonds. All of the hype surrounding the markets would disappear. Does that sound appealing? All we need is the determination to take this step, and this is what my group is calling for.

  Nigel Farage, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Mr President, the Commissioner picked the right man: puppet Papademos is in place and, as Athens caught fire on Sunday night, he rather took my breath away. He said: ‘violence and destruction have no place in a democratic country’. What democratic country? He is not even a democratically elected Prime Minister. He has been appointed by you guys.

Greece is not run through democracy now, it is run through a Troika: three foreign officials who fly into Athens airport and tell the Greeks what they can and cannot do. The violence and destruction that you saw on Sunday is being caused directly because people are having their democratic rights taken from them; what else can they do? If I were a Greek citizen, I would have been out there joining those protests on Sunday; I would be out there trying to bring down this monstrosity that has been put upon those people. In the puppet’s efforts to get the MPs to vote for the bail-out package, he warned them that if they did not do so, there would be a dramatic decline in living standards.

Has he looked outside the front door? Has he seen the fact that 50% of the young people are unemployed already? Has he seen the fact that the economy, far from stalling, has contracted for five years in a row, and is now accelerating on a downward debt spiral, a contraction of 7% per annum?

Greece is being driven into the ground, and when it comes to chaos, you ain’t seen nothing yet. These policies are driving Greece towards a revolution. They need to be set free. If they do not get the drachma back, you will be responsible for something truly, truly horrible.

(Applause)

  Francisco Sosa Wagner (NI). – (ES) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are holding yet another debate on a summit. Many summits have taken place, and are all announced to great fanfare, trying to create an expectation that diminishes every day. These summits are starting to lose credibility because they do not contribute to resolving the crisis. The same agreements are reiterated time and time again at summits.

It should be noted that, whilst there is no progress on political union and on strengthening this Parliament and the executive power of the European Commission, summits will keep on taking place, but the economic crisis will get worse.

Two ideas, very briefly: the first, the need to insist on the fact that responsible solidarity and the fulfilling of duties are the building blocks from which Europe is built; the second, that the immediate use of unspent Structural Funds must be authorised. The sums involved can easily allow the unemployment figures among young European citizens to be tackled.

  Markus Ferber (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, Mr Wammen, Mr Šefčovič, ladies and gentlemen, once again, the Heads of State or Government are meeting to discuss growth, employment and competitiveness and to exchange papers on these subjects without actually taking any action. I can remember papers on the topic of youth unemployment at the end of the 1990s which identified that some Member States had lower levels of youth unemployment and others had higher levels, and which explained that it would be a good idea to look at what those countries with low rates were doing. Fourteen years have now passed and nothing has happened.

When people say that we need to show solidarity, I would like to remind them that in the last 31 years, Greece has received more than EUR 100 billion from the Structural Funds. That is an expression of European solidarity. It has repeatedly been said that the money can be used, for example, to fund education and training, in particular for young people. I can remember initiatives in the region which I come from that involved attempts to introduce the dual educational system in different areas of Greece. However, this did not work. The energy revolution is still in progress in Greece and this and many other things could be financed using money from the Structural Funds. This demonstrates Europe’s solidarity. However, we also need to increase the pressure to ensure that the funds made available by the European Union are used for the purposes which will be discussed during the spring summit. Otherwise, this will once again be a summit with lots of interesting papers but no concrete results.

  Maria Eleni Koppa (S&D). – (EL) Mr President, last Sunday the Greek Parliament passed measures on the new bailout, a harsh package of measures which will undoubtedly shake social cohesion once again in a country which has suffered a series of extreme and barbaric measures over the past two years. It passed them because it had no other choice; because the majority of Greek people have agreed to suffer numerous sacrifices in order to remain in the euro area, so that the country does not go bankrupt and have to leave the euro; because the majority of parliamentarians put the nation’s duty before their conscience, before their conviction that we are reversing decades of achievements in labour rights. How has Europe responded? That ‘nothing is certain’, that ‘we shall see’ and that ‘there are second thoughts’.

We need to be clear; Greece has made great progress and now it needs a clear, positive message, a hope that will give Greeks the strength to shoulder the burden of the obligations it has undertaken. However, on the contrary, every day we receive contradictory messages which do not assuage the anxieties of the Greek people. The key point of the Spring Council is employment and growth, but what are the specific proposals and the framework for the countries hit by the crisis? So far, we have only heard wish lists, with ever harsher measures being imposed in practice, with wage and pension cuts leading to spiralling unemployment and exacerbating the recession. Today, we expect the Council, albeit belatedly, to present specific, targeted measures for growth and unemployment. Unfortunately, the margins, not only in my country, Greece, but in the euro area as a whole, are very narrow.

(Applause)

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), Blue-card question. – (PT) Mr President, Mr Ferber tells us that Greece has been the beneficiary of European solidarity. I would presume that he thinks the same about Portugal or Ireland, for example. I would ask him for his comments on the statement by Klaus Regling, his compatriot and the Chief Executive Officer of the European Financial Stability Facility, who has said that bailing out countries like Portugal and Ireland has been a good deal for the guarantor countries, and that, to date, it is only Germany that has gained, since the country is receiving from Portugal and Ireland interest rates higher than the refinancing that it undertook, with the difference going back into the German budget. I would ask you, Mr Ferber, is this solidarity or extortion?

  Markus Ferber (PPE), Blue-card answer. – (DE) Mr President, Mr Ferreira, I specifically referred to the European Union Structural Funds. However, I would like to ask for understanding on this point. If this funding had been spent in the same way as the Federal Republic of Germany used the money from the Marshall Plan, you would not need a rescue package today.

  Andrew Duff (ALDE). – Mr President, try as one might to respect the European Council, it is fairly clear that there is not one of its members that still believes that system of government works. Should we be respecting the remorseless logic of fiscal union? Why are we not taking decisive steps to bring it on now?

If we agree that we need, for Greece and other countries, fiscal solidarity and a federal economic government, then bring it on today. Can we really wait five years to integrate the Fiscal Compact Treaty inside the Union? More procrastination and false starts by national governments and partial agreements, subject to national parliamentary vetoes, with the odd referendum thrown in, will not save the European Union from self-destruction.

  Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL). – (EL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, speaking from this tribune as a member of the only directly elected institution of the European Union, I wish to ask the Council representative and, more importantly, the Commission representative, the following:

Commissioner, do you believe that there is democracy in the European Union and in Greece? Is it a sign of democracy when the meeting of the Eurogroup is postponed because written statements from the parties that support the Papademos government have not yet been received, when those parties no longer represent the Greek people and the leaders of the parties being dissolved no longer represent the Greek people? Is it democracy, Commissioner, when Greek members of parliament are required to study the 750-page long memorandum which you imposed in the space of an afternoon, in a city flooded with thousands of workers and stifled by tear gas, resulting in a disastrous Memorandum for Greece?

Is there democracy in the European Union? Are you complying with EU legislation when you Commissioners, via the Troika, impose and demand the abolition of collective bargaining and the repeal of labour law and when Commissioner Andor, in reply to my question, tells me that Greece is a ‘special case’? Is it democracy when Greece is governed by the Troika and the various gauleiters of the International Monetary Fund and the Commission, with Greek ministers behaving like subordinates? Is it democracy when …

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Barry Madlener (NI). – (NL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, EU Commissioner Kroes said last week that it would not be the end of the world if Greece left the euro area. Evidently, the Commission therefore has an exit strategy at the ready, from which it follows that it would actually be better for the Greeks to leave the currency union. I can totally understand why. It is our duty, as democrats, to inform citizens of all possible options. Greece is going to the dogs because of the cuts which are being forced on it by non-elected bureaucrats. The Troika is something akin to a dictatorship.

Mr Barroso, the Commission has blown the whistle on Commissioner Kroes after her statement about Greece, but I would ask the Commission to ensure transparency. Bring that exit strategy out in the open. Meanwhile, billions of taxpayers’ money is again being poured into the bottomless Greek pit when everyone knows, even the IMF, that this round of financial support is not going to help Greece any more than the previous rounds did. Greece will have to leave the currency union if it is to stand any chance at all of economic recovery. Even if we completely wrote off the Greek debt, the Greek economy would not be able to survive in the euro area.

We and the Greeks have a right to such an exit strategy. There can be no talk of democracy if all kinds of secret reports are knocking about inside the Commission. Greece is critically ill and the only remedy for her illness is the reintroduction of the Greek drachma.

  Mario Mauro (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, I have to admit that today’s debate perfectly mirrors our contradictions and our powerlessness. On the one hand, I note that the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament has condemned a pension reform that it has just applauded in a similar manner in Italy. It is not clear how a measure that is commendable for one country can be negative for another.

On the other hand, governments asking Greece to show proof of its virtue and of its cuts in public expenditure are also effectively forcing it to buy military hardware, thus exponentially increasing that same public expenditure. I find this an enormous contradiction. Who is the true victim of such a contradiction? Many say it is the Greek people. However, there is another victim, and that is Europe.

I think you will all have seen the pictures of the Greek Parliament besieged in the midst of burning buildings, among which European flags with a Nazi swastika in the middle could be seen. Be careful, therefore, because the true victim of this crisis of democracy is precisely a democratic process such as our own, which – despite the fact that it acts in the interests of European citizens and guarantees peace and growth – is perceived today as being totally evil.

We must take action. Mr President, I beg you to go to Athens to take the voice of the European Parliament to the Greek Parliament, which is being besieged against any democratic logic. I would like to remind everyone that our true objective is to ensure peace and growth for all.

  Catherine Trautmann (S&D). – (FR) Mr President, Minister, Commissioner, Greece has been forced into an endless spiral of austerity and today, these modern-day doctors Diafoirus, these advocates of blood-letting, are refusing to deliver the aid promised. How do we explain this to the Greek citizens who are being doubly punished with pressure and injustice?

There are alternative approaches. Let me propose one: the fight against tax avoidance. The tax haven provided by Switzerland costs Greece an estimated EUR 16.4 billion in loss of earnings. Tackling this resolutely would enable Greece to get back on track with the stability pact without sacrificing the future.

Greece has been pushed by circumstances into considering a bilateral agreement with Switzerland, similar to the Rubik agreements signed by the United Kingdom and Germany. Executing this partial levy on fraudulent investments, instead of prosecuting fraudsters, is institutional recognition of tax fraud and a bad deal financially. The Union should follow the example of the United States, which has successfully forced Switzerland to provide the bank details of suspected fraudsters.

What are the Commission’s plans now that its services have concluded the illegality of these agreements in a note that I believe should be made public? What does it suggest for the future now that its proposed Savings Tax Directive has been buried by the Council and, in particular, by Germany?

In short, what does it intend to propose so as to stop constantly penalising the poor? I would like it if the Commissioner could respond because this question is important, but I can see that he has not been listening.

  Sylvie Goulard (ALDE). – (FR) Mr President, Mr Wammen, Mr Šefčovič, I do not know what we are saying this morning. I find this debate quite astonishing, as if we are discovering each other’s true positions. I merely wish to comment on our approach. Could the European Council simply have the humility to reflect on what has been missing over the last year and why we are in this position? It is not a matter of finding out who is right or wrong, but trying to figure out how the approach can be changed.

I think the most serious problem is that we are trying to impose stability by force. We are trying to impose on a population – which has reforms to make, which has had enormous problems with its economic and perhaps political management – the stability of the euro area by force. This is in total contradiction to everything that has been done since 1950 on this continent, where the participation of each and every one of us should be voluntary and where democracy should prevail over the balance of power and economic considerations.

  Georgios Toussas (GUE/NGL). – (EL) Mr President, the situation in Greece does not need recommendations. ‘Memorandum Two’, passed on Sunday, 12 February by the parties of capital and rubberstamped by the EU/ECB/IMF Troika, is a blatantly barbaric attack on the working people. The new borrowing agreement and its flanking measures will make modern-day slaves of the workers, forcing them to work for a loaf of bread. The attack is sweeping. Crushing cuts to wages, pensions, health, welfare and education, mass unemployment, poverty and the impoverishment of the people. Everything is being demolished. This is uncontrolled bankruptcy of the nation.

Greece is a special, exceptional case. Spearheaded by the EU 2020 strategy, the EU and the bourgeois governments are jointly attacking the working classes and grassroots classes in every Member State of the EU with the same savageness. Even this blatantly anti-grassroots policy will not prevent friction in the EU or even the risk of general warfare for the redistribution of the markets. Three days after the new Memorandum was passed, the EU has already started a new round of terrorism and pressure on the Greek people to accept even worse measures. This spells the end of self-delusion about a unified EU, convergence, solidarity and peace. Hundreds of thousands of demonstrators on the streets of Greece, Portugal, Belgium, Spain, France and elsewhere are shouting as much from the rooftops. It is time now for the organised working/grassroots class movement to speak. As you sow, so shall you …

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD) . – (LT) Mr President, I am among those who believe that by building our Member State societies before the fact, so that they lose some sovereignty and independence, we will not create the desired unity and financial control. I am among those who believe that the new Treaty will be a huge minus. By imposing the Treaty, the draft of which has not yet been seen by Member State citizens, we are destroying the idea of a Union of equal states. Mr President, any questions relating to the constitutional structure, independence and statehood of Member States must be addressed not behind closed doors but in national referenda.

  Liisa Jaakonsaari (S&D), Blue-card question. – (FI) Mr President, I miss Prime Minister George Papandreou, who, I think, proposed the brilliant idea that a referendum should be held in Greece to acquire support for these savings.

You claimed that there was no feeling of solidarity in Europe. I say that there is: German, Finnish, Dutch and Austrian taxpayers have all shown solidarity.

I would also expect a measure of self-criticism from the Greeks, though we heard none at all in your speech. It is as if the guilty parties were anywhere else but in Greece. So can I ask for some self-criticism?

  Georgios Toussas (GUE/NGL), Blue-card answer. – (EL) Mr President, firstly, I should like to express my thanks to the working classes, the grassroots classes and young people in my country, to the German, French, Danish and all workers in the Member States, for the unprecedented solidarity which they have expressed in various ways. Greek workers have taken and have given solidarity.

However, we are not debating today the differences between workers, which the parties of capital are artfully trying to foster, because that is what facilitates the passage of this anti-grassroots policy, both in Greece and in other Member States. What is at risk – and I will finish here, Mr President – is this: huge wealth is being produced and that huge wealth must, for the welfare of the people, pass to all the Member States of the European Union.

  Andrew Henry William Brons (NI). – Mr President, the Fiscal Compact which Heads of Government will soon be asked to sign is a private agreement open to all EU States, but does not have to be agreed by all States. It is not, therefore, an official EU Treaty. Whilst Member States can, under Article 273 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, bring an alleged breach of a private agreement to the Court of Justice, there is no provision in the Treaties for the Court to enforce agreements on excessive budget deficits, despite claims to the contrary, and it might not even be able to adjudicate on them.

If the parties to this agreement wish it to be enforceable, it will have to become a Treaty agreed by all Member States. Mr Cameron saying that he does not object to the European Court or the European Commission being used is simply not enough for it to become a Treaty.

When the British Prime Minister vetoed the proposed Treaty in December, he did so to protect his friends in the City. I hope that at future European Council meetings, Mr Cameron will veto any attempt to turn this agreement into a Treaty, with the purpose of preventing the creation of an economic straitjacket that might one day be imposed on Britain.

  Jacek Saryusz-Wolski (PPE). – Mr President, nobody speaks about the geopolitical consequences of the eventual exit and destabilisation of Greece. Whatever happens – and we know that we do not know – geopolitical consequences should form part of an overall European balance sheet.

Let us imagine the situation for a moment. First: a weakened south-east flank of the Union; second: the Greek Schengen border in danger; third: the impact on the balance of power in the Middle East, in the Mediterranean and in the Western Balkans; fourth: the danger of an authoritarian scenario in Greece. What would be the political weight of those geopolitical consequences of Greece going bankrupt? The answer is: significant and far-reaching.

We need therefore a holistic approach and not one of an accountant. We need a political solution to the crisis and not a bookkeeper’s solution.

(Applause)

  Roberto Gualtieri (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, by taking part in a critical but constructive capacity in the negotiations for the fiscal compact, this Parliament has reached an important point of unity. Greater budgetary responsibility at national level is necessary but insufficient, and without concrete steps towards growth and solidarity, it could lead to an unsustainable downward spiral towards recession.

There is no evidence of Parliament’s approach, which is well thought-out and balanced, in the preparatory documents of the European Council. For the Council and the Commission, the word ‘growth’ seems to mean fiscal consolidation and salary reductions. It is true that there are positive developments taking place on the internal market, but they are not enough. Growth requires a robust internal driver, which involves a two-pronged objective: to reinforce internal demand in countries with a surplus and to promote an extraordinary investment plan financed by project bonds.

However, the Commission only interprets the macro-economic imbalances in one direction – ignoring the logic of the Ferreira rule – and there is no trace of project bonds and shared investments in the European Council documents, except for a vacuous game in which the card picked is to use the existing resources of the Structural Funds, a bit like the way Mussolini used to move his tanks around in the Second World War to make it seem as if he had a bigger army than he actually had.

It is therefore clear that this ruling class has had its day, and only a major political sea change can save Europe from disaster.

  Pablo Zalba Bidegain (PPE). – (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, after the Council meetings held recently, Adenauer’s statement that ‘we all live under the same sky, but we do not all have the same horizon’, appears to be losing clout in favour of the construction of this common area, the European Union.

The most important issue remains, however, in that we should actively implement all the measures agreed during recent Council meetings. Up to now, the austerity measures appear to have been applied most speedily.

I will insist as many times as is necessary in this plenary, however, that we are not getting anywhere by only applying austerity; we need growth. These tough but essential adjustment programmes have to go hand in hand with the necessary reforms to generate growth and employment.

Up to now, Spain has been at the forefront of this comprehensive austerity and reform plan. The three major reforms that were approved – ‘budgetary stability’, ‘reform of the financial system’ and ‘labour reform’ – testify to that. These reforms have merited the acknowledgement of different governments and media, despite the obstacles being placed in their way by launching unfounded rumours. The latter began with sport and yesterday threatened to spread into our economy and our politics.

Let us continue to work for the same horizon.

  Enrique Guerrero Salom (S&D). – (ES) Mr President, the Council and the Commission have given us the agenda for the next meeting: growth, international summits, Serbia, the ‘Arab Spring’, all very important issues.

Nonetheless, I think the moment has arrived for the Council, possibly in a monographic manner, to address the great risk to the European political project when it comes to the way things are heading. Europhobic parties are on the rise in northern and central Europe. There have been temptations to close the area of free movement, and the new Danish Government should be thanked for having avoided exclusion from Schengen. There has been the temptation to exclude EU citizens from the East, as in the case of the Dutch political party website. The values of the Union are at risk in countries such as Hungary or Romania.

The Commission has informed us that we have been fire fighting up to now when it comes to the economy. When it comes to the Union, and from a political standpoint, we should not be putting out fires, but rather trying to avoid them.

  Theodor Dumitru Stolojan (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, we can all see that an historical economic truth is being confirmed, namely, that emerging and recovering from a crisis that started in the financial sector is much more difficult and takes much more time. Within this framework, we can say that 2012 is an extremely important year for Europe, a year when we can either take the necessary action to return to growth, or enter into what is called a lost decade for development. In order to come out of this stagnation, I believe that both the Commission and the Member States should review the allocation of resources and their priorities, and actually allocate the resources needed for growth and the creation of new jobs.

  Robert Goebbels (S&D). – (FR) Mr President, I have a very simple question to which I would like a precise answer from the Council and the Commission.

Who authorised the Troika to impose on the Greek Government, Parliament and people a 22% drop in the minimum wage? Was it the European Council and President Van Rompuy? Was it the Commission and President Barroso? Or was it the Eurogroup and President Juncker?

I cannot imagine that these anonymous and politically irresponsible officials decided, completely independently, so undemocratically, these absurd measures such as a reduction in pensions or this drop in the minimum wage from EUR 870 to EUR 586? Who can possibly believe that slashing the buying power of the most humble workers such as cleaners, shopkeepers or night watchmen will restore the Greek economy and Greek exports? This is a concrete question, and I expect a precise answer.

(Applause)

  Paulo Rangel (PPE). – (PT) Mr President, I would essentially like to say that we await a major economic decision on the countries that have been bailed out at the upcoming European Council, which is closely linked to the issue of the Structural Funds. The Structural Funds need to be streamlined. A significant proportion of this funding remains unused and much of it has been used purely and simply for major infrastructure projects. It must be geared towards competitiveness for small and medium-sized enterprises, so as to enable economic recovery. The only investment that countries like Greece, Portugal, Ireland and others can receive is that currently coming from the Structural Funds.

I would also raise a political point for all EU politicians; for those involved in the European process in good faith. When talking about systems, there is a need to be very careful to respect national identities and the Member States. Although many of them often have good intentions, not all EU politicians have risen to this challenge of complete respect for the national identity of each Member State.

  Edite Estrela (S&D). – (PT) Mr President, what is the public expecting from another European Council? Deferred decisions defending the single currency and the European project? Brave decisions promoting territorial and social cohesion? Decisions that rein in national self-interest and prevent Europe from becoming disunited? Austerity programmes, which require many sacrifices of the European public, are not the solution and are causing unfair and dangerous anti-German sentiment.

It is obvious that countries as diverse as Greece, Ireland and Portugal cannot be subject to the same treatment, as they are suffering different ailments. We need more Europe. We need to strengthen political unity, pool sovereign debt and promote tax harmonisation. We need economic growth and job creation. Without this, we will become increasingly poorer, less united and less relevant in a globalised world.

I hope that you are aware of the gravity of the situation and have learned a lesson from the Wall Street Crash of 1929. I also hope you recognise that if, as in the past, Europe continues along this path, democracy and peace will be put at risk. Policy makers need to restore public trust and hope as a matter of urgency.

  Marietta Giannakou (PPE). – (EL) Mr President, the Spring Council, as an institution that addresses competitiveness, growth and employment, is hugely significant. However, if we engage in a little self-criticism, we shall see that its success to date has not been significant. There are 23 million unemployed in Europe and, of course, today it does not appear likely that fifty years of prosperity and growth in Europe will be followed by another fifty. In particular, certain countries, such as my country, are now in a truly tragic situation.

We Greeks thank our partners, because they are helping us at a very difficult time. However, I should like to point out that what the leaders of Europe say must not insult the people; this is directed, in particular, at the German side, which has the history and faculties to understand what I am talking about. We cannot behave differently. We must only behave as partners. We are partners and we must help those suffering in difficult times. Greece will apply the programme, but any such programme also needs growth rates. Any such programme also needs support because, without growth, hope will ultimately die and the Greeks will die with it.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Philippe Lamberts (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission yesterday published its first macro-economic surveillance report and it is a good job this mechanism exists.

Evidently, as was to be expected, Germany escapes all surveillance and escapes any criticism from the Commission. It should be noted that the alert thresholds for macro-economic imbalances have been designed to prevent Germany from falling foul of enhanced surveillance. This can only be related to the curious fact that France also, whose deficits are consistently well above 3%, has still not been admonished by the Commission.

Therefore, I can only observe that the Commission is running a two-speed Europe. There is a Franco-German executive, whom it is better to leave alone, and then there is everyone else, who can be scrutinised.

Commissioners, you will only restore trust when you put the same energy into tackling private debt and public debt, struggling banks and struggling Member States, inequality and public deficits, and France and Germany, along with all the Member States in difficulty.

  Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE). – (HU) Mr President, we should consider it a success that in March this year, the ‘six-pack’ will be supplemented by a new element, namely, the fiscal compact facilitating compliance with common economic governance. Yet I do not consider it such. By now, it has become clear that austerity measures alone are insufficient to guarantee recovery from the crisis. I find it incomprehensible how certain Commissioners can disregard economic analyses based on precise indicators and perhaps base their evaluations on political sentiments, thereby causing disturbances to the markets and, even more importantly, to the Member State concerned. They then envisage a penalty, a withholding of funds, followed by further budgetary austerity, that is, they are letting the Member State concerned bleed out. There is a further problem. How is it that when the IMF or the EU adopt short-term measures to restore the budget, it is acceptable, whereas if a Member State does so on its own, it is not? What is the reason for this? I often have the feeling that Europe wants both everything and nothing, and wants them immediately and simultaneously.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D). – (LT) Mr President, many bitter and fair words have been spoken in this Chamber today. Two and a half years ago, we voted in favour of the composition of the European Commission, and many very good and fine plans were presented which we also discussed today. Today, practically none of these plans have been implemented and it is recognised that today, many of the guidelines we adopted are not working. We need to listen very carefully to a phrase used today by the Greek Interior Minister. The European Commission will have to bear the consequences that will now follow in Greece because it refused to give Greece hope that it will also be supported by the European Union. Those of us in the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats have often said that we have to draw attention to the social exclusion that exists in all countries, but we were focused on profit, we were focused on economic indicators, and social exclusion was very complex. Therefore, I would like to call on the Commission to take more individual responsibility and would like us to truly feel that the situation is improving for people on low incomes in all countries.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, the current European Union figures are alarming: 5 million young unemployed, 7.5 million young people aged between 15 and 24 who lack education or training and have no jobs. The potential of the young generation should not be lost and that is why the European Council debate of March must consider combating youth unemployment as a priority.

Within the context of the Europe 2020 strategy, Member States must tackle youth unemployment issues in their national reform programmes for 2012. Moreover, these programmes need to include a guarantee for young people to ensure that any young person in the European Union has the right to apprenticeship training and a formula that combines work activity and professional training after a period of 4 months of unemployment. Complementary to these measures, Member States should support initiatives that facilitate green jobs, health and social services, known as white coat jobs, and the digital economy.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D). – (SK) Mr President, I believe that the forthcoming summit will at last bring some results, because the fiscal compact in itself will certainly not lead the European Union out of the crisis. Cuts will take us into recession, and the economic slump will make it even harder to repay debts and their burden will keep growing. The need to kick start employment growth is still underestimated. Whereas austerity measures are slowly becoming law, there are still only general calls for a growth and employment initiative. From a European perspective, such steps are extremely unfortunate. The growth initiative is weak. The fiscal compact is being adopted outside the European Treaties and has exemptions, and the role of Parliament – that is, us – in the negotiations on these matters is reduced to the absolute minimum. Europe must remain united and stick to democratic principles and existing legal frameworks. We must look for resources that can be sensibly invested in economic recovery.

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, Mr Wammen, Mr Šefčovič, I am having trouble getting used to the fact that, under the Treaty of Lisbon, it is the General Affairs Council that prepares the European Council meetings and it is you, Mr President, who wishes to participate in the European Council. I propose that President Van Rompuy be invited to prepare European Council meetings.

I would like to discuss three ideas, primarily with regard to making savings, but specifically savings in the sense of avoiding public spending. I propose that we consider pooling the resources of the European Union and the Member States, starting, for example, with an audit by the European Court of Auditors, in partnership with our 27 national courts of auditors, on the savings we could make. Twenty-seven armies, more enemies, research programmes financed 15 times over without coordination and hundreds of diplomatic buildings for which we could guarantee management for 10 years.

Finally, for growth, we should return to this idea of a major investment of EUR 1 000 to 1 500 billion in the Europe 2020 strategy. I also think we are not working enough on social convergence, with minimum wages that are not progressing. What hope do our people have if we fail to factor into the price chain a return to social convergence?

  Ana Gomes (S&D). – (PT) Mr President, many voices, particularly among German liberals and right-wingers, are accusing Greece of not fulfilling its agreement with the Troika. However, what do they have to say about Portugal, which is doing everything completely by the book, to the extent that it seems to be keener on the measures than the Troika itself, and yet, having had a public debt of 92% of gross domestic product (GDP) on signing the agreement with the Troika last May, nine months later, Portugal now has a public debt of 110% of GDP? Does this not mean that the prescription of recessive austerity is mistaken and completely counterproductive?

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Mr President, the situation in Greece – a subject which the Commission and the Council have tried to avoid wherever possible – shows us the destructive potential of the EU-IMF pacts of aggression. In Portugal, as in Greece, these pacts of aggression are exacerbating all of the country’s problems. As in Greece, in Portugal they are already preparing to announce the failure of the first pact of aggression, perhaps to pave the way for a second. The sad scenes that we saw at the last Economic and Financial Affairs Council laid to rest the assertions that Greece is a unique case and reflected the private acknowledgement, unexpectedly laid bare in public, of what everyone already knew. Under the conditions imposed by the EU and the IMF, the debt cannot be repaid, but will continue to serve as justification for an ongoing and intolerable process of extorting national resources.

This confirms a basic proposition: namely, that the most pressing task facing the workers and peoples of Europe is to derail these EU-IMF pacts of aggression. This struggle, which may be drawn-out, is a key factor in determining the pace of the collective life of the European peoples over the coming years or even decades.

  Sylvana Rapti (S&D). – (EL) Mr President, I should like to make a proposal. We constantly talk about Greece here, and rightly so, but we must not forget that, behind Greece, stand Portugal, Spain and France. We all watched as they were downgraded by the credit rating agencies. So we must know that the bankruptcy of Greece spells the bankruptcy of European ideals and the bankruptcy of the European social model.

Hannes Swoboda, Chair of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, has made a very wise proposal: that we socialists should set up our own Troika, a Troika comprising three former Ministers for Finance, Mr Goebbels, Mr Ferreira and Mr Kalfin. I therefore propose, because I have heard a lot of people speak with solidarity and social cohesion in Europe in mind, that an organisation – a Troika – should be set up from the whole of Parliament and then all of us in all the political groups who believe in Europe, all of us who want the European Union alive, should draft a motion for a resolution that shows that the European Parliament, which represents the citizens of Europe, exists, is taking action and wants the European Union.

End of the catch-the-eye procedure

  Maroš Šefčovič, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, this was a very lively debate and a lot of direct questions were addressed to the Commission. Some of the comments on the issue were not very positive, but please bear with me and I will try to respect the time limit.

First, there was a question asking what the official position of the Commission was on Greece. I want to make it absolutely clear that in the Commission, we want Greece to remain a member of the euro area. We have stated this many times and I am very glad that I can restate it today.

I would go even further. I would say that Greece does not have a closer and better ally than the Commission these days. From day one – in Athens, in Brussels, in all the capitals where the issue of Greece was discussed – we have been present and we have been trying to do our utmost to help and assist Greece. The Commission and all the officials are working flat out to iron out the programme for Greece and to help Greece to prepare a realistic and good programme. We have worked day and night, with no summer breaks, no winter breaks and no weekends, all day long.

I have to say that we have always been looking for ways in which to get the best solution for Greece and how to get it supported by the citizens in Greece. Do not forget, these solutions must be also supported in other Member States, because – and I know that we probably disagree on this with some of you – we are already talking about unprecedented support which has been offered to help Greece. Therefore, I cannot comment on, and I resent, Mr Cohn-Bendit’s comments concerning Marco Buti or other officials of the Commission. They really do not deserve this.

We do not have ultra-liberal Taliban, but hard-working, dedicated officials who are keeping Greece from falling into the abyss of disorderly default. What is the difference between the situation and the plan the Troika offered and disorderly default? I think the best you can do is listen to the very graphic description of this possibility made by the Greek Prime Minister, Mr Papademos, or the Greek Finance Minister, Mr Venizelos.

There was criticism here of the measures on the salaries and pensions, but do we know of an alternative? What would be an alternative to disorderly default? What would be the consequences? I think that the Greek Parliament has realised how dreadful this alternative is and, therefore, supported the proposals made by the Troika by a big majority of two-thirds. They supported the package.

Regarding the concrete question from Mr Goebbels who suggested the minimum wage cut by 22%; this was a request from the Eurogroup. And why? Because this measure is essential to fight unemployment and restore competitiveness to the Greek economy.

It is also important to consider the context. Labour costs in Greece rose by 54% in the years following 2000, compared with 28% in Portugal and 18% in Germany. It is true that they have fallen by an average of 40% over the two years 2010 and 2011, but more clearly needs to be done. The minimum monthly wage in Greece is at present EUR 110 higher than in Spain, and EUR 266 higher than in Portugal. These are the facts.

(Cries of dissent)

What else has the Commission done for Greece? I would just like to list some of the measures. EU cofinancing rates have been boosted by 10% to as high as 95%. EUR 500 million of EU funding is being reprogrammed so it can be used to guarantee financing provided to SMEs. Around 180 major projects are being kick-started, which will result in 100 000 jobs, including in the construction phase. All this whilst the EU is providing continued financial solidarity to Greece.

The two programmes put together amount to EUR 240 billion, and this is equivalent to over 100% of the Greek GDP. I know that some political forces question the adequacy of the amount of financial assistance provided to Greece, but it should also be recalled that the level of support in this unprecedented show of solidarity reflects the mandate given by the Member States under which the Troika and Greece have conducted the negotiations.

You also know very well that the Commission was helping the Greek authorities to negotiate with PSI – private sector investors – on private sector involvement. This may result in an overall figure – including both programmes and the private sector involvement as a result of the negotiations – of well over EUR 300 billion. So I think it is evident that the effort being made is huge.

Concerning the Eurogroup meeting of today, yesterday it became clear that the second programme and arrangements for its funding from both sides – Greece and the Eurogroup – both need to be finalised. Today, there will be a conference call and the Commission will do its utmost to put all the finishing touches to the agreement, because we want this to be a success and we want to do our utmost to help Greece. I hope that we will have a positive result next Monday when the Eurogroup and the Ecofin ministers meet.

If you will allow me, I will also comment on two other questions. Mr Daul asked what the European Spring summit will be about. It will be about economic governance and about growth and jobs. I agree with him 100% that what we need to do is to progress much faster with the Single Market Act, and I would like to thank this Parliament for its support.

I had a very constructive meeting yesterday with the Conference of Committee Chairs, where I think we made quite good progress. I really felt the strong will to go faster with the legislative proposals, so we can remove the remaining barriers to the single market which are preventing the European Union from using it better to create new jobs and economic growth.

The Services Directive is a pain – I agree with you, Mr President – and therefore we took three Member States to the Court because delaying putting this very important growth-enhancing measure into operation is unacceptable.

My last point is to Mr Lamberts. Yesterday, we adopted for the first time the alert mechanism report and we are going to screen and analyse the situation of the 12 Member States. France is among them. In the event that Germany is not within the established indicators, I can assure you that the German situation will be analysed as well. We will do our utmost to be absolutely fair and to use the new economic governance tool we have at our disposal with the utmost efficiency and utmost fairness.

  Nicolai Wammen, President-in-Office of the Council. – (DA) Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, on behalf of the Council, I would like to thank Parliament for a lively and very committed debate. I would also like to make it absolutely clear that we have listened and that, as far as possible, we will follow the good advice that has been given here today.

It is very important for the Danish Presidency to make it clear that the approach that has been set out concerning a responsible economic policy – where we tighten our belts and where we need to implement the ‘six-pack’ and the other financial initiatives fully and with precision in order for us to ensure that Europe gets back on track – will be a top priority for the Danish Presidency.

However, I would also like to state very clearly that this cannot stand alone. There is also a need for us to set a clear course when it comes to growth and the creation of jobs. From the point of view of the Danish Presidency, these two things should go hand in hand: financial restraint, on the one hand, and growth and jobs, on the other. We must not be satisfied with just the one, but need to have both of these if we are really to get Europe and the EU back on course.

It is therefore very positive that it was made absolutely clear at the informal meeting of the Heads of State or Government on 30 January that precisely these aspects of growth and jobs are now to be placed very high on the European agenda, and that we said that what is needed in particular is to create jobs and opportunities for those young people who, throughout Europe, are looking to the European Parliament, the Commission and the Member States to answer one question; namely, how they can be assured of, and have a real chance of getting, a job in this Europe of ours.

There are millions of young people waiting for the answer, and it is an answer that we must provide jointly. It is therefore absolutely necessary for us to make a start on creating the opportunities for the nearly seven million young people who lack jobs and training. We also clearly need to take a perspective that encompasses all of the 23 million Europeans in the EU who are without a job right now. This is a top priority for the Danish Presidency, and I would like to thank all of the Members of Parliament here today who have raised the important question of how we can ensure that this remains on the agenda. I would like to thank both Mr Daul and Mr Swoboda and all of the other speakers who have made this point very clearly.

With regard to Greece, our position is clear. In Europe, we have a joint responsibility to help Greece out of the crisis. However, Greece obviously has a responsibility to help itself out of the crisis, too. We therefore also believe that it was a very good thing that the Greek Parliament took a firm, difficult, but also necessary, decision a few days ago. This does not mean that all of the problems are solved, but it does mean that we can now make a start on hopefully getting Greece genuinely back on track. We also have to say to our friends in Greece that it was, without doubt, important to take the decisions in Parliament, but it is even more important to actually put these decisions into practice. All of us have a responsibility to help Greece to do that, and all of the political players in Greece also have a responsibility to help this become a reality.

In other words, this meeting that we have ahead of us is a very important one. Even though we have talked a great deal about the economy today, even though we have talked a great deal about Greece, it is also important to remember that the vision and direction of a Presidency encompasses other areas, too, and that is why it is also important to set the international environment/climate change agenda at the G8 and G20 and, of course, at the EU+20 meetings as well.

I would also like to emphasise what Mr Guerrero said regarding the fact that Parliament as well as the Commission and the Member States need to remember to speak out strongly for European values and to come down hard on any attempts at protectionism or attempts by Member States to separate themselves off or to attack the right to be different in Europe. That is an important point of which I hope everyone took note.

My final comment is that, at a time when Europe is experiencing such a deep crisis as it is right now, it is, in the Danish Presidency’s view, absolutely crucial that there is close cooperation between this Parliament, the Commission and the Member States. This is not the time to fight one another; it is the time to stand together shoulder to shoulder for the sake of the seven million young people who deserve a new opportunity and for the 23 million people who need a job, and because we need to get Europe back on track.

  President. – Ladies and gentlemen, I am sorry but there is no provision in our Rules of Procedure for blue-card questions to be addressed to the institutions. I know that you are inwardly seething. I understand how you feel, but I am afraid I cannot help you under the terms of the Rules of Procedure. Mr Goebbels, if you are raising a point of order, please tell me which rule you are referring to.

  Robert Goebbels (S&D) . – (DE) Mr President, I would like to address my question to Mr Šefčovič. I am sure you will find a rule in the Rules of Procedure which allows for this. Mr Šefčovič, you have said here today that all the Troika’s initiatives were approved by the Commission. However, this was at the request of the Eurogroup. Is that correct? If so, is this the Commission’s right of initiative?

  President. – Mr Goebbels, I will let you know about this because I believe that the question you have asked is a very, very important one.

The debate is closed.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The EU has sound instruments and policies to boost economic growth and create jobs. However, they need to be used effectively. • At the same time, viable solutions must be found for the youth and SMEs. It is necessary to supplement the Structural Funds and increase the number of jobs. • National employment plans should include measures to divert the tax burden imposed on incomes from salaries. • I welcome the adoption by the Commission of the report on the alert mechanism. • This mechanism aims to identify Member States faced with potentially problematic levels of macro-economic imbalances. • 12 Member States have been identified on the basis of economic and financial indicators. • At the Council meeting in March, it is important to discuss the participation of the EU in the G8, G20 and Rio+20 summits. • Europe must have a strong and coherent common position as regards sustainable development.

  Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (S&D), in writing. – The outcomes of the last EU summit of 30 January 2012 delivered mixed signals and failed to satisfy critics and speculators who continue to doubt the EU’s ability to handle the current crisis. Thus, the upcoming Council meeting of 1-2 March will be taking place at a rather crucial time, in particular, against the background of a possible Greek default. The European Council and the European Commission have already announced the current crisis cannot be tackled with austerity measures alone and that attention should also be given to stimulating growth and job creation. But the proposals put forward to promote such growth are not sufficient to deliver results. These proposals lack the funds and reforms that Europe desperately needs. I agree with colleagues calling for a new proposal following the same guidelines and the same type of budget as for the Marshall Plan for Europe’s recovery in 1948. We need now significant investment for supporting SMEs, entrepreneurship and self-employment initiatives, which, in return, will encourage economic expansion and job creation and improve the EU’s long-term competitiveness. Bold decisions and strong political will to promote fiscal stability are needed to restore investment and growth to Europe. This is the only way out of the current crisis and the only way of preventing future crises.

  Edit Herczog (S&D), in writing. – (HU) Growth, fiscal consolidation, job creation. It is these three areas that lay the foundations of a successful future for Europe and its recovery from a protracted economic crisis. Growth can be achieved through research and development and the application of new technologies, fiscal adjustment through the restructuring of state expenditure and major supply systems, and job creation through incentives to employers and the expansion of the competences of young workers. I therefore stand by my position that a pan-European economic policy cannot be based solely on austerity.

Although I believe that the treaties on economic stability, consolidation and governance, and those establishing the European Stability Mechanism, do not offer a definite cure for Europe’s ailments, as a Hungarian politician, I do think that it is an elementary interest for my country to join them. I welcome the fact that the Hungarian Government led by Fidesz changed its initial negative, aloof attitude and committed itself to signing the agreement. It must be noted, however, that although these measures may secure Europe’s future temporarily, they will definitely fail to do so in the long term. New resources must be found to increase consumption, stimulate micro-, small- and medium-sized enterprises, and thereby generate new jobs. One solution could be the introduction of Eurobonds and a transaction tax, which has been the subject of debates in Brussels for a long time.

The road ahead of us will be far from smooth, and it may even be that the end is not yet in sight, and therefore we must apply precise, predictable solutions.

  Liem Hoang Ngoc (S&D), in writing. – (FR) The intergovernmental treaty that the European governments are about to sign is unacceptable for two reasons. It is unacceptable in terms of the procedure adopted, which is anti-democratic and rides roughshod over half a century of the Community method. It is also unacceptable in terms of content, in that it is aimed at tightening the already suffocating straitjacket of the Stability Pact and imposing unprecedented austerity policies throughout Europe.

These policies can do nothing but plunge us into a lasting recession, destroy our social model and make the poorest citizens pay the price for a crisis of which they are the first victims. They will not resolve the debt problem as austerity will kill consumption and investment and, with them, any hope of growth or the recovery of public finances.

The fact the ECB has just granted the banks a loan of EUR 489 billion for three years at 1% interest, while Greece has a knife put to its throat, is proof that Europe has currently got things completely the wrong way round. Curiously, these banks are not suspected of ‘moral hazard’, in contrast to the Member States, which the ECB is not allowed to finance directly. They will therefore be able to buy back sovereign bonds at 6 or even 10% and continue their speculative activities with this free money. This is not the Europe we want.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The forthcoming European Council will be very significant, just as the summits have unfortunately been over the last two years. Often, however, the expectations have not matched the results. This summit will also sign off the details of the fiscal compact. I hope, however, that once the framework of the budgetary and fiscal rules for Member States has been defined, we can begin to talk seriously about growth. Words and statements all over Europe repeating the importance of growth and that new investments are necessary are simply not enough. The whole of Europe, every single Member State, needs an effective, serious and practical growth strategy. This is what we are asking the Heads of State meeting in Brussels. At the same time, I hope that a solution will be found to the problem of Greece, which cannot and must not be left on its own.

  Franck Proust (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I sincerely hope that we shall have reached an agreement on the bail-out package for Greece at the next meeting of the Council. This is crucial for the whole of Europe. Should we fail to do so, the urgency of this matter will overshadow the ratification of the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance. Time in politics can be long – that much I know. However, let us not lose sight of the fact that this agreement is as historic as it is fragile. In France, we shall have to elect a president for the next five years. Moreover, certain candidates have already announced their intention not to ratify the Treaty. Worse still, they claim that they will be able to renegotiate it. The majority in this House clearly agrees on both the content of and the interest in signing this agreement. It is vital for the future of Europe. Let us not allow rhetorical promises to destroy the hope that we have placed in it.

  Adrian Severin (NI), in writing. – The current neoliberal policy of the Troika in Greece is disarticulating the society and destroying the state. A new tranche of financial assistance was postponed yesterday giving rise to fears of an upcoming Greek default. What is more worrisome, however, is the apparent willingness of some eurozone Member States to let this scenario unfold, despite real efforts from the Greek Government in complying with their demands and imposing new austerity measures. Solidarity with Greece must not falter. A Greek default could have immeasurable consequences on Greek society and on the economies of the eurozone countries, although it seems a more palatable scenario for some Member States than a few years ago. Nonetheless, it is a path that must be firmly rejected. Instead, the EU Member States should continue assuming responsibility and should aim for further promoting debt restructuring negotiations and federalising credit guarantees. Moreover, measures for bank recapitalisation, as well as measures intended to stimulate investment, employment and economic growth need to be soon and boldly implemented. For all this to be achieved, political will towards speeding up the common economic governance and fiscal solidarity is essential.

  Jutta Steinruck (S&D), in writing. – (DE) The budget consolidation must be based on the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy. Since the beginning of the crisis, it has been clear that, in focusing on economic consolidation, the Commission and the Member States have forgotten that only balanced and socially just reforms will bring about sustainable growth. Unilateral austerity measures and cuts in social security funding will not result in a stable economy and good, secure jobs in the long term. Sensible tax policies must be introduced to increase revenue. The focus of our efforts this year must be on creating more jobs and combating youth unemployment and poverty. It is completely incomprehensible to me that the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) has prevented Member States with a current account surplus from being required to help put an end to the recession and create jobs. This would have been a step towards a single European economic policy. The conservatives should finally understand that national egoism will only intensify the crisis.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The EU is currently enduring a difficult time in which we all need to be united: the public, the European institutions and the Member States. Confidence in the single market, which is the basis of the European Union, has been affected by the current crisis and must now be restored. I believe the austerity measures implemented in certain euro area Member States are not suitable for achieving this end. Such policies should be accompanied by initiatives that promote economic growth, and do so swiftly, with particular focus on small and medium-sized enterprises. Measures aimed at combating unemployment among young people as a matter of urgency are necessary for the future of the single market and the European economy. I am therefore counting on the upcoming European Council to give voice to these aspirations.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The Members of the European Council made a commitment in the Council declaration of 31 January to pursue consolidation that facilitates growth and employment. The European Council meeting in March should provide guidance on Member States’ economic and employment policies, with special emphasis on exploiting the full potential of ecological growth and accelerating the structural reforms to increase competitiveness and create new jobs. In doing so, due attention should be given to the increasing differences between the economic situations of Member States and the social consequences of the crisis. The European Council meeting in March should propose measures to stimulate employment, especially among young people, to complete the single market, and to stimulate the financing of the economy, especially of SMEs, including through better targeting of EU funds available for growth and employment, within the agreed limits. We urge the Member States to invest with priority in the transport, energy and communications infrastructure, in research and innovation, education and health, agricultural development and, in particular, in the development of European industry. These investments will ensure increased EU competitiveness, and, in particular, will provide jobs in the EU.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) This year’s European Council spring summit is taking place against the background of stagnating economic growth and an extremely high unemployment rate. A total of 23 million Europeans currently have to manage without a regular income from employment and 7 million of these are young people between the ages of 15 and 24. This has resulted not only in these people losing their trust in the EU, but also in a fall in purchasing power and, consequently, a recession. Therefore, alongside austerity policies, we also need to focus on measures to promote growth. Our goal must be to implement targeted structural reforms which will create jobs, improve competitiveness and encourage green growth. When they implement their austerity packages, the Member States must be required not to put at risk areas such as education, innovation and sustainable energy projects which are important for the future. The key to combating youth unemployment is to provide targeted support for small and medium-sized businesses and to establish dual vocational education systems based on the Austrian model. Therefore, I believe that sharing best practice in this area represents a sensible approach.

5. Employment and social aspects in the Annual Growth Survey 2012 - Contribution to the Annual Growth Survey 2012 - Guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States (debate)

  President. – The next item is the joint debate on the three reports on the subject of the Annual Growth Survey and employment:

- the report by Marije Cornelissen, on behalf of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, on employment and social aspects in the Annual Growth Survey 2012 (COM(2011)0815)-(2011/2320(INI)) (A7-0021/2012),

- the report by Jean-Paul Gauzès, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the contribution to the Annual Growth Survey 2012 (COM(2011)0815)-(2011/2319(INI)) (A7-0018/2012) and

- the report by Pervenche Berès, on behalf of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, on the proposal for a Council decision on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States (COM(2011)0813)-(C7-0500/2011)-(2011/0390(CNS)) (A7-0011/2012).

  Marije Cornelissen, rapporteur. – Mr President, if there is one lesson that we could learn from the past few years, it is that our economies are totally intertwined. Yes, we do need to coordinate. Yes, we should let the Commission look over our shoulders. This coordination adds necessary powers at the European level but, unfortunately, without adding necessary democracy at the European level too.

We as a Parliament do not accept such a limited role. With my report and the report of Mr Gauzès, we are presenting Parliament’s view on what is currently most needed. Although the Council is not legally obliged to take account of it, I feel that it most certainly is morally and democratically obliged to do so. Parliament’s main message to the Council is this: we need far more coherence between fiscal and budgetary policies, on the one hand, and social and employment policies, on the other hand. It is a tremendous mistake to ignore the social consequences of badly-aimed austerity policies or to forget that a currency is there to serve the people, not the other way round.

I really hope that, at the Spring Council, one government leader will stand up and say:

Dear colleagues, just hold on a minute. Do you remember we had a meeting about two years ago where we set our goals for 2020 and, among other things, planned to increase labour participation, lift millions out of poverty and invest heavily in innovation? I am getting quite worried that, if we go on like this, we will not attain any of these goals.

Correct me if I am wrong, but if we all cut social benefits to get under the deficit ceiling, will that not actually push rather a lot of people into poverty instead of lifting millions out? If we cut down on things like labour activation measures and child care, will that not really mean that labour participation will diminish instead of grow and that rising unemployment will, in turn, increase our budget deficits?

Furthermore, of course my calculator could be at fault, but is it not the case that if countries like Greece, Spain and Portugal are not given any hope for recovery, their debt will rise even as they are paying it off, because it is a percentage of their GDP and not actually a flat figure?

Perhaps what we should be doing is discussing how we can cut wisely in some areas and also invest in others. Perhaps we should look further to the future and prepare ourselves for an ageing society by investing in education, innovation and youth employment. Perhaps we should make our EU 2020 goals binding: as binding as the budgetary ones.

I know that I am probably complicating things quite a bit by pointing this out, but as I was reading the European Parliament’s contribution to our discussion I thought, by golly, they are absolutely right’.

Well, any government leader who is courageous enough to point out the pain is very welcome to borrow that speech, and I am very sure that tomorrow’s vote will show that any such courageous leader would have the full backing of the European Parliament.

  Jean-Paul Gauzès, rapporteur. – (FR) Mr President, Minister, Commissioner, every year, the Annual Growth Survey allows us to define the European Union’s economic and budgetary priorities and actions.

I should first like to thank the Commission for having published its report before the end of November, thus allowing Parliament to carry out, in good time, some painstaking work. We would like this schedule to become permanent, so that Parliament has time enough to express its views before annual economic guidelines are decided upon by the Spring European Council.

This year, on the occasion of the review of this report, Parliament wishes to strongly urge Member States to implement effectively those measures required by the policies that they themselves have undertaken to pursue. Obviously, the primary aim of these measures should be to find a way out of the sovereign debt crisis. They should go hand in hand with a growth strategy based on improving competitiveness. It is clearly also important to promote a sustainable economy which creates jobs.

Parliament agrees with the Commission’s analysis that efforts at national and EU level should concentrate on the following five priorities: pursuing differentiated growth-friendly fiscal consolidation, while ensuring economic recovery and job creation; ensuring long-term financing of the real economy; promoting sustainable growth through more competitiveness and investments; tackling unemployment and the social consequences of the crisis, and, finally, modernising EU public administration and services of general interest.

As regards fiscal consolidation, Member States should pursue differentiated strategies according to their budgetary situations and keep their public expenditure growth below the rate of medium-term trend GDP growth. Member States must prioritise, on the expenditure and revenue sides of the budget, growth-friendly policies, particularly in the areas of education, research, innovation, infrastructure and energy, and ensure the efficiency of such expenditures and revenues.

As regards ensuring the long-term financing of the real economy, Parliament welcomes the determined efforts by Commissioner Barnier to overhaul the regulation and supervision of the financial sector. If investor confidence is to be restored, the banks’ capital positions must be strengthened and measures must be taken to support their access to funding.

Thirdly, the promotion of sustainable growth presupposes an increase in the competitiveness of investments. In this respect, Parliament is worried by the macro-economic imbalances within the EU and the fact that many Member States are falling behind in terms of productivity. Enhanced coordination of economic policies as well as structural reforms are needed to tackle these problems in both deficit and surplus countries in an adequate way.

Modernising EU public administration and services of general interest is also a determining element of competitiveness and an important productivity factor.

In future, Parliament wishes to be more closely involved in drawing up the main political and economic guidelines. It should be noted that the European Semester is now part of EU secondary legislation. The economic governance legal framework provides the tool of economic dialogue to enhance the dialogue between the EU institutions and to ensure greater transparency. We are anxious for this to be so, and I shall conclude shortly after the various speeches to be made, in the two minutes that remain to me, Mr President.

  Pervenche Berès, rapporteur. – (FR) Mr President, Ms Vestager, Commissioner, this is the fifth year running that the Spring European Council is to be held in an atmosphere of crisis.

This is the fifth European Council held in an atmosphere of crisis and where, clearly, the logic is that out of austerity will come growth. I think that it is clearly time to take stock and admit that what comes out of austerity is recession and not growth.

However, we have come together today to talk of a document that the Commission is adding to the work of the European Council, which goes by the name of the Annual Growth Survey. You must admit that there is something not quite right here and that it is high time to change our approach.

First of all, in the name of our institution, the European Parliament, let me just say that we in this House are in total denial of democracy, because what is going on? The Spring European Council is adopting guidelines which are then going to be imposed on the Member States to define their economic policy strategy. On what basis is the Spring European Council going to reach its decisions? The Commission is trying to make its contribution in a direction that does not suit us, and yet it is tabling a Community document entitled Annual Growth Survey. Meanwhile, the Council is going to draw up the Euro Plus Pact on the basis of a scribbled note written by Chancellor Merkel and President Sarkozy, and then endorsed by the other institutions.

In a democracy, the way in which broad economic policy guidelines are drawn up is the foundation of the social pact. That is why we have been fighting for this Parliament to have a say in the matter. We intend to do this on the basis of what the Commission persists in calling an Annual Growth Survey – we are calling for this to become annual guidelines for growth.

We are calling on the Commission to face up to reality. Will this Annual Growth Survey enable the potential contradictions between the Stability Pact and the Europe 2020 strategy to be ironed out?

Both Mr Gauzès’ and Ms Cornelissen’s reports – I should like to thank our two fellow Members for the spirit of cooperation that has marked our work – invite you to walk on two feet and, if you want to walk on two feet, you may at times have to turn your back on austerity and the Stability Pact. Otherwise, we shall never manage to implement the Europe 2020 strategy.

We are also calling for a balanced approach to economic situations. That means that, when there are imbalances within the European Union, you have to look at both deficits and surpluses.

Ms Vestager, as I have already said, for us, the Euro Plus Pact is not a basis for negotiation. Madam, just look at the figures. Today, everybody in Europe is in difficulties. Have you seen the OECD’s figures for Germany’s growth prospects for 2012? 0.4%. That is proof enough that even the most virtuous economy in the European Union cannot withstand the situation of recession into which the policies of this five-year term are leading the euro area and the European Union as a whole.

Furthermore, look at the way that you are managing the EU’s tools. The European Social Fund is being used for anything and everything. On the one hand, you would like it to be a tool to apply macro-economic sanctions and, on the other, when it comes to creating jobs for young people, you want to mobilise the European Social Fund. These contradictions must be resolved and, to do this, I suggest you look at the reports that this Assembly is offering you as the European Parliament’s contribution to the work of the Spring Council.

I hope that, via our President when he comes to talk to you, these guidelines, whether in economic or employment matters, will improve your road map because, if they do not, democracy and the European people will find themselves in a jam.

  Margrethe Vestager, President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, I am honoured to be allowed to speak here today and have been looking forward very much to a focused debate on growth and employment. I hope you know that one of the main priorities of the Danish Presidency is implementation, to ensure that the good decisions that have been taken are carried into effect. We hope that, in this Presidency, we can both take decisive steps out of the crisis by supporting responsible national economic policy, and prevent new crises.

The European Semester was kicked off by the Annual Growth Survey at the end of last year, leading to the economic policy guidance to Members to be adopted by the European Spring Council meeting. I do not have to explain to this Parliament why this is important: the unemployment figures speak for themselves; the number of young people unable to find a job speaks for itself. Growth is slow, as the rapporteur, Mr Gauzès, has already stated. There is no expectation of growth; half a percentage point is the general expectation that we have in prospect for 2012.

I think it is important to focus on the five priorities set out by the Commission in the Annual Growth Survey. First, pursuing differentiated, growth-friendly fiscal consolidation. Second, restoring normal lending to the economy. Third, promoting growth and competitiveness, for today as well as for tomorrow. Fourth, tackling unemployment and the social consequences of the crisis; and fifth, modernising public administration. In particular, growth-friendly consolidation and reforms that increase labour supply, productivity and competitiveness are of the utmost importance to restore confidence. And if we do not restore confidence, we will never be able to fight and tackle the problem of unemployment, especially youth unemployment, which is at an historic high in many Member States.

I have read your report and draft resolutions with interest and taken good note of the key messages that you wish to send to the Spring European Council. The various concerns expressed have been confirmed here today and will be at the centre of the debate we will have. I will, of course, refer to the work of Parliament when introducing the subject at the coming Ecofin meeting on 21 February, when we will adopt Council conclusions on the Annual Growth Survey as an input to the Spring European Council. I think it is very important to ensure that the debate here in Parliament, and the debate in the Council, together shape the Council’s conclusions.

At national level, we need, as Mr Gauzès’s report stresses, to pursue differentiated growth-friendly fiscal consolidation. With regard to structural reform, it is vital that all Member States pursue reforms that increase the labour supply and employment – such as pension reform and labour market reform – because those reforms strengthen both public finance and growth. But, of course, a number of these reforms will have medium-term and long-term effect, and we have to focus on the short term as well. That might mean focusing on the flexibility of product markets and competition or maybe, most importantly, on the growth drivers which are essential at EU level.

A more efficient EU single market, as per the Services Directive, is a growth driver with great potential. But we also need to combine consolidation and growth measures with green measures: for instance, a tax reform that shifts taxes away from labour towards energy consumption and pollution, thus having the potential to stimulate economic activity while greening the economy.

I shall, if I may, conclude my speech with the issue of unemployment, because that issue must be at the centre of our debate. Unemployment is one of the most devastating consequences of any economic crisis because it has such a direct effect on citizens, and youth in particular. I welcome the emphasis Ms Cornelissen put on tackling youth unemployment in her report. I think it is very much in line with the Commission’s ‘Youth on the Move’ initiative and its proposal to use available EU funds to fund training and work experience, which were mentioned in the conclusions of the European Council meeting in January. It is obvious that we owe it to our young people to ensure they can enter the work force – and the labour market – by getting a job and by getting training.

A key word is implementation. Implementation is what is needed, both to show that Europe works – and is at work – and also to restore confidence in political leadership in the European Union. You are all well aware of the European Semester, the ‘six-pack’ and now the ‘two-pack’ that we have ahead of us. I hope that we can work swiftly, and in a focussed way, on getting these things passed in cooperation. The European Parliament and the Danish Presidency have a number of important things to do not only in terms of implementation, but also in terms of making sure that we get things done.

I have come here to take on board your remarks and the debate ahead of the European Council, and therefore I will rest my case with these few comments. I am very much looking forward to hearing your views and comments, and thank you for your attention.

IN THE CHAIR: GIANNI PITTELLA
Vice-President

  László Andor, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I am very pleased to be here today to discuss with the Members of the European Parliament the Commission’s 2012 Annual Growth Survey. I am responding to the three rapporteurs who spoke before me and I will start with the Gauzès report and take the Cornelissen and Berès reports afterwards.

I am very pleased to see from the report by Mr Gauzès that there is considerable convergence of views between what the Commission has proposed in terms of key policy priorities for 2012 and the thinking in this House. Such a broad convergence of views is an important signal, particularly in times of crisis. And, of course, the severe crisis of confidence that we are still facing is the background to the horizontal policy priorities that the Commission has proposed in this Annual Growth Survey.

At the heart of this crisis of confidence lies the potential negative feedback loop between financial sector vulnerabilities, shaky confidence in sovereign debt sustainability, and weak growth prospects. Continued fiscal consolidation will be important. However, without stronger growth prospects, it will be much more difficult to put public debt on a sustainable path. Growth-friendly consolidation and employment-friendly growth are therefore essential elements of our crisis response, which will be important for the guidance of Member States’ economic and employment policies, to be issued on 1 March.

To achieve all this, the Commission and the European Union are pursuing a number of avenues that together form a comprehensive strategy. It includes a solid solution for Greece, strengthening the financial sector, effective financial backstops, and stronger economic governance.

On all these elements, we have made considerable progress in recent months. In the area of economic governance, the role this House has played has been particularly significant. Strengthening growth prospects has become ever more crucial for breaking the vicious circle that threatens macro-financial stability and the recovery at the same time. This is one of the key messages of the 2012 Annual Growth Survey. It has therefore set out the five priorities that you know and which your draft report endorses.

The AGS has set out in concrete terms how the Single Market, the EU budget and specific EU initiatives, including project bonds, can contribute to bolstering our growth potential. Wherever accelerated treatment of legislative proposals is involved, we certainly count on the support of the European Parliament.

Let me just mention the proposed unitary EU patent, agreement on the revision of the Roaming Regulation, the pending revisions of the directives on annual accounts, and increasing cofinancing rates for programme countries. These and other pending initiatives would certainly go a long way in boosting growth. As stated clearly in the AGS, the Commission considers that mobilising employment for growth, employment of young people and protecting the vulnerable are key priorities. Our recent initiatives on youth unemployment and SME financing are fully in line with these priorities.

While structural reforms achieve their ultimate objective only over the medium to long term, a firm and committed implementation certainly sends out a strong signal to the market and contributes to building confidence already today. There is an urgent need for full implementation of the measures already launched during the first European Semester. I am glad that the European Parliament supports this message from the Commission. This is crucial.

Strong implementation of structural reforms is all the more important today as the scope for macro-economic stimulus, in particular fiscal stimulus, is very limited at this point in time. That is the reason why differentiated and growth-friendly fiscal consolidation and employment-friendly growth are at the core of our strategy.

There is no doubt that this is a difficult path. But if we show discipline and resolve and strong reform implementation, we will be able to turn around the potential negative spiral and work to propel ourselves forward and pull ourselves up. This is the path that the Annual Growth Survey has charted for the 2012 European Semester.

Let me thank the European Parliament once more for showing the resolve Europe needs in the role it has played so far in strengthening the Union’s economic governance.

Let me turn to the Cornelissen report – which I warmly welcome – concerning the employment and social aspects of the Annual Growth Survey for 2012. I agree with your analysis and the key message that it contains. Firstly, I strongly support your call to the European Council to integrate, in its policy guidance, messages on the need to increase ambition to achieve the EU 2020 objectives and to support sustainable job creation with investment and tax reform.

You stress that budgetary, growth and employment measures need to be taken together as they are all interdependent; I fully agree with that. The focus needs to be simultaneously on measures having short-term effect and on the ones advancing towards the right growth model in the medium term, which is smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. The guidance on Member States’ employment and economic policies should reflect this balanced approach.

Secondly, I am pleased in particular to note your call for the European Council to tackle youth employment as a priority and for the Member States to develop comprehensive strategies for young people who are not in employment, education or training.

In December, as you know, the Commission adopted a youth opportunities initiative to prompt action in fighting youth unemployment. The initiative lays special emphasis on making greater use of the Structural Funds, an approach endorsed by the informal European Council meeting on 30 January.

Action teams will this month visit the eight Member States with the highest youth unemployment rates – namely Spain, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Portugal and Slovakia – to identify the necessary elements for youth employment plans. In particular, they will look at how to step up the use of the Structural Funds and especially the European Social Fund, but also how to make best use of other EU tools such as EURES. In my view, this working method can also be seen as an embryo of an excessive unemployment procedure that would deploy and coordinate the national- and EU-level instruments in a more effective way.

Thirdly, I fully support your call to tackle poverty and social exclusion by laying the emphasis on groups with no – or limited – links to the labour market.

The Annual Growth Survey also sends strong policy messages to the European Council to make social protection systems more effective and implement active inclusion strategies that entail labour market activation measures.

Lastly, I support your call for greater democratic legitimacy, accountability and ownership.

Ownership of Europe 2020 in the context of the new governance is crucial for consensus, and consensus is critical to the strategy’s success. That is why Parliament needs to make its voice heard in the process. I therefore appreciate the effort the House has made to adopt these reports in time to contribute to the discussion ahead of the Spring European Council.

I would now turn to the Berès report and thank Ms Berès. I welcome your decision to approve the Commission proposal to carry over the guidelines for the Member States’ employment policies – being a core element of the European employment strategy – and leave them unchanged for 2012. The present employment guidelines meet their purpose in today’s very difficult economic environment. They are broad and comprehensive enough to cover the priorities identified in this year’s Annual Growth Survey and, in particular, the need for growth-enhancing reforms and job-rich recovery. They also provide the policy framework needed to address some of the social consequences of the economic crisis.

The Commission believes that the emphasis must now be on implementing the employment guidelines and pushing ahead with the growth-enhancing reforms they advocate. They provide the overall policy framework for any country-specific recommendation from the Council to the Member States under Article 148 of the Treaty.

  Jan Kozłowski, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (PL) Mr President, Ms Vestager, Mr Andor, I would like to thank the rapporteurs, and I would like, in particular, to thank Ms Cornelissen, with whom it was my pleasure to work in my capacity as shadow rapporteur. I think the comprehensive nature of the reports presented today shows clearly that the European Parliament is an active and very good partner in work related to the European Semester.

Increasing fiscal consolidation is, of course, of fundamental importance. However, in order to lift ourselves out of the crisis, it is also imperative to take coordinated action to increase employment and, in particular, action intended to help young people, whose situation is particularly drastic. In December, the average level of unemployment among young people was over 22%, and in some Member States it was even over 40%, while at the same time – which, on the other hand, seems surprising – since 2009, the number of unfilled jobs has been rising. It is therefore vital to take decisive action at national and European level which will foster the adaptation of systems of education and lifelong learning to the requirements of the labour market and the growth of entrepreneurship.

I think a thorough assessment needs to be made of the work of employment services and of the effectiveness with which European employment instruments are being applied. The main objective of administrative and economic reforms should be the creation of new jobs, support for enterprise and development of the small and medium-sized enterprise sector. These measures should also be reflected in national reform programmes. I hope, too, that implementation of the measures proposed in the initiative to increase young people’s chances, in particular, by making it easier to start and develop businesses and the emphasis on practical training in the workplace, as well as better use of the European Social Fund, will bring about a genuine improvement in the situation of young people.

  Elisa Ferreira, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (PT) Mr President, Commissioner, I wish to congratulate the rapporteurs and shadow rapporteurs, but I would also like to say that there have been enough well-meaning speeches on employment and growth. Today, with the first results on macro-economic imbalances in Europe, the veil is being lifted on why, in the EU and the euro area in particular, some countries are growing while others are withering and dying.

Europe is becoming less competitive in external markets and this agenda needs to be revised because it gives rise to much of the lack of internal growth. However, to focus on the internal market, four countries, including Germany, are accumulating successive surpluses year after year, while 20 countries – I repeat, 20 – are accumulating deficits, also year after year. As deficits build up, the external debt of these countries increases unsustainably.

Obviously, this process must be controlled. Obviously, what is needed is discipline. However, today it is important to ask some questions. In this context, is the solution of crushing the weakest with recessive policies the only possible solution? Will the tax competition within the internal market, from which there are a few winners, continue to be tolerated? Will the EU’s largest economy be able to keep developing common policies that favour it and internal economic policies that, as they are right for its economy, soak up the majority of the profits from the internal market? Will the Commission and the Council be able to keep imposing recessive policies that further squeeze the economies of the weakest countries, openly discussing the possibility of default by sovereign Member States in the euro area, when they know that the ‘firewall’ will never be anything more than an intention?

Are the Commission and the Council fully aware of the massive political and economic risk for Europe caused by discourse like this? Yes, revenue needs to be reviewed in a radical way. However, political will is required for this to happen. Until that will exists, out of respect for the public, let us refrain from saying that we advocate growth and employment, as it is not true. The public cannot go on being deceived.

  Marian Harkin, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, in the first debate here this morning on the European Council meeting, a very dark picture was painted of a Europe that is blindly marching to the drumbeat of austerity and more austerity without any real hope or a convincing vision for the future.

As my colleague, Sylvie Goulard, said, we are trying to impose stability by force. Up to now, the buzz-word in the EU has been solidarity. Right now, solidarity means mutual self-interest, because a failure by any one country will have a massive and incalculable impact on all of us. So as we try to grapple with the unthinkable, sometimes it is easy to forget the day-to-day and to overlook the steps that we must take today and tomorrow to ensure that we achieve the targets set in the EU 2020 strategy.

This very good report by Ms Cornelissen provides us with a road map from the perspective of employment and social affairs. Indeed, these are words we do not hear often enough – employment and social affairs – because they are words that directly impact on the lives of citizens.

There are some matters in this report that may cause certain problems for members of this House, such as the financial transaction tax. I support the FTT, but it should be on a Europe-wide basis and, ideally, it should be global. Another issue which may cause concern and has been alluded to by many Members here this morning is the call for Member States with a current account surplus to contribute to a reduction in macro-economic imbalances by increasing internal demand. Part of the problem here is that we tend to be very black and white, and we tend to define deficit as bad and surplus as good. But the reality is they both cause imbalances, and while there is a difference, we cannot concentrate on one aspect only.

In the last debate, the Danish Presidency said that growth and employment were top priority; they also said that austerity is top priority. Again and again, that is the message we are getting, but this report helps to redress the balance.

Finally, this morning we heard many criticisms of the Troika. Paragraph 48 proposes a solution: that the ILO should be involved in the financial assistance programmes. I hope both the Council and the Commission will take that suggestion on board.

  Philippe Lamberts, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (FR) Mr President, firstly, I should like to welcome Ms Vestager. You present a face of Europe that we would like to see more often and I would also like to say a special thank you to Mr Gauzès who, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) (PPE), led the work in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON). I got the impression from the PPE that there was a will to bring together all those who believe in European integration. We have not been indifferent to that and it is the direction in which we must continue to work.

The 2012 Annual Growth Survey, which I think is very poorly named, is undoubtedly an improvement on the 2011 version. I would like to draw your attention to two items which were particularly welcome in our view. Firstly, on the one hand, the fact that the report draws attention to the negative consequences in terms of social justice of some of the austerity measures that have been taken. This concern is timely in this document.

The second item to be welcomed is the greater emphasis placed this year on fiscal concerns. Here I mean the issue of tax revenue. A very good job has been done here. You get the impression that people have been working more closely together within the Commission.

However, I would like to say that we are well aware that the consequences, the monitoring of the Annual Growth Survey, are in the hands of the Directorate General for Economic and Financial Affairs (DG ECFIN) and we all know its pathological obsession with preventing public spending as such and with driving down wages. I will not return to this point; let us simply agree that there is ‘distrust’. We shall clearly continue to keep a close watch on the way in which you use this Annual Growth Survey.

All I would like to say is that this survey must become legislation for us. It is the Commission’s broad economic policy guidelines document. That is all well and good. It must be endorsed by the Council and Parliament in order to give you the democratic legitimacy you need to carry out the measures that you will recommend to the Member States following this Annual Growth Survey. I believe that the Commission will come out of it stronger than before and that, in any case, we shall make proposals of this nature in the future.

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

  Alejandro Cercas (S&D), Blue-card question. – (ES) Mr President, I would like to ask Mr Lamberts whether his group would be willing to join forces with ours to offer young people assistance in finding a job, but a decent job, because if they go from being young and unemployed to being poor workers, we are still not going to be providing them with hope for future. Such hope would allow them to integrate appropriately into society.

  Philippe Lamberts (Verts/ALE), Blue-card answer. – (FR) I think that the question is fully justified. I should like to support what Ms Vestager has just said. I think that the best way of guaranteeing sustainable employment in Europe is to go down the route of green transformation as soon as possible – I am sorry to use that adjective, but that is what it is – the ecological transformation of our economy. That is certainly the route to take. If Europe can become the world champion in energy efficiency, in resource efficiency, in terms of raw materials, I think that that is the best way to guarantee sustainable employment both for current and future generations. This, in any case, is what we will work towards.

  Milan Cabrnoch, on behalf of the ECR Group. – (CS) Mr President, I would like to inform you that the European Conservatives and Reformists Group have decided to support this report, despite having many reservations. We agree with the set objective of increasing participation on the labour market, reducing structural unemployment and increasing the number of qualified workers capable of responding to demand on the labour market.

We firmly believe in particular that the exchange of proven approaches between individual Member States and a certain level of coordination may be beneficial in encouraging flexibility on labour markets, flexibility of employment law relationships and greater economic freedom. We stand together for economic innovation, education and social mobility, and we understand that it is not states but entrepreneurs who create jobs, and that they take on this role with a considerable level of risk and responsibility.

I firmly believe that it is time to stop talking about theoretical aims and to start taking concrete steps today and tomorrow to support the private sector with growth and investment, and on the path to prosperity.

  Mara Bizzotto, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (IT) Mr President, this plenary session should have just one item on the agenda – to rethink the way the European project has been managed to date. The reason for this lies in the data published by Eurostat last week – 24 million unemployed people in Europe and 115 million people heading towards poverty, of which one in three is a young person under the age of 18.

No one has a recipe for solving the crisis. The European Commission wants to convince people that it has one, by forcing Member States to introduce austerity measures in order to reduce their public deficit, while continuing to waste millions of euro, for example, by maintaining two bases at Brussels and Strasbourg.

Cuts to the social state and hidden manoeuvres to impose technocrat governments, which nobody wants to discuss openly, totally undermine democratic institutions as they remove any opportunity for citizens to have a dialogue with politics. In order to regain its sense of responsibility, Europe needs to distance itself from financial lobbies with hidden powers. The identity relativity approach and false myth of the free market leading to greater wealth have failed. We need the type of democracy that will give a voice back to local areas, districts and citizens.

  Franz Obermayr (NI). – (DE) Mr President, if the rapporteur, Ms Cornelissen, believes that the countries with surpluses should be called on to increase demand internally in order to compensate for economic imbalances within the Union, I would like to know how she thinks that can be achieved. For example, should we be asking all German citizens to stock up on Greek olive oil?

The consequence of the economic imbalances should, in fact, be the creation of a hard and a soft currency zone. All the citizens of Europe are already being forced to tighten their belts, because the entire euro area has been discredited and the bankrupt states are having to be rescued. The problem that I believe is particularly dramatic and very serious is youth unemployment. The average figure in the EU is 20%, but in some states it is over 40%. The quality of jobs is also a major concern. It is unacceptable that some young academics are in their third unpaid internship and still have no job security. The Commission must submit its promised quality framework for internships as a matter of urgency, otherwise the best people will emigrate to the United States and Asia and the EU will be left with an influx of unqualified migrants.

  Csaba Őry (PPE). – (HU) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as coordinator for employment of the Group of the European People’s Party, I welcome the report drawn up by Ms Berès on employment guidelines. Of course, one of the reasons I do so is that back in 2010, I was the rapporteur of the initial report myself. At that time, we believed that we were drafting guidelines that would remain unchanged until 2014. We believed that we would follow the usual schedule of reviewing it annually and extending its validity. I was secretly hoping that this would not be so. I was hoping that perhaps in the light of the results, we would have to amend the goals we had set and maybe replace them with more ambitious ones. Unfortunately, this did not come true. The 2010 guidelines still remain relevant.

Our unemployment data are still bad; they are dramatic, and, in a certain sense, they are even showing an upward trend. As we know, the unemployment rate has climbed from 9.5% to 9.9%. There are nearly 24 million unemployed people, as already mentioned by others. What is even more dramatic is that out of this figure, youth unemployment essentially accounts for 5.5 million. This is something that definitely needs to be addressed immediately. I therefore welcome the Council decision of 30 January, which focuses specifically on the issue of youth unemployment. I believe that this is a correct decision, even if there are countries where the situation is somewhat better. I would therefore once again like to highlight and urge Member States to pay increased attention to the flagship initiative ‘Youth on the Move’. It is indeed crucial to ensure in future that young entrants to the labour market are able to find employment within four months. I naturally support keeping the guidelines in effect.

  Evelyn Regner (S&D). – (DE) Mr President, I was rather slow in raising my blue card. My question would have been aimed at Mr Obermayr, but he chose to leave the Chamber immediately after his speech, so that is the end of the matter.

  Sergio Gaetano Cofferati (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, we are discussing three fine reports that demonstrate how widespread and complex the conviction is here in Parliament that growth is crucial to the future of the European Union.

However, this is in stark contrast with the deplorable attitude of the Council and the Commission, where the prevalent ideological stance involves taking action only to ensure stability, to the point of obsession, an attitude that has now clearly led to real problems with democracy, as we have seen by what has been happening in Greece over the last few days.

I believe that this division is unsustainable for the future of Europe and that there is a need for profound adjustments by the Commission and the Council. I would add that the insistent reference to the Europe 2020 strategy is little more than a cultural option. After five years of crisis, with a heavy recession that will last for two more years, these objectives no longer exist. We need to recognise this now, in order to present a new overall strategy that is not based on something that does not actually exist.

  Sylvie Goulard (ALDE). – (FR) Mr President, Ms Vestager, Mr Andor, I should first like to thank those Members who worked on this report, and also the Commission which, I would like to point out, has done its job this year in much greater depth than it did last year and has relied considerably less on pre-conceived ideas about the economy. We are grateful to you for it.

There is also one thing that is important, and that is to be able to make a coherent whole of the different documents, because clearly, for external observers, for the public, it is rather difficult to find your way around. There is the European Semester, the Annual growth strategy, the 2020 agenda, the Euro Plus Pact, the ‘six-pack’, the ‘two-pack’, etc. The more that we can make them into a coherent whole, as indeed you started to do when you referred to the 2020 strategy, the greater coherence there will be between this report and the report on macro-economic imbalances which came out of the ‘six-pack’ and which, as one of the rapporteurs, I strongly supported, and the more we will find ourselves on the right track.

I must stress that, in particular, it is very important that one of the five Europe 2020 strategy targets should not disappear, namely, the fight against poverty and exclusion. Given the situation in numerous Member States, given, first of all, the suffering of individual people, but also in view of what that means for the cohesion of our societies, I should fervently like to call on the Commission not to lose sight of this objective, which the Member States, Ms Vestager, have rather tended to overlook in the documents which have been drawn up since.

I should like to end on the following point: we must be extremely careful that our view of these matters is not limited to questions of procedure. We feel to some extent that there has been a proliferation of documents. I would really prefer it if we could manage to achieve a proliferation of employment and I count on you, Ms Vestager – if you could stop telephoning during the debate – for Denmark to give considerable impetus in this direction, as your country is renowned in this area, and we would be very keen to be able to adapt the solutions that have been found in your country to ours.

IN THE CHAIR: OTHMAR KARAS
Vice-President

  Tarja Cronberg (Verts/ALE). – (FI) Mr President, one readily agrees with the objectives of the Commission and those laid down in the reports, as well as the remedies proposed. However, the Growth Survey pays far too little attention to growth and employment for small enterprises. Sources of financing are needed, but how are they to be acquired? Financing is not always a solution: we also need to reduce the administrative burden. The proposal lacks concrete initiatives for reaching small and medium-sized enterprises in practice. We should not now fear the risks.

We cannot merely rely on flexibility in the labour market in its reform and in boosting the mobility of labour, as the neoliberals believe. Workers in a dynamic labour market must also have security. My other native country, Denmark, is a good example of flexicurity. Now, during its Presidency, perhaps it should propose that flexibility in the labour market could be increased if employee security were also given a boost at the same time.

In Europe’s ageing society, pension schemes must be made sustainable. Many countries will have to make painful decisions to raise the age of retirement and to make pensions sustainable. The earlier the system is reformed, the easier it will be to make it sustainable.

Finally, I would like to say that we also need to focus attention on well-being at work and burnout.

  Anthea McIntyre (ECR). – Mr President, we must support entrepreneurship and SMEs and we must improve the functioning of the single market. Above all, we must cut red tape if we want to create jobs and increase growth.

I would like to speak briefly on Ms Cornelissen’s report which, unfortunately, I and fellow UK Conservatives cannot support in its entirety. This year – 2012 – should be the year we focus on the Member States’ implementation of the EU 2020 strategy, and surely it is counterproductive for us to pre-empt Member States’ progress and to make presumptions of failure. Also, we cannot support calls for a financial transaction tax or for EU funding in areas where Member States have already decided to make cuts, because these go against subsidiarity.

  Derek Roland Clark (EFD). – Mr President, with the Greek and Italian debt crises under the burden of the euro, of course unemployment is rising. Spain has over 40% youth unemployment – yet there is a call for more Europe. Employment policy should be to cut regulations by half at least as the target for 2020, instead of which more legislation is being proposed. If you want growth and jobs, stop promoting the failed euro. Look at what it has done to Greece. Set them and others free, free to reorganise their own currency and to set their own interest rates.

Remember the euro forerunner, the ERM? My country was in that project; interest rates rose and so did unemployment. Finally, interest rates went up to 15% – totally unsustainable – but at least the government came to its senses and withdrew from the ERM. That was on Black Wednesday in 1992, but it should be remembered as ‘Freedom Wednesday’, for interest rates fell, employment gradually recovered and we entered a period of economic growth. Now that is the model you want.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, I should first like to thank the rapporteurs for their work.

In its response to the crisis, the European Union has just spent more than a year strengthening its economic governance to prevent excessive macro-economic imbalances and budgetary deficits from threatening the European economy, but that has not prevented social exclusion or an increase in unemployment. It is time, or rather it is now a matter of urgency, for the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy to become an absolute priority for the European Commission and for the Member States with a view to growth.

Each State will have to introduce a national employment plan, and that means that emphasis will have to be placed on a wide range of matters including, in no particular order, training, redeployment, micro-credit, apprenticeships, paid internships, etc. However, as Commissioner Andor has just pointed out, we have 23 million unemployed in Europe, and also 23 million small and medium-sized enterprises and 23 billion in European funds set aside for jobs which has not been used. We could almost make a 2323 strategy out of them. Not to mention the EUR 60 billion in unallocated Cohesion Funds.

In Denmark and in the Netherlands, social initiatives based on flexicurity have been taken and have proved their effectiveness. Let us draw inspiration from them. This also means that our social policy overall must be more suitable, with more attractive social incentives than those linked with unemployment and active support for all socially responsible enterprises.

We have poverty reduction objectives to be reached by 2020 and we already know that we shall miss them, given the absence of strong and well-targeted measures taken by the Member States.

We should fully exercise our role as Members of Parliament and consequently, it is our responsibility to demand that the same energy expended in taking strong economic governance measures should also be applied to ambitious, effective and binding measures for social governance.

  Sylvana Rapti (S&D). – (EL) Mr President, I wish to touch on three points. The first concerns the Troika of the European Union, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund. The proposals by this Troika are resulting in austerity, recession and unemployment. Facing this Troika, we have seen that there is another Troika here: the Cornelissen/Gauzès/Berès troika. It is a famous European Parliament troika that makes proposals that result in growth, hope and employment. We need to take it seriously, Commissioner.

The second point has to do with employment. I have here before me a letter sent by the President of the General Confederation of Greek Workers to the President of the European Parliament and to every Member of Parliament. Do you know what the President of the General Confederation of Greek Workers says in this letter? He says, quite simply, that the measures being proposed by the Troika are destroying collective and sectoral agreements in Greece. What is to be done about this? What will you say and what response will you make, Commissioner?

I shall close with a comment on the programme for young people. We have the ‘Youth on the Move’ programme. If you do not do something quickly, it will have to be renamed the ‘Youth Standing Still’ programme.

  Roberts Zīle (ECR). – (LV) Mr President, it seems right to concentrate on three priorities: fiscal consolidation, labour reform and measures to foster growth. However, will the European Union’s citizens believe us concerning the 2020 goals? There are countries like Latvia, which has successfully consolidated its budget, but whose gross domestic product in 2020 will be exactly the same as in 2006. Income distribution within society is becoming increasingly unequal, as the Gini coefficients confirm, and the proportion of people at risk of poverty in every Member State (or nearly every state) is increasing.

Those in the younger generation have no wish to be unemployed or to work in temporary jobs for the best years of their lives in order to pay back the country’s debts to another country’s pension funds, and they are simply leaving.

Finally, I should like to say something about the goals of the next period’s financial framework. The intensity of aid in relation to economic and social cohesion in the new Member States will be only 2.5% of GDP, at most. In the current financial framework, it has been 4%. That means that the gap between Member States will only widen in future.

  Veronica Lope Fontagné (PPE). – (ES) Mr President, Minister, Commissioner, our objective in the area of employment and social issues should continue to be the Europe 2020 strategy. Unfortunately, however, and partly due to the erroneous policies of previous governments, there are some countries, including my own, where there is no longer any room to manoeuvre and the only option left is to apply very rigorous budgetary adjustment programmes to tackle the sovereign debt crisis.

Unemployment has reached unacceptable levels and continues to rise in some countries, with young people in a particularly serious situation. Poverty and the risk of social exclusion have increased considerably. There is a greater need than ever to redirect spending towards growth and job creation, and to avoid cutbacks in social policies that would further exacerbate the situation faced by the weakest in society.

Fiscal consolidation is a necessary condition, but it is not enough to exit the crisis. Fiscal consolidation, growth and job creation should go hand in hand.

The priority elements of national programmes and European Union social policy should be integrated, active inclusion strategies, measures to support sustainable job creation, particularly for the young, and, ultimately, carrying out the necessary reform of our labour markets, as is currently taking place in Spain.

  Olle Ludvigsson (S&D). – (SV) Mr President, we need to do something about the inadequate job matching on the European labour market. Since 2010, we have not only had sky-high unemployment, but also a rapidly increasing shortage of workers. Employers are finding it increasingly difficult to find the skills they are looking for. This does not bode well. If we do not take drastic measures, the high rate of unemployment will become permanent and our competitiveness will be eroded.

Most governments are too passive when it comes to improving job matching. We need a more active labour market policy that will give all of those who become unemployed the opportunity to increase their skills immediately to make them appropriate for the jobs that are available, and the concept of lifelong learning also needs to be put into practice. Everyone must be given the opportunity to learn something new at all stages in their lives. Broad investments in education that include schools, universities, vocational training and further education are needed in order for the workforce to constantly match the increasingly skills-intensive jobs that need to be created. We need a new approach in this area.

  Regina Bastos (PPE). – (PT) Mr President, I shall begin by congratulating the rapporteurs. It is already the norm to say that we are experiencing the worst financial, economic and social crisis since our modern international financial model was devised. When emphasising that unemployment rates in the EU have reached record highs, it would not be going too far to demand that combating unemployment be made the top priority.

Levels of youth unemployment are tragic. In my country, Portugal, more than one in three young people are looking for work and have no prospect of success. The public are sceptical. Their confidence urgently needs to be restored. After years of reckless management of public finances, it is time to adopt budgetary conciliation reforms and to put the accounts in order. However, make no mistake: austerity without economic growth is nothing more than a partial solution. The creation of more and better jobs is a major aim for the European Union. Measures designed to ensure that young people do not go more than four months without receiving an offer of a job or training and those designed to reduce the risk of poverty and social exclusion have to become a reality.

  Zita Gurmai (S&D). – Mr President, I welcome the fact that the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs has drawn up this report and I also hope that Parliament’s position will be taken into due account.

Youth unemployment figures in Europe are extremely worrying and they are getting worse – 5.6 million young people are unemployed, which is the equivalent of 22% in the EU. This is twice as high as the adult unemployment rate, which stands at 10%. We risk condemning an entire generation to despair and social exclusion because young people are being forced into inactivity.

Therefore, the Party of European Socialists, under its campaign ‘Your future is my future’, has to put concrete solutions on the agenda. We want a European youth guarantee that will ensure that every young person in Europe is offered a job, further education or work-focused training within four months at the latest of leaving education or becoming unemployed.

Society needs young women and men, and their talents and skills, on the labour market in order to strengthen Europe. Yes, it will cost us EUR 10 billion, but if they remain unemployed, it will cost the European Union EUR 100 billion every year.

  Thomas Mann (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, the European Semester, in other words, the coordination of the financial and economic policy of the Member States, is beginning to take shape. It is right that, in the light of an average unemployment rate of 10%, the main focus should be on jobs. We must do everything possible to create more high-quality jobs.

Overall, the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) voted in favour of Ms Cornelissen’s report. However, we are strongly opposed to paragraph 6. It is not acceptable for Member States with a current account surplus to be punished. These national economies are successful because of three things: intelligent management of businesses, the high level of potential of employees and a sound political framework. We must encourage the sharing of best practice, but we must never work on the principle that best practice must pay. The only way in which we can generate the long-term growth that we urgently need is on the basis of healthy budgets and substantial reforms. That is the lesson we should be learning from the last three years of ongoing crisis. It is absolutely right for Member States to incorporate debt brakes into their national constitutions. Of course, the austerity policies must be targeted and not stringent, otherwise the situation will go beyond what is reasonable from the perspective of employees, pensioners and unemployed people.

One of our priorities is to combat youth unemployment. The rate in Germany is 8%, but in some Member States, it is as high as 40%. The European Youth Guarantee must be put into practice. I have already called for it in my report on solidarity between the generations. After a period of four months’ unemployment, young people should be offered a job, an apprenticeship or other training opportunities. Small and medium-sized enterprises and public bodies must show their solidarity.

6. Composition of Parliament: see Minutes

7. Employment and social aspects in the Annual Growth Survey 2012 - Contribution to the Annual Growth Survey 2012 - Guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States (continuation of debate)

  President. – We now come to the catch-the-eye procedure and I am confronted with 15 speakers who want to take the floor. However, we cannot call them all. I would like to ask for your understanding on this. I will go by the groups and by the time at which the requests were received.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Joanna Katarzyna Skrzydlewska (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, the economic policy of the Member States and the entire European Union, particularly during a crisis, continues to be a key issue and requires our particular attention. At this difficult time, efforts to stabilise the economic markets should be an obvious solution. We can only achieve this through decisive and coordinated action as part of budgetary policy, with a focus on developing innovation. Furthermore, it is important to create new jobs, particularly for young people, to reduce the costs of these jobs, and to review fiscal policy and reduce the burdens associated with ever-increasing bureaucracy.

All this is supposed to be the consequence of realising the priorities of the Europe 2020 strategy, so they have to be addressed consistently and with attention given to the education and labour sectors. This will become the key to overcoming the crisis, and in the long term will have a significant effect on the fight against poverty and social exclusion.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D). – (LT) Mr President, it is very important to draw the European Council’s attention to the fact that the social consequences of the crisis, such as unemployment, poverty and social exclusion, have been further exacerbated by austerity measures that certain European countries have begun to apply with too much zeal. In particular, this has affected young people, pensioners, the disabled, the long-term unemployed and low-skilled workers.

Unfortunately, the reality is that poverty among working people in the European Union is on the increase. This means that jobs are increasingly poor quality, unsafe and low paid, and therefore, at the European Council, it must be stressed that measures on budgetary management, economic growth and employment must be assessed together because they are all interdependent and a precondition for economic recovery.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Mr President, the policies set out in the European Semester, economic governance and the fiscal compact increase the legitimacy and institutionalisation of the so-called ‘austerity measures’, which we cannot accept. It is impossible to reconcile this approach with the principles of social justice, growth and promoting employment, as they advocate exactly the opposite: namely, cutting wage costs, increasing the exploitation of the workers and shrinking the state, as well as an attack on the social and labour rights that have been acquired.

These so-called ‘budget consolidation’ policies are causing real social tragedy and disaster, such as increased poverty, in addition to merely deepening the economic recession and increasing public debt. What is needed is a complete break with this path. A Europe based on cooperation needs to be built, with the principal objectives of defending the interests of the peoples and of putting a stop to processes of oppression and colonisation by the major powers. Last Saturday, on the streets of Lisbon, Portugal, more than 300 000 people demanded an end to the austerity measures and promised that the struggle will continue.

  Csaba Sógor (PPE). – (HU) Mr President, in connection with the Annual Growth Survey 2012, I consider it important to stress what the report of my fellow Member has also pointed out; namely, that while managing the European debt crisis, we must not neglect social aspects. The greatest problem of European countries at the moment is the debt crisis, but we must not shift the burdens of the management of this crisis on to the citizens to a disproportionate extent. In the light of the events of the past few years, the widespread notion in the developed world that the gradual, at times more rapid, at other times slower, increase in living standards is irreversible and that future generations will be better off than we are has become questionable. This notion could be reinforced by budgetary consolidation, while we sacrifice economic growth, job creation and social responsibility at the altar of macro-economic stability. I hope that in a few years, we will not look back on the year 2012 as a missed opportunity to prevent social tensions erupting as a result of a social crisis.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D). – (SK) Mr President, I would first like to give my words of appreciation to Ms Berès for her report, in particular, because it does not just highlight the need for austerity measures, but it also sees the current crisis as a social crisis.

The dominant focus on austerity has led to a fragmented approach. Budgetary and macro-economic stability have been monitored without taking into account the main social or educational aims or the objectives of the 2020 strategy for employment. The priority must be investment in sustainable jobs. We must ensure that the most vulnerable groups and those who are most affected by the crisis are protected against the redistributive effects of the economic crisis and plans for fiscal consolidation. We must also address the lack of quality jobs with decent wages and decent working conditions.

  Gay Mitchell (PPE). – Mr President, I feel that it is necessary to apply the austerity programmes in Member States in order to bring the public finances under control.

In my own experience, in the 1980s in Ireland, once we got the public finances under control, we experienced recovery after some time. The problem is that, if the patient (in the form of the Member State) is to survive the austerity programme, some sort of new incentive has to be given. I think it is time we stopped just looking at the stick and started looking at the carrot.

Greece represents about 2% of the GDP of the euro area and much less than that of the EU. Are we going to allow this to bring the whole euro area down? It is time to start thinking of Marshall Aid-type assistance to those countries that are prepared to suffer. No matter what they did in the past, we will all gain from this, and there will be a return and a dividend if we have more of the carrot as well as the stick.

  Alejandro Cercas (S&D). – (ES) Mr President, Commissioner Andor, Commissioner Rehn yesterday applauded a reform in Spain that established free dismissal without severance pay for the hundreds of thousands of young people to whom it will apply.

Do you not think, Commissioner, that the time has come to state that the European Social Charter protects workers against arbitrary dismissals, and that it is not good that young people go from swelling the army of unemployed people to becoming part of the working poor? Has the time not come to say that we want work, but that we want decent jobs and rights for our young people?

  Hubert Pirker (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, simply throwing money at the growth and debt problems in individual Member States will definitely not help to resolve them. Merely blocking up holes is not a solution. What we need is investment in sustainable measures to help these countries to help themselves, for example, in the areas of education, research, innovation and assistance for small and medium-sized businesses. That will certainly speed up economic growth and job creation.

However, it is also important for the European Union to monitor whether the funds that are made available are actually being properly used. Only under these circumstances will we gain the acceptance of citizens in particular in those Member States which have plenty of funds available and which have managed their budgets properly over the years. All our previous experiences have shown that while trust is a good thing, a community based on solidarity also requires the necessary monitoring measures.

  Victor Boştinaru (S&D). – (RO) Mr President, all is well! However, both the reports tabled and the Commission’s speech are contradicted here and there by the dramatic reality within the Member States. Once the unemployed are removed from the payment of benefits, at least in Romania, they disappear both from statistics and as a government concern. They no longer exist in the package of society’s turmoil, concerns and worries. The pension reform and labour market flexibility that has been discussed here are also very nice, very important, but in Romania, under the supervision of the International Monetary Fund and the European Commission, this reform was accomplished, which means this: the complete dismantling of the legislative and institutional framework regulating the activity of trade unions, the dismantling of the Labour Code, the actual dissolution of the Economic and Social Council, and the refusal of social partners to continue their participation in mimicking the so-called dialogue.

If we do not seek recovery and a response to this turmoil, Romania remains just a part of European statistics – but it is still a Member State! I would like to think that we will come out of this liberal aberration and will try to find answers. I would not wish anyone to spend a day in the shoes of an unemployed person in Romania, neither here in Strasbourg, nor elsewhere in the Member States.

  Diogo Feio (PPE). – (PT) Mr President, I should like to begin by congratulating the various rapporteurs on the documents that we are debating here today, particularly my colleague, Mr Gauzès, whose report highlights the need to find solutions to the financial and sovereign debt crisis we are currently experiencing. Disciplinary measures are important, but so is stepping up medium- and long-term growth measures. It is time for us to establish our priorities. Doing everything at the same time, and often in a contradictory way, is not the solution.

First of all, there is a need to find short-term solutions so as to provide liquidity for the real economy, to solve the banking crisis situation that we are currently experiencing, and to solve the problem of the Member States. Secondly, we need to move towards a series of structural reforms with a clear focus on economic growth. Finally, we also need a range of institutional changes in how the euro operates and how the European Union operates. What we need, finally, is clear political discourse. We all have to support it and I would congratulate the Council on how it has achieved that here today.

End of the catch-the-eye procedure

  László Andor, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I am grateful for the opportunity to have heard Members’ views on the Commission’s 2012 Annual Growth Survey. First, I believe there is a broad convergence of views on the key policy priorities for 2012, on the higher priority for growth and the urgency of reform implementation, and on the fact that we should take action on employment and not just talk. I think there is an agreement that we have to work for improved consistency between the long-term objectives for economic and social development, as explained in the Europe 2020 strategy, and short-term measures to create stability in Europe and particularly in the euro area.

This convergence of views is comforting for the Commission. I believe that political support from the elected representatives of European citizens for these policy priorities will enhance the credibility of the relevant reforms and thus have a positive impact on confidence. However, based on different political views and approaches, there are differing approaches and emphasis on particular instruments – how exactly we should approach our goals for economic growth and job creation.

Let me give you the Commission’s view on what exactly we think needs to be done for growth and particularly for more jobs in this period. In the discussion, I think there was sufficient attention and appreciation for the Youth Opportunities initiatives, and I am grateful for the positive remarks on this Commission document, in which we relaunched the campaign for a youth guarantee in Europe. I would like to thank those such as Mr Őry, Ms Bastos and Ms Gurmai who mentioned this youth guarantee in a positive light, because I believe this is a very important measure. The Commission can provide technical support for the Member States which are ready to go down this road.

I also believe it is very important, as many participants in the discussion stressed, to improve education and training according to the needs of the labour market in order to create a better match between the supply of and the demand for labour. These aspects will be covered in the country-specific recommendations at the end of this semester.

However, as we needed to update and upgrade the Youth on the Move flagship initiative in the form of the Youth Opportunities initiative, we are also working on an upgrade and an update of our employment policy in the form of an employment package to be presented in April. This will respond to and connect with many issues which you stressed in the discussion, such as how flexicurity policies are helping to develop the European labour market following Denmark’s inspirational example, but also how we want to work more effectively in order to create green jobs, because this is one of the areas where employment will increase in the coming period. We have to ensure that green jobs also appear in Europe and not only in other continents, where this is also a priority.

In addition to green jobs, we also have to look at white coat jobs in the health and care sector and the ICT sectors, which will be a bigger employer in the future. This employment package will also deliver the quality framework on traineeships which many of you called for. I share the view that we have to do a lot more – and do it more effectively – to ensure quality jobs and opportunities for young people, and this quality framework will be a key instrument in addressing this.

There is a need to do more for enterprise, including for SMEs. I think this is again an important point – but let us see what the real bottleneck is in the context of enterprise and SMEs. Perhaps we can do more for smarter regulation – efforts are also being made to streamline regulation inside the Commission – but I believe the real bottleneck is finance. We have to ensure that the banking sector gives more support to enterprise and SMEs, and we can also promote a micro-finance facility. This has already been introduced in about one third of the Member States, and my services are working with other Member States to introduce the Progress Micro-finance Facility in a more rapid manner and support SMEs across Member States.

Let me also say that in my view, the greatest challenge at this time in terms of economic governance is to deal with the increasing polarisation within the European Union. It is not simply about diversity. We have already learned and applied the principle that there is no one size that fits all: we have to take differences into account. But we are now experiencing something which is more serious than that: an increasing asymmetry – a polarisation – between Member States that are relatively strong financially and economically, in terms of employment performance and social stability, and other Member States – largely those on the periphery – where all this is more difficult and where, instead of recovery, many Member States experienced a recession this year and the risk of losing a generation. For many of these Member States, like Ireland, Portugal and Greece, there is significant out-migration, which also means out-migration from Europe, because young people do not see the opportunities and they do not see them returning in the coming years.

I am also grateful for the comment from Latvia, because this also demonstrates that, although some stability has been restored, this example should not be used as a model for other countries, especially the southern countries looking for an exit from recession and financial instability.

I would like to stress that the European Semester is a learning process for all parties involved. With the help of the European Parliament, important lessons have been drawn from the first European Semester, and presenting the Annual Growth Survey earlier has left much more room for debate this time round. The Commission has done this because it recognises the importance of open debate and democratic accountability for the success of the European Semester.

The Commission is keen to contribute to strengthening the strategy’s governance – notably through improved monitoring of employment and social targets – and to bolster the political ownership that is vital for its success. This is very much about sustaining the Europe 2020 strategy and its content and its objectives – together with numerical targets – instead of abandoning them.

In addition to being involved, we also need you to help us strengthen our links with the national parliaments in order to anchor our 2020 objectives in national political agendas as well.

  Margrethe Vestager, President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, if I am asked by the press when I leave this Assembly what was the focus of the debates, there will be one answer: youth unemployment. That has been the key word from every speaker in this debate on growth and unemployment that has lasted over an hour.

This is a key issue and we have to find ways to address it. It is important to grasp all the nuances here because there is no necessary contradiction between consolidation and growth. It is all a question of priorities: very hard, very difficult priorities in our budgets. We can no longer just discuss this and ask: ‘who is going to spend the next million or the next billion’? We have to discuss how we are spending in general and make sure that we get our priories right; that is important in any parliament; that is important in the European Parliament.

Do we have our priorities right? I think that is a key question and answering it entails a great deal of conflict, because if we want to change our priorities, we will have to have debates that actually change things and concern the people who are the beneficiaries of the present budget and the present way of spending.

Another issue is the fact that greening our economy is part of the answer. I know that some people think that we will have to wait, but greening our economy is part of the answer: being more efficient in the way that we use our resources and, in so doing, creating more space for the most important resource we have: human beings.

It is very important to take note of the Commission’s five priorities because they are important steps in actually reaching the goals of Europe 2020. We must make sure that we pursue differentiated, growth-friendly fiscal consolidation. Second: we must restore normal lending to the economy because SMEs cannot create jobs if they cannot borrow, if their credit line is cut. So normal lending is very important. Third: we must promote growth and competitiveness for tomorrow. A lot of the proposals already tabled are heading in exactly that direction. Fourth, as we have been discussing today, we must tackle unemployment and the social consequences of the crisis. And fifth – perhaps an undervalued point – public administration must be modernised to make sure that we actually help enterprise to create jobs.

These are the important issues and I think that labour market reforms should also be understood as a way of facilitating young people’s entry to work, making sure that they are actually taken on by enterprises and giving them a chance to show that they can actually participate, and that their work is also beneficial to their enterprise.

Last but not least, this is an important debate because it forms part of a long series of debates that Parliament has held in the past and which we will continue to have in the future. Solving the crisis is a very long and very demanding task for everybody. It takes cooperation and when we discuss solutions – be it some of the things that I have mentioned, some of the things mentioned by the Commissioner, or a number of the things mentioned in the three reports that we have been discussing today – a major challenge is to make sure that we cooperate.

I am very much looking forward to continuing cooperation with Parliament on the proposals already tabled, and making sure that we can make it obvious that there is no necessary contradiction between wise consolidation and growth within the European Union.

  Marije Cornelissen, rapporteur. – Mr President, I would like to thank all of you for this debate and to thank the shadows for working closely in a very speedy process. Special thanks go to Mr Gauzès and Ms Berès for the excellent cooperation on our reports. I am very proud to form a troika together with you, to refer to what Ms Rapti said.

We have shown that it is possible to deliver complementary views from the economic and the social side, and I am happy with the broad support expressed in this House for our work.

I agree, Ms Harkin, that both deficit and surplus countries should be addressed. Unfortunately, in yesterday’s alert mechanism report, surplus countries like the Netherlands and Germany were unaffected. I hope Ms Harkin will be able to support the paragraph in my report that counters this asymmetrical approach.

I am happy that the call for a job-rich recovery, expressing worries about rising poverty, is growing louder in all institutions and all political groups. What I am afraid of now is that this call will remain lip service. We need measures to give the employment and social goals the power and standing to rise to the level of the budgetary ones, so perhaps we need an excessive unemployment procedure and an excessive poverty-increase procedure. Why not expand what was once the ‘six-pack’ – and is now going to be the ‘eight-pack’ – immediately to a ‘ten-pack’, in order also to include the social and employment goals. And let us differentiate our approach, to give all Member States a prospect of recovery.

  Jean-Paul Gauzès, rapporteur. – (FR) Mr President, this is certainly not the best time to speak. However, I, too, would like to commend the excellent cooperation between the rapporteurs, Ms Cornelissen, Ms Berès and myself and the shadow rapporteurs.

On the substance of the debate, I would like to say that what is needed today is for words to be backed up by actions, and that is undoubtedly the hardest thing to achieve. As regards its form, I would like to point out that the 2012 European Semester will be the first to come under the new legal framework of enhanced economic governance. In order to ensure that Parliament is well informed, we urge you, Commissioner, to ensure that the Commission provides a detailed assessment of the implementation, by the Member States, of the recommendations in each country.

The Council, for its part, is required to provide a public explanation of its position within the framework of economic dialogue with Parliament, when its position deviates significantly from the Commission’s recommendations and proposals.

It is quite clear that the States can retain a degree of discretion under the principle of subsidiarity. The new legal framework stipulates that Parliament must be duly involved in the European Semester in order to increase transparency and accountability for decisions, particularly through economic dialogue, as provided for by the relevant secondary legislation.

In this respect, I should like to conclude by reminding you of the requests made by Parliament to the Council and the Commission in its resolution of 1 December 2011. It is important to give this resolution a precise public response. The reality and effectiveness of the democratic control for which this Parliament is responsible depends on it.

  Pervenche Berès, rapporteur. – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, you said that the European Parliament had agreed not to change the guidelines. So be it. However, we would like to see these guidelines implemented and, in our reports, we make a certain number of proposals to provide you with the means to monitor this implementation.

In particular, I should like to mention one proposal, the proposal to work with the Member States on a budgetary heading which would allow us to ascertain the contribution of the Member States, for example, to realising the objectives of the 2020 strategy rather than towards military expenditure or whatever else.

Ms Vestager, thank you for being here today. You have said that you will report on this debate and the work of this Parliament at the 21 February meeting of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council (ECOFIN). This is precisely what we would like to see. It is in that spirit that we would like to advance European democracy and it is also in that spirit that on 27 and 28 February, we shall meet with representatives of all the national parliaments to ensure that, in this European Semester, there is also room for the democratic dimension to thrive.

Finally, Ms Vestager, may I call on you to take into account in the same way, during this ECOFIN Council, the new impact assessment that the Commission is due to publish tomorrow on the assessment of the tax on financial transactions.

  President. – The joint debate is closed.

IN THE CHAIR: ALEJO VIDAL-QUADRAS
Vice-President

  Evelyn Regner (S&D). – (DE) Mr President, in the previous debate on the Annual Growth Survey, I attempted to ask Mr Obermayr a blue-card question. However, I was not able to do so because he left the Chamber immediately. I would like to ask that Members remain in the Chamber at least long enough to be asked a blue-card question.

  President. – Ms Regner, yes, you are right. Gentlemen should always wait for questions from ladies. Joking apart, you are quite right that Members should wait if there is a blue-card request, so we take good note of your remark and we will act accordingly.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The European Union is confronted with the vital task of overcoming the effects of the international economic and financial crisis. Measures such as continued medium and long-term investment to meet the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy, as well as making investments to stimulate economic growth in the short term, may prove to be the instruments through which the confidence of European citizens and financial markets in the commercial and industrial capacity of the European Union can be restored. It is equally important for the success of the EU’s economic strategies for Member States to implement in their practices a number of elements agreed at European level, as soon as possible. The success of European economic recovery depends essentially on the creation of a fiscal consolidation policy to encourage economic growth, the adoption of measures to prevent the escalation of youth unemployment, and the launch of timely measures to prevent marginalisation and social isolation in accordance with the European strategic documents. I express my support for the adoption of Parliament’s proposals. The use of Structural Funds to redress these temporary economic imbalances, based on close cooperation between the Commission and Member States, along with strengthening the single market, the development of the digital economy and cutting back institutional bureaucracy are solutions to be considered.

  Filiz Hakaeva Hyusmenova (ALDE), in writing. – (BG) Today, we are witnessing a series of negative consequences related to the economic and social aspects of the financial crisis. The growing unemployment rate, the increased risk of poverty and social exclusion, together with the uncertainty among the employed, are some of the problems that we are confronted with, and which require fast and appropriate measures. Given that resources have been restricted by the crisis, we need to concentrate our efforts on policies that enable growth and sustainable development as much as possible. It is therefore imperative for these to form the broad basis of the Annual Growth Survey 2012. Member States and the Commission must guarantee the implementation of rapid, coordinated measures to improve labour market conditions with particular emphasis given to young people, women and other vulnerable groups. The fight against unemployment, especially among young people, must become a leading priority that is supported by measures for education, professional development, traineeships and for encouraging entrepreneurship. Establishing a closer link between education and business needs is also important as it would guarantee increased potential for professional development among graduates as well. Stimulating youth mobility and providing more flexible working conditions would contribute to increased work productivity and improve the competitiveness of the European economy.

  Lívia Járóka (PPE), in writing. – I welcome the fact that tackling the social consequences of the crisis is one of the five priorities listed in the recent Annual Growth Survey. It is very important that the sector of employment and social affairs is not overshadowed by the focus on fiscal consolidation, and that the headline target of increasing employment is kept on the agenda and further promoted by investing in sustainable job creation. It must be ensured that consolidation measures will not have further negative impacts on people at risk of poverty and/or social exclusion. The Commission should therefore put more emphasis on guiding Member States in coordinating their national reform programmes with the goals of the Europe 2020 strategy, in particular increasing employment and introducing effective incentives for work. The successful launch of the national Roma inclusion strategies and its European framework is indispensable in this respect, since Roma constitute a huge reserve of idle workforce and are disproportionately over-represented among those living in poverty. Increasing the employment of Roma – so that this approximates to the regional average – would already trigger substantial economic growth that many countries with a significant Roma population and hit by the sovereign debt crisis are so desperately in need of.

  Jaromír Kohlíček (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (CS) Europe and the European Union have been suffering an economic crisis since 2008. In addition to the decline across a wide range of artificial indicators such as GDP, there has been a significant fall in employment and domestic consumption in individual states. We also see a substantial increase in the number of people in EU Member States who have a job and receive pay, but the pay is so low that, even under the ever worsening and ever stricter criteria for providing the various social contributions, these people are entitled to various types of benefit in relation to their low pay. Unfortunately, over the past 20 years, it has typically been the case that employment in the primary and secondary sectors has fallen significantly, and employment in the agricultural and forestry sectors has fallen very significantly. A former key sector for employment in industrially developed states, that is to say industry, has become a marginal factor, particularly in the countries of central and eastern Europe. In the old EU states, the emphasis in former times on the development of industry has shifted to support for the development of services. In the service sector, unfortunately, many areas are really in a crisis situation as regards securing employment, and are very risky in terms of workers’ earnings in these areas. The solution is to support industry and apprenticeships, increase the minimum wage, protect jobs, develop specialist training and to have progressive taxation of both legal and physical entities.

  Vladimír Maňka (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The austerity measures that many EU countries have introduced in response to the crisis are leading to worsening poverty throughout the EU. The situation on the labour market is very critical, especially for young people, regardless of educational attainment. The crisis has also affected people who are approaching retirement age, the long-term unemployed and unskilled workers. The commitments made in the national reform programmes are not sufficient to achieve the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy in employment, education and poverty reduction.

We must therefore focus on integrated reform measures that promote growth in the short, medium and long terms.

In its policy guidelines, the European Council must ensure that EU funds will be allocated to achieving the Europe 2020 strategy objectives.

The European Council must, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, approve guidelines aimed at increasing revenues through fair, progressive, redistributive, effective and efficient taxation, in order to help combat tax evasion through better tax coordination, ensure the fairness of the system, and maintain social cohesion.

  Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The motion for a resolution refers to the labour market situation of young people and people approaching the retirement age, as well as of low-skilled workers, those categories considered to be the most severely affected by the crisis. Among the areas of economic activity, these three categories are particularly prevalent in some Member States in agriculture. Therefore, I believe that the measures taken to encourage setting up young farmers by taking over some farms or expanding holdings, as well as the anticipated pension systems for elderly farmers, must also continue in the future common agricultural policy. It should be noted that rural workers, young and old, are in a very special situation that requires particular solutions.

  Rovana Plumb (S&D), in writing. – (RO) Plenary Speech – Annual Growth Survey 2012. The social consequences of the crisis are very severe, and are further exacerbated by the impact of the austerity measures adopted in some countries in response to the sovereign debt crisis, by the job losses in the private and public sectors, and by the decrease in the provision of social insurance services and public services, leading to the aggravation of poverty cases across the EU. According to Eurostat, since 2010, 41.4% of the population of Romania have faced the risk of poverty or social exclusion, representing 8.89 million people out of a total population of 21.47 million. The Eurostat figure for Bulgaria is 42%, for Latvia 38%, for Lithuania 33%, and for Hungary, 30%. The initiatives that facilitate the development of sectors with the greatest potential for employment should be supported at European level, particularly in the transition to a sustainable economy (‘green jobs’), social and health services (‘white coat jobs’) and digital economy. Emphasis must also be placed on the strategy to combat youth unemployment.

  Evelyn Regner (S&D), in writing. – (DE) This report has enabled the European Parliament to play an active role in the debate on overcoming the crisis and to put the focus on social factors as well as economic ones during the course of the discussion. This sends out a powerful signal to the spring meeting of the European Council which will help to ensure that those countries hardest hit by the crisis are the ones which receive assistance. Current economic figures show that the stringent austerity measures being taken in some countries will not result in a recovery. We need to invest, particularly in the citizens of Europe, in order to bring about a change of direction. Effective initiatives and concrete resources are required to stimulate growth. Therefore, I am pleased that the report contains a reference to the financial transaction tax. However, what is missing in the Annual Growth Survey is a focus on the goals of the Europe 2020 strategy. To me, there seems to be a lack of coherence in this area, because these goals should be our highest priority. This applies, in particular, to youth unemployment. The previous declarations of intent must be followed by concrete initiatives to create jobs for young people, so that we can give them hope. It is also very important to me that the report refers to macro-economic imbalances. Deleting this reference would be a questionable move, most importantly because these imbalances were the main factors which triggered the crisis.

  Joanna Senyszyn (S&D), in writing. – (PL) In relation to the report on employment and social aspects in the Annual Growth Survey 2012, I would like to draw particular attention to the huge number of young people who are unemployed. Currently, over 5 million young people in the European Union are unemployed, which means that one in five young people in the labour market cannot find work. In Poland, at the beginning of 2011, there were almost half a million people under the age of 25 registered with employment offices as unemployed. School leavers and university graduates cannot find work; reasons for this include the fact that they lack experience, and it is currently very difficult to gain that experience.

We should follow the example of Germany and France, where, during the period of an employee’s training, the employer’s social insurance contributions are paid from an unemployment insurance fund. This encourages employers to take on young people. It is essential to have standards governing the quality of traineeships for young people. After a traineeship, young people must have the knowledge and skills necessary in a particular labour market. On 1 February 2012, all the Union’s Member States agreed to develop their own plan on employment for young people and support for small enterprises. Some are even going to create special action groups to prevent youth unemployment. I hope these plans will be made as quickly as possible, because the situation for young people in the labour market is, quite frankly, desperate.

  Valdemar Tomaševski (ECR), in writing. – (PL) The financial crisis, which was followed by a social crisis, has shown very clearly that the Union needs better economic governance. This is particularly necessary in the employment sector and the labour market. Unemployment in the EU has increased significantly since 2008 and has reached a level of 23 million people, corresponding to 10% of the working age population. This is the average figure for the whole Union and there are, of course, Member States with a much higher unemployment rate, chiefly the EU’s new Member States.

The labour market situation is exceptionally difficult for young people, regardless of their education, and they often end up with precarious employment contracts. If the potential of the younger generation in the economy is not to be lost, the European Council needs to make tackling youth unemployment a priority and to develop an effective strategy for young people in the European Union. This strategy should be developed in close cooperation with the social partners and should include a European Youth Guarantee, on the basis of which the Member States would guarantee every young person in the EU the right to be offered a job, an apprenticeship or additional training after a maximum period of not more than six months’ unemployment.

Similar initiatives are to be found in the Cornelissen report and deserve to be analysed on their merits. This should go together with budgetary incentives from the European Council for investments in sustainable job creation in as many sectors of the economy as possible.

  Kathleen Van Brempt (S&D), in writing. – (NL) The fact that we, as Parliament, can only share our views on the policy guidelines for the European Semester through own-initiative reports tells you immediately where the problem lies. Neither the European Parliament nor the national parliaments have any say or any right of control over the final policy guidelines. This, in itself, was not a disaster as long as these policy guidelines were being used as they were intended: as directives. However, there is a gradual shift taking place whereby these directives are suddenly taking on a much more coercive character. One such example is the commitment of the Heads of State or Government at last December’s European summit to full adherence to these directives. Depriving parliaments (whether European or national) of the right to codecide in such cases means undermining the democratic process. After all, you can already see the consequences: the social dimension has become the Cinderella of the policy guidelines and is being completely overshadowed by macro-economic and budgetary objectives. However, we cannot have one without the other, and I hope that the European Council will also recognise this and give the social dimension of the guidelines the role it deserves.

8. Voting time

  President. – The next item is the vote.

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

8.1. Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland and the Schengen acquis (A7-0013/2012 - Timothy Kirkhope) (vote)

8.2. Guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States (A7-0011/2012 - Pervenche Berès) (vote)

8.3. Food distribution to the most deprived persons in the Union (A7-0032/2012 - Czesław Adam Siekierski) (vote)

– Before the vote:

  Pervenche Berès (S&D). – (FR) Mr President, we are going to vote on Mr Siekierski’s report. On behalf of all our fellow Members and, in particular, the members of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, we would like to say that we are going to accept the two-year extension of the Food Distribution Programme for the Most Deprived Persons, on the basis of the agreement reached at the Council. Simply speaking, bearing in mind the political conditions under which this agreement was reached at the Council, we would like to obtain a statement from the Commission on its vision for the future of this programme.

  László Andor, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, Ms Berès, honourable Members, I am sure you know that the multiannual financial framework adopted on 29 June 2011 provides for future food aid for the most deprived people to be funded under Heading 1, where it fits most appropriately with the poverty reduction target of the EU 2020 strategy. The Commission will, in due time, exercise its right of initiative to translate the outcome of the MFF discussions into action, because the right of initiative belongs to the Commission.

8.4. Radio spectrum policy (A7-0019/2012 - Gunnar Hökmark) (vote)

8.5. Contractual relations in the milk and milk products sector (A7-0262/2011 - James Nicholson) (vote)

8.6. Amendment of Rule 48(2) on own-initiative reports (A7-0399/2011 - Stanimir Ilchev) (vote)

8.7. Feasibility of introducing stability bonds (B7-0016/2012) (vote)

8.8. Employment and social aspects in the Annual Growth Survey 2012 (A7-0021/2012 - Marije Cornelissen) (vote)

8.9. Contribution to the Annual Growth Survey 2012 (A7-0018/2012 - Jean-Paul Gauzès) (vote)

  President. – The vote is closed.

9. Explanations of vote

Oral explanations of vote

Report: Pervenche Berès (A7-0011/2012)

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, every time the situation seems to improve, new downgrades by the rating agencies shake up the international markets. Many European businesses are failing, and in terms of employment, the number of long-term job seekers is rising, especially among the young.

If austerity plans and safeguarding the euro are necessary measures, then drastic changes to the job market are even more important at national level in boosting economic recovery in Europe. Only by making the European Union competitive again will we restore faith to investors and promote the creation of new jobs.

  Kay Swinburne (ECR). – Mr President, the EU should not have responsibility over setting an EU strategy on jobs or for developing an EU-level strategy for employment. I fundamentally believe that Member States are better placed to make decisions on employment and develop their own employment strategy. A one-size-fits-all model really cannot be applied because the employment situation in each Member State – and indeed within each Member State as in the case of Wales within the UK – is affected by different factors.

A tailored and targeted approach must be adopted to ensure that we tackle priorities locally for employment and find specific measures that improve future employment opportunities, especially for our young people. Care needs to be taken with this EU-wide strategy.

  Salvatore Iacolino (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, there is no doubt that the latest employment figures, especially among the young, generate particular social alarm. If unemployment is at 10.4% and rising, this clearly can only arouse particular concern.

Therefore, great care and attention needs to be paid to the initiative put in place by the Commission to create a task force, an action team to support individual governments – initially eight – in directing funding, including EU funds, towards the creation of new jobs, especially for the young.

The right to work is sacred and fundamental, and according to the Europe 2020 strategy, activities encouraging employment and growth should be actively promoted, also by linking migration flows to the labour market and, above all, by guaranteeing that preference is shown to EU workers.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, the adoption of this resolution today has finally refocused attention on a topic that is central for the future of Europe. Work has been the main casualty of the crisis and the inadequate employment policies of recent years. The situation is, unfortunately, getting worse, particularly for young people.

On 1 March, the European Council will launch the new economic and employment policy guidelines. We therefore need to discuss a new employment programme, a market reform that will create new jobs backed by an investment policy targeting the new generations and providing them with practical responses; in other words, a new employment plan that will modernise education and training systems and finally promote the value of individuals.

Work must go back to being regular and stable, which does not necessarily mean working in the same place all one’s working life, but nor does it mean that people should be ‘disposable’ either. The real challenge will be to allow and encourage different professional experiences in one’s lifetime, while at the same time safeguarding and guaranteeing professionalism and pay.

  Francesco De Angelis (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, these guidelines for employment policies will be a great help in achieving the target of increasing participation in the labour market and reducing youth unemployment. Today, the future of young people is increasingly uncertain and insecure. There is no point in concealing the fact that sustained economic growth is crucial for the future of Europe. The youth unemployment figures are dramatic and unacceptable.

The European Union must be committed to a medium- to long-term strategy for better, full and good-quality employment, especially for young people and their mobility, but also in terms of gender quality. At the same time, there must be parallel efforts to improve education and training systems at all levels.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). – Mr President, one in five Greeks is now unemployed, 60 000 small firms have closed in the last year, the economy, which was scheduled to contract by 3% in 2011, has contracted by 6% and there is no end in sight as long as Greece remains in the euro. There is austerity and poverty and deflation without end.

I noticed in the debate this morning that it seems to be dawning on some of our colleagues on the Left that they have picked the wrong side, that they are lining up with the establishment, the bondholders and the banks against ordinary workers in Greece, and that this bailout money is going to rescue some very wealthy individuals from the consequences of their mistakes, but the repayment is going to come from ordinary taxpayers.

That is what happens when you base your whole policy on signalling your disapproval of nationalism. That is what happens when you take a position based on doing the opposite of people that you do not like. But it is never too late to come to your senses, my friends: ‘Joy shall be in Heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance’.

  Mario Pirillo (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, the current economic crisis, together with the austerity measures adopted in some countries, has created new social categories at risk of poverty, including young people and elderly people. Given the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy, the Annual Growth Survey must ensure consistency between the various priorities in its political guidelines in order to ensure that budgetary needs are based on social justice.

I agree with the rapporteur on the need to act immediately in order to improve employment conditions for categories at risk of social exclusion and to make tackling youth unemployment a priority. Future national reform plans will need to include training programmes able to develop lifelong learning and to create qualified jobs with dignified pay and conditions.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). – Mr President, I generally believe that the EU should not uniformly dictate employment laws across its Member States. I also remain sceptical about the need for an EU strategy on jobs or a reinforced coordinated strategy on employment. Forcing our Member States to adopt the same uniform policies across the board when their social structures and the economic problems they face are very different will do little to nothing to aid employment levels in the Union.

What is good for one country will doubtless prove unworkable for another, so I think it is best if Member States are left alone to define their own national reform programmes and to implement their own reforms as they see fit.

  Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE). – (HU) Mr President, the Annual Growth Survey 2012 is quite correct in stressing that the success of economic governance will greatly depend on the budgetary rigour implemented by the individual Member States, but it is just as important to kick-start economic growth and, at the same time, complete the internal market. Unfortunately, this did not receive sufficient focus either in the ‘six-pack’ or in the current fiscal pact. Yet short- and medium-term cuts made by the Member States in public expenditures are futile if no structural reforms are implemented. The Commission is not sufficiently satisfied with Member State reforms and efforts. It wants quick results, pressing and forcing Member States to deliver them, which leads to unnecessary austerity measures and a continuing rise in unemployment. That is why this is a good report, and that is why it is important that the Commission is finally entertaining the idea of once again giving this matter focus in its country-specific recommendations.

  President. – Ms Gáll-Pelcz, next time, remember that you must register for an explanation of vote before the explanations of vote start. You registered when we had already started and, according to the Rules, you must do it before, so remember next time.

  Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE). – (HU) Mr President, I accept your kindness and next time, I will do as you have said.

Recommendation for second reading: Czesław Adam Siekierski (A7-0032/2012)

  Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Mr President, the political signal the Parliament has sent with this report on the distribution of food aid to the most deprived persons is very important at this time when an economic crisis is affecting people who did not cause the crisis, but who are suffering from its consequences.

For that reason, I voted for this report, which concerns the most deprived people and also regional and local authorities which, in many cases, are the principal distributors of food aid.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, today is a great day because the food aid programme for the most deprived has been saved. There had been talk of abolishing it, which would have been sheer madness, sheer political madness. Who would have thought that Europe could lose interest in a matter of such importance?

We won this battle, and should be glad about that. We should congratulate all those who played a part in this victory and particularly the governments who helped us – I should like to thank the French Government in particular – and all the Members of Parliament who supported us. However, this is just a battle, and the war has yet to be won, since we have saved this programme for two years.

I would simply like to say, in the gentlest possible fashion, to our friends – the German, English, Swedish, Danish, Dutch and Czech Republic governments, which opposed the renewal of this programme, that in two years’ time, we are all going to be back together again. I would simply like to say that a certain number of MEPs – particularly the French MEPs from the presidential majority – despite this, and in any event, will formally oppose any undermining of this programme.

Europe cannot lose interest in those who are quite simply hungry. This is clearly a matter of European solidarity.

  Kay Swinburne (ECR). – Mr President, although this proposal allows for the continuation of a scheme which provides food for deprived individuals in some EU Member States, I do not agree that EUR 500 million should be allocated for this scheme from the common agricultural policy budget. This essentially is a social policy which therefore should not be part of the CAP. Indeed, I question whether it should even be funded by the EU budget at all.

Social policy and its implementation should be a Member State competence and so this initiative should be funded by national, social and welfare programmes. CAP payments should support agriculture and rural development; Structural Funds should improve competitiveness. If this is to be funded from the limited EU budget, then it should only be sourced from within the existing ESF, which is for social purposes. I am pleased to hear today the Commission say they recognise this fact.

  Jim Higgins (PPE). – Mr President, I certainly welcome this report. I commend the rapporteur for the huge amount of hard work put into it and for the very practical approach which allows this scheme – at long last – to come into operation as soon as possible.

I think it is an excellent scheme. It benefits over 18 million of the most needy people in 19 Member States. The programme is 100% EU-funded and the amount – EUR 500 million – is small in the context of the overall common agricultural policy budget. There is no state financing involved, and I welcome this.

The Council agreement of 15 December 2011 allowed for the implementation of the scheme over the period 2012-2013. The initiative was blocked, as has been said already, for far too long by seven Member States. I welcome the compromise that has been negotiated by the Council, but there is no guarantee that the economic situation will have improved by 2013. I welcome the clarification by the Commission today that it will use its initiative in terms of putting a further scheme in place.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, after a two-year impasse at the Council and some rather difficult negotiations, we have reached the conclusion that, in the absence of a better alternative, the compromise voted on today is the only way to reach a temporary solution and guarantee that the most deprived people in the EU can benefit from the food distribution programme for the 2012-2013 period.

Unfortunately, given the way in which it has been adopted, I believe that the programme financing, which will come entirely from the EU budget and has an annual ceiling of EUR 500 million for the Union’s financial contribution, will have to be discussed again after 2013.

  Vincenzo Iovine (ALDE). – (IT) Mr President, I was pleased to play a part in approval of the scheme for distribution of food products to the most deprived persons in the Union. At a time like this, when the number of deprived people in Europe has risen as a result also of the economic crisis, I believe that an important signal like today’s can contribute to greater cohesion in the European Union.

This reminds me of the example of a Neapolitan saint. He was a doctor called Giuseppe Moscati. When he received patients in his surgery, he used to put his hat on the desk with the sides turned up, and a notice placed on it reading ‘Those who have please give, and those who don’t please take’.

  Salvatore Caronna (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, Parliament’s vote relating to the scheme for distribution of food products to deprived persons for the next two years was, above all, a mandatory step, bearing in mind also the fact that a few weeks ago, we approved a report against food waste that had amongst its targets the fundamental objective of helping the most needy sections of the population.

It is unthinkable that at a time of economic crisis and social suffering like the present, we should not be responding, albeit partially, in such a way. In such a perspective, it is to be hoped that we will find a definitive solution for the entire 2014-2020 period.

As we are seeing at the moment in the squares of Athens, the image of a European Union capable only of imposing cuts and sacrifices is a devastating one. We need to offer an alternative Europe capable of solidarity and of taking care of those in difficulty, and we need to do it soon.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). – (SK) Mr President, malnutrition does not affect only developing countries, but also threatens 43 million people right here in Europe. In the context of the economic crisis, the number of people who are no longer able to provide for themselves is, in fact, growing rapidly. The most vulnerable are primarily the homeless, the elderly in poor material circumstances, the unemployed and the disabled, single parents with children, and large families.

I consider the programme for the distribution of food to the most deprived, which has, in its 22 years of existence, helped to provide food to the poorest people in the Union, to be a most commendable initiative. I am concerned that precisely this kind of tangible assistance to the needy has been blocked in the Council for more than two years, and even faces disbanding after 2013. It concerns me that countries such as Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the Czech Republic are against it.

  Olga Sehnalová (S&D). - (CS) Mr President, I very much welcome and fully support the compromise that has been reached over the continuation of food aid for the poorest inhabitants over the next two years. I also hope that an optimal way of funding it will also be found in the next financial period.

The fact that food aid to the poorest makes sense was confirmed this winter, for example, in Northern Moravia in the Czech Republic, in relation to delays with the payment of certain social benefits, which thrust many of these most vulnerable people into a real crisis situation. Thanks to the rapid and, in particular, humane response of social workers and non-profit organisations, the situation was kept under control.

These are precisely the situations where food aid helps. I am therefore sorry that the Czech Republic, which has had no problems in making use of European food aid, has failed to back the resulting compromise in the Council, even in this form.

  Silvia Costa (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, it would be truly strange if, at a time of such difficulties and problems in the lives of millions of people in Europe, the European Union were to impose further restrictions on food distribution. This would have a detrimental effect on basic social citizenship rights, the value of social cohesion and the very perception of the European social model.

The signal that Parliament and the Council are both giving is a positive one, but we need to work on giving a definite structure and future to this necessary initiative. I would like to point out that in my country, Caritas, local bodies and other not-for-profit organisations providing free meals have seen an exponential increase in the number of people joining the ranks of the deprived, who can no longer count on being able to feed themselves, and these include not just immigrants, but many elderly and young people as well.

I believe that, in the context of our ambitious fight against poverty and efforts to reduce poverty, this scheme is a prerequisite, and if we had not approved it, we would have gone against our own policy objectives.

  Paolo Bartolozzi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, at such a difficult time for Europe and after the blocking of the proposal at the Council and the tabling of a new amended Commission proposal, the distribution of food products to the most deprived persons in the Union is undoubtedly a positive act. It is a useful compromise that has resolved many of the issues that caused the impasse, such as the full financing of the scheme by the European Union, with the participation of the Union in the distribution point programme, an annual ceiling of EUR 500 million for the Union’s financial contribution, the notion of the Union origin of the foods that are then distributed and the requirement for the purchase of food products to be made on the basis of competitive procedures.

The scheme will therefore be operational from 2013 and will allow the supply of food products from reserves deriving from intervention in order to benefit the most deprived persons in the Union, thus also achieving one of the most important objectives of the common agricultural policy (CAP). Today’s vote in favour is the culmination of this report’s complex and difficult path, and is an important sign of the Union’s support for its most deprived citizens.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, I voted for this resolution because access to food is a fundamental right. It requires adequate funding in view of the warnings issued by the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations concerning the increasing risk of global famine. In addition, extreme weather conditions this winter will certainly have a negative impact on the development of spring crops. I think we need to send a strong signal to the Commission and Council to release the funds required. In these difficult times, any delay in making a decision may cost European citizens dearly. The positive vote of the Council on 23 January is a step forward in the optimal continuation of the programme. A clear strategy must also be developed in this area for the next financial framework.

  Peter Jahr (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, it is a disgrace that people in the European Union are continuing to go hungry and we must not ignore this fact. We must help people who cannot feed themselves adequately. Therefore, I support the compromise that has been negotiated on aid for deprived people. However, in future, we also need to find a different basis for our efforts in this area.

It is also important to me to ensure that the Member States fulfil their responsibilities. We need a mechanism which calls for commitment from the Member States and does not simply pass the problems on to Brussels. Aid for people who are suffering should be provided on a regional and local basis because this allows it to be targeted more effectively. Brussels should only step in to help when, for whatever reason, the Member State is not able to do so.

  Sari Essayah (PPE). – (FI) Mr President, as this resolution was adopted with no proper vote being taken, I would like to say that, first of all, the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union a year ago jeopardised the entire future of food aid. Fortunately, based on the European Parliament’s resolution last June, we have now taken a decision, in conjunction with the Council, to avoid this dramatic cut in food aid, and now its continuation is assured until the end of 2013, with an annual budget of EUR 500 million.

Over this period, we will have to examine how this aid can be continued sensibly, because the number of destitute EU citizens will, if anything, increase in the years to come. We should also appreciate the voluntary work that is done by communities and aid organisations distributing EU food aid. Parliament’s actions and the outcome achieved were absolutely the right response to the plight of Europe’s poorest citizens.

  Diane Dodds (NI). – Mr President, while this scheme has merit on a social and compassionate level, I would question whether the EU is the best level at which to define the needs of the most deprived and then address them in an efficient and cost-effective way. As a believer in the primacy of the Member State, I believe that this is where need is best defined and met.

But this is not only about poverty and social exclusion. In this Parliament, we are currently in deep discussion about a reformed common agricultural policy, a CAP which should be about food supply and security. We should ask the Commission to reconsider its proposals and put this at the heart of the policy. But is it not ironic that today in Greece, we see people going short of food, and farmers bringing food supplies into Greek cities to distribute for free, while at the same time we have demands for more austerity that we know Greece cannot meet? And all for that political project which is the euro.

  Salvatore Iacolino (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, according to latest estimates, around 16% of the population of the European Union lives on or below the poverty threshold. Last Monday, when this part-session began, we talked about homeless, abandoned, marginalised and vulnerable people who are experiencing a particularly difficult time also because of the bad weather conditions. Six hundred people have died.

This is a partial response, and while significant, it is not entirely satisfactory. The Commissioner’s statement today that a plan will be put together, which did not contain details of the content, did not put our minds at rest. However, it is important that it should have been implemented. All in all, EUR 113 million is a limited amount. It is right to continue with competitive measures that put everyone in the same position, and by everyone I mean the third-party competitors.

However, a policy with a more solid approach to this problem is necessary.

  Adam Bielan (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, I welcome today’s decision, because approval of the Council position at first reading is an extremely important step towards releasing aid for the most deprived citizens of the Union as quickly as possible. The Council position maintains full support for the programme from EU funds. The annual ceiling for the financial contribution will, therefore, be EUR 500 million this year and next year. Key amendments suggested by Parliament have also been accepted, such as specifying the EU origin of the foods, purchasing food products on the basis of competitive procedures and reimbursing charitable organisations for the storage costs of these foods. I am pleased that representatives of the Polish Presidency were among those who helped work out a compromise in the course of extremely difficult negotiations.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). – Mr President, once again, this House is in full Cartesian demon mode, imagining that somehow, with this sententious declaration about the needs of the hungry, we wipe out and efface the reality of our policies. The single policy which causes most indigence and hunger in the world is the common agricultural policy, a policy which doubly affects developing countries, both by denying markets to their chief exports and then by dumping surpluses upon them.

But European policies are no longer just exporting hunger: we have now brought it into the European Union too. According to news reports, well-dressed Greeks are rummaging through dustbins and farmers are bringing food supplies into the cities to their relatives – all in order to sustain the euro.

We, comfortable and well fed here, rather than admit our mistake, are prepared to inflict this terrible price on people outside, and then we dare to pass high-minded resolutions like this and pat ourselves on the back and feel good about ourselves. I am sure you are long past trying to convince your constituents but, my friends, I think you are now past trying to fool yourselves about this.

  Marian Harkin (ALDE). – Mr President, I voted for this report but I have been disappointed at how we got to this position and indeed about what the future holds. I think it says a great deal when we see that the Council decision is to phase out the current scheme after 2013. Unfortunately, Parliament itself had no real margin for any substantial renegotiation with the Council, because of the urgency of the situation and because of the fact, of course, that this proposal has been blocked for two years.

I have to say that it is very worrying when we look at social issues, which I believe have a European dimension: issues like the distribution of food products, the continuation of the crisis derogation for the EAGGF, the micro-finance programme, etc. It is very worrying when we see that all three met significant resistance in the Council. We are told that is a matter for the Member States. Well, in Ireland, whenever we are having a debate about social policy, we often use the phrase about the difference between Boston and Berlin. If you ask me, that difference is getting less and less every day.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). – Mr President, I voted against the report on food distribution to the most deprived persons in the Union. The scheme clearly does provide nutritious benefit to a certain number of deprived people and I do not deny that soup kitchens, many of which receive this money, are a lifeline for the homeless. What I find difficult to reconcile is that EUR 500 million of funding for the scheme comes from the CAP and is not used by many Member States. My country, the UK, does not use the scheme at all.

I firmly believe that a scheme such as this would be better managed by the individual Member States themselves from their social security budgets, as such a policy is clearly a social policy. Funding should not be taken from the CAP and the scheme should not be delivered through the EU but left to individual national governments to decide upon as a matter of subsidiarity. I believe in the principle that the EU should be doing less and should be doing it better.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE) . – (LT) Mr President, today in plenary, I voted in favour of food distribution to the most deprived. As the European Union experiences an economic recession and the level of unemployment increases, unfortunately, so too does the number of deprived Europeans, and it is therefore important to ensure that the food aid scheme continues, alleviating the situation for the most vulnerable. It is also important for this scheme’s principal funding to be met by European Union funds. Why? Because some Member States are going through particularly difficult times and it would be too challenging for them.

In this context, other actions are also important. The European Parliament has expressed its position on the introduction of double date labelling. This could simplify the distribution of food aid, but the main thing should probably be the responsibility of Member States, i.e. ensuring that food aid really reaches those who need it most and there is no room for abuse. The Member States and relevant authorities should guarantee this.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, I am the rapporteur, but I did not speak earlier, despite asking to be given the floor. I would like to say a few words. Today in the European Parliament, we have completed the decision-making process related to the continuation, in 2012 and 2013, of the programme for the free distribution of food to the most deprived persons in Europe. This was possible thanks to the achievement of an agreement in Council during the Polish Presidency. The European Union provides EUR 500 million annually for the programme, which benefits 18 million needy people in 20 countries that have asked to be included. This means that the Union does remember the poorest and the excluded and that it puts the idea of human solidarity into practice on an everyday basis.

I would like to thank everyone who has contributed to the continuation of this programme, which has been in operation for 25 years. We must do everything to carry on with the programme from 2014 to 2020. We have to do this. The Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development is drafting a resolution on the need to continue the programme. I would ask Members who are opposed to or have doubts about the programme to read the report. I think that after familiarising themselves with its contents, they will change their minds. I would also like to explain that the programme has been financed from funds which were not taken up as part of the CAP.

Recommendation for second reading: Gunner Hökmark (A7-0019/2012)

  Kay Swinburne (ECR). – Mr President, the EU radio spectrum policy makes sensible proposals in line with the digital switchover and will help Member States in driving innovation through the release of funds whilst safeguarding services at local level. Without doubt, the radio spectrum could be used more efficiently as we complete the transition to digital.

We need to ensure that the bandwidth previously required is now released for this spectrum to be allocated for use elsewhere. Measures which facilitate access to broadband in rural areas are to be welcomed. I know that this recommendation and subsequent actions will be particularly beneficial to my constituents in Wales, as there is currently a severe lack of broadband coverage in some of our more remote areas – a situation which needs to be urgently remedied.

  Janusz Władysław Zemke (S&D). – (PL) Mr President, I would like to offer wholehearted support to the agreement between Parliament and the Council on radio spectrum policy. The agreement will enable the Union to take the global lead on broadband speeds. In practice, on 1 January 2013, the 800 MHz band will be freed up throughout the Union for wireless broadband Internet services. By 2015, at least 1 200 MHz will be allocated for mobile data traffic, which means that in the next few years, a completely new market will emerge in the Union with telecoms services on a new scale. This is very important for the people who live in the Union and for technological advance in all 27 of the Member States which make up the Union today.

  Hermann Winkler (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, in contrast to many of the other subjects which we debate here in Parliament, developing broadband communications really is a European topic. The overall scope of the services which are dependent on radio frequencies is estimated to be around EUR 200 billion per year in the EU. For many users, ranging from telephone services and radio, traffic applications, the energy and research and development sectors, cultural organisations and the police through to people in rural areas, access to radio frequencies is essential.

The decisive factor here is a coordinated EU-wide approach, because it is clear that frequency usage continues to differ significantly, in particular, in border regions. Some frequencies which could be used for radio communications in Germany are used for television or for military purposes in Poland or the Czech Republic. This means that when the police follow suspects across the German-Polish border, they are no longer able to communicate by radio after travelling for 5 km. A European approach could be helpful in this respect.

  Zoltán Bagó (PPE). – (HU) Mr President, I voted against the motion for amendment on rejecting the Council’s position. The EU’s frequency policy is a source of its competitiveness, and I therefore agree that the European Union should strive to take the lead in respect of the speed, mobility, coverage and capacity of broadband services. The legislative proposal reflects the emergence of a threefold set of priorities, which are consumers, content and competition. Consumers’ increased demand for services is an indication that additional frequencies are required in terms of both capacity and coverage.

Content, that is, universal access to digital services, facilitates the implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy. Under efficient spectrum policy, consumers are free to choose between providers, which results in healthy competition. The method of selling frequencies varies from one country to another, and I believe that a common allocation mechanism is necessary. Finally, we must not forget that a well-elaborated spectrum policy and the broadening of frequencies is also one of the prerequisites for the growth of cultural and creative industries.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). – Mr President, I voted alongside my group, the ECR, in favour of the report on the first programme of the radio spectrum policy. With the freeing up of a certain amount of the radio spectrum following the digital switchover, the spectrum can now be used more efficiently and we believe the proposals put forward by this report outline an effective way in which this can be achieved.

We back this proposal as we feel that its attempt to coordinate certain spectrum use is useful and it is done in such a way that it leaves enough flexibility to the individual EU Member States. This means that services can still be protected at a local level and also that innovation is not hampered as a result. I particularly welcome the fact that more Wi-Fi coverage for broadband Internet access is a development that may come about as a result of these proposed changes.

  Emma McClarkin (ECR). – Mr President, I welcome today’s recommendation on radio spectrum policy harmonising the 800 MHz band across the EU because its value in terms of distance and penetrability enables access to broadband and will allow people in the remotest of areas across Europe to have access to faster Internet speeds.

Indeed, within the UK Conservative Party, we feel very strongly that broadband Internet is vital for growth, which is why we are aiming to vastly increase the number of households with access to super-fast broadband. We are looking to follow world leaders in the field, particularly in Asia, who have taken measures to open up competition in this sector, so that we can become European leaders ourselves.

This is a particular interest of mine as I represent the East Midlands region of England, where 88% of the land is classified as being rural, containing 30% of the East Midlands population. Initiatives such as this go a long way towards assisting individuals in their work and their daily lives and helping business to develop, and this is why I and my political group support this regulation.

Report: James Nicholson (A7-0262/2011)

  Antonello Antinoro (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, I voted for this report because I am already starting to think about the next period, after 2015, when the milk quotas will come to an end and everything will be diversified. In order to secure a stable future for the sector, the bargaining power of producers needs to be strengthened, which should lead to a more equitable distribution of added value along the supply chain.

As well as formalising the contracts, the proposal is that farmers should collectively negotiate the terms of the contracts, including the price, through producer associations. At the same time, it is important to recognise the interprofessional organisations, which should play an important role in encouraging dialogue within the supply chain.

However, the nature of the contracts remains the most contentious issue between the Council and Parliament, and I hope that in the future, it will be possible for this to be clarified further.

  Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE). – (PT) Mr President, I come from a milk-producing region: Galicia. Today, Galician agriculture specialises in producing milk which is, for the most part, collected and processed by foreign companies. As has happened in other European countries, the agricultural sector there survives today because of heavy investment in innovation in order to be able to compete in the single market. When Spain entered the EU, 20% of jobs in Galicia were in the primary sector. Today, that percentage has dropped by more than half.

My region is having to make traumatic sacrifices for the benefit of other, more powerful countries, since the allocation of milk quotas has been much lower than its production capacity. I am voting against this report because the awarding of contracts in this report is aimed solely at the industrial dairies, as it does not require that increases in production costs and payments to producers to remunerate them fairly for their work be included in the contracts. Without public control of production to ensure a match between supply and demand, producers will have to face price volatility and the ruin of thousands of farms. It is unacceptable that the Commission does not have an up-to-date study on the impact of the quotas.

  Kay Swinburne (ECR). – Mr President, the report on contractual relations in milk and the milk products sector addresses the issue of the lack of bargaining power that smaller farmers have when they negotiate the price of their milk with retailers in particular.

Farmers in Wales should have greater bargaining power and control over the price they receive for their milk. This has become ever more important as the number of dairy farmers in Wales has halved over the past decade, from 4 000 to 2 000 farms. It is right that contracts should continue to remain voluntary at national level, and the Welsh Government could intervene in this way should that be deemed necessary. However, I would be opposed to introducing a mandatory EU-wide contract, as this would only increase the bureaucratic burden for Member States and farmers alike.

For those Member States that choose to impose contracts, it is sensible to require certain conditions to be met relating to the price to be paid and the duration of the contract. This would be particularly important for farmers in giving them a better sense of certainty and stability in the current economic climate. An increase of only a few pence per litre in the average price for milk would significantly change the economic position of the dairy sector in Wales and secure its future.

  Jim Higgins (PPE). – (GA) Mr President, I welcome this report and I would like to thank Mr Jim Nicholson for the hard work he has done on it. However, a lot more needs to be done to obtain fair prices for dairy farmers. This report is important because it is the first step towards strengthening farmers’ marketing power and changing the rules to allow farmers to set their own contractual terms with dairies in relation to various matters, especially in relation to prices. Currently, farmers must deal with very powerful companies who want to obtain the very best produce, on the one hand, but also pay a lower price, on the other. Farmers must also give cheap credit while becoming overdrawn on their personal bank accounts. In terms of milk quotas, we must do a lot more to secure a soft landing given the pressure farmers will be under when this new policy is implemented.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). – (SK) Mr President, in recent years, there have, unfortunately, been many events that have had a significant negative impact on the milk and milk products sector and that have also led to price volatility. The European market for milk and its products requires a new, flexible legal framework, the strengthening of contractual relations, the protection of the rights of producers, and a fairer distribution of value-added along the supply chain.

Competition in the market will also contribute to the revitalisation of the sector, which is suffering from certain actors abusing their dominant position. I firmly believe that protecting the legitimate interests of producers is closely linked with promoting prosperity in rural areas, because many European regions, often the most vulnerable, are directly dependent on the production of milk and milk products.

  Peter Jahr (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, the compromise reached on the milk package creates a satisfactory framework for contractual relationships in the dairy sector. I am pleased that we have succeeded in finding effective solutions for some of the central issues. One matter which was particularly important to me with regard to the milk producers who are affected was that Member States will, in future, be able to decide for themselves whether or not they introduce compulsory contracts.

Overall, these rules will put milk producers in a stronger position and improve the current situation.

However, we now need to prepare dairy farmers for the end of milk quotas. This means that dairy farmers must realise that the milk market is a market and must take a market economy-based approach. We must introduce mechanisms which allow farmers to regulate the amount of milk on offer depending on the price.

  Diane Dodds (NI). – Mr President, I voted in favour of this report, as amended, because it encourages farmers to come together and increase their collective power within the supply chain. Large retailers have too much buying power and take a disproportionate amount of profit. This is an imbalance within the supply chain which must be addressed, and which impacts on the small family-owned farms characteristic of Northern Ireland.

The future of the common agricultural policy, and ensuring ‘safety nets’, must also be a priority in order to protect producers when the market fails. The safe landing for the industry which was promised after 2015, when quotas are to end, is another area which the Commission must look at and plan for. If we experience a dramatic increase in milk production which consequently reduces milk prices within the EU, we must have clear guidance as to how the Commission intends to protect producers. Altogether, this is a good start on the issues within the dairy sector. There is much more work to be done.

  Giommaria Uggias (ALDE). – (IT) Mr President, the milk and milk products sector has been undergoing a terrible crisis for some years now, but there are internal imbalances that this report and its amendment – which I supported from the start – will determine to a lesser extent, by influencing how it works and putting an end to these internal imbalances, or at least remedying them in part together with other instruments.

This measure has been produced by the working group set up by Mr Cioloş, which produced some instruments for restoring balance to the added value for all operators in the supply chain.

In specific terms, the terms and conditions of contracts will have determined characteristics of form, requirements and duration, which will mainly be useful to producers. One important element will concern raw milk processed in less favoured areas (LFAs), mountainous areas, intermediate areas and islands, where any transfer of milk from areas which are not LFAs must be authorised in advance.

  Marian Harkin (ALDE). – Mr President, I supported this report by Jim Nicholson on the milk sector and I agree strongly with the fact that producers need much greater bargaining power. They are the weakest link in the chain: they are price takers, not price makers. Given that in 2015, there will be a major shift with the ending of quotas, we need to ensure a more stable future for the sector and, in this context, the bargaining power of producers is absolutely crucial. I also believe that the introduction of voluntary contracts is certainly preferable to introducing mandatory ones.

Finally, a soft landing for the ending of milk quotas is essential. It is worth noting that overall production in the EU is 6% below the quota but in some countries – like my own – that is not the case. In this context, it makes sense to find an overall EU solution, and that certainly should include some form of soft landing so that dairy farmers in all EU countries can look to a sustainable future.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). – Mr President, I voted alongside my group, the ECR, in favour of the report on contractual relations in the milk and milk products sector. We believe that the report serves to address some concerns about the lack of bargaining power for farmers – yes, there are even some dairy farmers in the London region, which I represent – when negotiating with processors or retailers, and we back the move to recognise formally any inter-branch organisation at Member State level, provided they meet certain criteria.

EU Member States are left the choice to opt into the contracts, which we as a group also believe is extremely important. We believe that the proposals put forward in this report for those states that choose to comply are satisfactory and that the percentages requested for producer organisations are also realistic. Overall, we believe that the proposals in this report will not serve to lessen competition in the milk sector, which would be our main concern and which we would, of course, oppose as a group.

Motion for a resolution: B7-0016/2012

  Peter Jahr (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, it is acceptable for 27 borrowers, all of whom are creditworthy, to get together to take out a joint loan and, as a result, to obtain better terms from the bank. Eurobonds could function in a similar way to this and I would like to say once again at this point that for me, Eurobonds are a fair-weather tool.

However, if some of the 27 bank customers are not creditworthy, then mixed financing is needed and the borrowers who are in a better position will simply have to accept less favourable terms. This means that we first of all need to clarify the ground rules in Europe. We must implement the stability criteria and then we can ultimately bring in Eurobonds as the icing on the cake, so to speak. Since we have not yet reached this point in the European Union, I was not able to vote in favour of this motion and this report.

  Mario Pirillo (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, today’s vote is a first step in the direction of economic governance in Europe, as hoped for by Mr Delors as early as 1993. The introduction of Eurobonds, which I hope will come about within a reasonable timeframe, is part of a wider process that will lead the countries in the euro area to strengthen the coordination and achieve the integration of their economic and fiscal policies.

The three options indicated in the European Commission’s Green Paper propose three different types of Eurobond, with a decreasing degree of solidarity between Member States. The serious economic crisis we are currently experiencing shows that no country is safe from financial speculation. To sceptics, I say that Eurobonds are, to date, the only practical answer to reviving growth and development in Europe. This is why I voted in favour.

  Bendt Bendtsen (PPE). – (DA) Mr President, I have today voted against the introduction of stability bonds. It is deeply problematic if we believe that stability bonds can resolve the economic crisis in Europe. We need reforms in order to create jobs. We need Member States to stop spending more money than they earn. Overspending over many years is the cause of the sovereign debt crisis and the markets’ lack of confidence in countries’ ability to pursue a responsible policy in order to be able to pay back the money that has been borrowed. This problem will not be solved by stability bonds. Taxpayers’ money must be spent in a smarter way in the Member States on research, innovation and education, and social welfare payments have got to be reduced. Believing that we can resolve the whole situation simply by lending more money without investing in the future will not help at all.

  Marian Harkin (ALDE). – Mr President, I think this resolution on stability bonds is a realistic and pragmatic approach to ensuring that we have a firewall to prevent future crises. I support the call for a European redemption pact. While it has its limitations, at least it is an effort to deal with the serious overhang of debt which is smothering recovery in many countries, including my own.

Yes, in Ireland we must deal with our deficit, but guaranteeing our banks in order to prevent contagion in other EU banks has meant that our debt-to-GNP ratio will increase to at least 147%, so without a redemption pact or some other mechanism, it simply means that Irish citizens will be unable to pay for casino banking in our own and other countries.

It is interesting that this mountain of debt was not just our own choice. Mario Draghi, a man for whom I have a great deal of respect, refuses to publish a letter sent by his predecessor, Jean-Claude Trichet, to our Finance Minister on the bailout, and I am just wondering why. Will this show us the real face of the ECB, and what responsibility might this letter put on the ECB? So I am calling on Mario Draghi and the ECB to reverse this decision so that European citizens can see how Europe really works.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). – Mr President, in any crisis, the first instinct of the Eurocrat is to reach for his wallet – or rather to reach for somebody else’s wallet, because of course, as we know in this Chamber (although this is not widely known outside), employees of the European Union are exempt from paying national taxation. So somebody else is picking up the bill in order to cover this error.

It is a policy of excessive monetary integration and a policy of excessive spending that brought us to this pass; we are not going to get out of it by accelerating the very things that led us here. It really does seem extraordinary – even by the standards of this organisation – that the one solution we have to a debt crisis is more debt. We have got like a runaway train into this kind of momentum: bailout and borrow, bailout and borrow. There comes a point when you run out of track, and I think we have reached that point now.

  Diane Dodds (NI). – Mr President, when we look at the state of the economies across the EU and even at many households – including in my own country of the United Kingdom – we see the consequence of Member States and their people living beyond their means.

It is therefore unwise, against this backdrop – which has entailed a more accountable lending process being instituted – for us to suggest a break or lessening in the link between the Member State and the investor in bond markets through the pooling of sovereign issuance. Irresponsibility put us into the financial quagmire we now find ourselves in, and my concern with stability bonds would be that irresponsibility would be given greater dispensation and investor confidence would be further diminished.

  David Campbell Bannerman (ECR). – Mr President, I voted against EU stability bonds, or Eurobonds, as they fail to address the central problem: the euro itself. It is clear the euro is a dangerous and failed construct, and no political posturing or economic gesturing gets us away from the basic truth that the euro is disastrous for the world economy. The sooner troubled nations like Greece devalue and default, the better.

The cure is now more dangerous and deadly than the malady. Is there no end to these desperate measures to prop up this political currency?

The trampling of democracy in Greece, Italy and elsewhere by the EU’s new inner politburo, the Frankfurt Group, so that Europe erupts in flames. Barroso and Van Rompuy going cap in hand to China for rescue funds – and at what price? Gerrymandering Lagarde into the IMF so the IMF is misused as a new euro bailout fund. Weimar-like plans to print EUR 2 trillion to buy rubbish bonds; new wheelbarrows to carry all the notes. For God’s sake, for all our sakes, let the euro go.

  Martin Kastler (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, I have voted against the motion for a resolution tabled by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on the feasibility of introducing stability bonds. The name has been changed, but the content remains the same. These are Eurobonds.

We have now reached a stage in Europe where we need to ask ourselves the fundamental question of how Europe is to go forward. The Italian Prime Minister, Mr Monti, said today in a guest article in Germany that we need to ‘rethink democracy’. To this, I would add that we must ‘rethink Europe’. We must do this if we want to carry the citizens of Europe along with us. I believe that referendums are an important instrument. We need citizens to become increasingly involved in Europe, not only in the Member States, but also at a European level. This will enable us to discuss the major issues currently facing us which have led us into this crisis. It will take us further forward than simply tabling new motions for resolutions to distribute ever larger debts among ourselves. Every country is responsible for its own debts. We should not be transferring debts from one state to another.

Report: Marije Cornelissen (A7-0021/2012)

  Horst Schnellhardt (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, I was able to vote in favour of this report with a clear conscience because Parliament took a very wise approach and voted against a few points which had seriously bothered me. I am thinking here about the punishments for countries which have a current account surplus to encourage them to take measures to abolish the surplus. Current account surpluses occur not only because one country is very good, but also because the others are very bad. We need a measure which will help the bad countries to make faster progress and to emulate those at the top of the list. That must be our goal.

Secondly, Parliament has recognised that private employment services are also very important and, therefore, has included them in the work which it is doing. I would like to mention one point which did not receive a great deal of attention during the debate. This is paragraph 13, which clearly calls for the European Parliament finally to make use of its right under the Treaty of Lisbon and for the national governments to do the same. The catastrophic situation we are currently in has been caused by the constant intergovernmental cooperation which has never been successful. The solution is here in this Parliament.

  Andrea Zanoni (ALDE). – (IT) Mr President, one of the most important issues highlighted by the European Union Growth Survey 2012 is the serious need for new and stronger social and employment policies, especially for young people. A country with a high level of youth unemployment is a country destined to perish.

In my country, Italy, the statistics are frightening. According to Eurostat data for November 2011, the youth unemployment rate is 30.1%. Young people who are often highly qualified with plenty of energy and motivation are allowed to wither away by a system where gerontocracy has become the norm.

The Commission’s commitment in allocating EUR 82 billion from unused Structural Funds to stimulate growth and youth unemployment is a good step that needs to be made in the right direction. Investing in young people means investing in the future. Guaranteeing work for young Europeans means guaranteeing a future for us all.

  Kay Swinburne (ECR). – Mr President, I agree with the premise of this report that all Member States should be seeking to find ways to foster growth in order to get us out of this crisis. Ideally, the Annual Growth Survey would work in parallel with the economic governance package and the EU could add value by coordinating what is being done at the Member State level.

However, in this report, Parliament has decided instead to focus on broad-sweeping EU schemes and taxation, including the ludicrous financial transaction tax. Worse, it tries to come up with an EU approach to things like unemployment, as though it can be solved by some EU silver bullet. The reasons behind unemployment and the measures Member States may use to tackle it are culturally specific and market-specific. Other groups may be happy to agree to an EU policy. I am not.

  Joseph Cuschieri (S&D). – (MT) Mr President, in the separate vote taken on clause 29 of the Cornelissen report, I have voted against. I do not agree with the European Council establishing a tax on financial transactions. I have opposed this tax on account of the fact that the financial services sector in Malta accounts for around 15% of the country’s GDP and provides some 6 000 jobs in this sector. It is neither in the country’s interest nor in that of Maltese and Gozitan workers to increase taxes in this sensitive sector of the Maltese economy. This measure can lead to the delocalisation of financial activity away from Malta, with the consequence that instead of retaining capital and cash in the Maltese financial sector, these would be moved out into some other country.

I have also voted in favour of the remaining clauses of this report since, at a time of fiscal consolidation, this report addresses the creation of sustainable jobs through investment, an improvement in job quality, investment in education and training and combating poverty and social exclusion, and also the participation of workers in the labour market.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, I voted for this report because the European Semester should include policies to create jobs. I share the concerns about high youth unemployment. In my country, it affects about 77 000 people aged up to 25 years. I believe that the introduction of a guarantee for young people to avoid prolonged unemployment is a timely measure. I would like to emphasise the usefulness of programmes that ensure transition from education to first employment.

I would like to point out in this context that Romania improved the apprenticeship law last year in order to facilitate labour market entry for young people. Appropriate programmes are required in order to support SMEs, including by reducing bureaucracy. I also welcome the focus on promoting worker mobility, but also on increasing the employment rate among women.

  Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR). – Mr President, I voted against this report because it aims to strengthen employment policy and economic governance at European level. These are clearly Member State competences, and this is the way it must stay. I also took exception to the report’s needless call for a tax on financial transactions to enhance sustainable job creation. This Parliament insists on a tax which will only damage the European economy. This Parliament is hell-bent on destroying the financial service industry in my constituency of London, and again, this Parliament refuses to listen to Member States that do not want to and will not accept this tax.

  Adam Bielan (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, the Annual Growth Survey presented by the Commission covers priorities in the areas of the budget, economic policy, employment, social rights and reforms. In so doing, it stresses action as part of fiscal policy to mitigate the effects of the crisis and the negligence of public administration. The role of Parliament in the process related to the European Semester is, unfortunately, restricted to giving an opinion on the Commission’s guidelines on employment. The report in question only expresses a desire to increase that role.

I am critical of the proposal to oblige Member States which have a current account surplus to prevent a recessionary spiral by increasing internal demand. Another controversial matter is the call for the Commission to use gender disaggregated data in their reports. The call to set up a tax on financial transactions is worrying, while the implementation and enforcement of anti-discrimination measures will only cause an increase in legal regulation. In view of these matters and a number of other doubts, I voted to reject the report.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). – (SK) Mr President, at a time of weakened economic growth and increased uncertainty among citizens, the European Union must focus its attention on addressing the pressing social consequences of the crisis, which exacerbate poverty and social exclusion. Unemployment has risen sharply since 2008 and has reached the level of 23 million unemployed in the EU, while young people in particular face an employment rate of more than 20%. Some statistics give a higher figure. I am concerned by the fact, for example, that during the 2008-2010 period, the total number of unemployed young people in the EU increased by fully 1 million. In the context of recession, the priority objective of the EU must therefore remain the effort to preserve jobs and create new employment and, at the same time, to bring qualifications and skills into line with the current requirements of the labour market. That is why I have supported this report.

  Diane Dodds (NI). – Mr President, the terms ‘growth’ and ‘employment’ roll off the tongue quite easily, but it is the policy pursued by Europe which is denying employment and denying economic growth to many of its citizens.

The euro area crisis is causing unemployment to rise across Europe. In Spain, there is over 40% youth unemployment and in Greece 50%. Within the economic straitjacket of the euro, what hope and what future do these young people have in an economy that simply will not grow while tied to the euro project? This is the scandal of President Barroso, the Commission and the euro establishment. It is a scandal that is manifesting itself in Greece in violence, and in the Greek Parliament where euro bureaucrats are pre-eminent over elected representatives.

I voted against this report also because of its support for a financial transaction tax, supposedly to support employment and growth. In reality, it will be a raid on the United Kingdom tax base to prop up the euro area’s profligate spending. If Europe is serious about employment and growth, it could start with very simple measures like cutting red tape and helping SMEs, but it certainly will not do it with the measures outlined in this report.

  Emma McClarkin (ECR). – Mr President, I have opposed this own-initiative report on employment and social aspects of the Annual Growth Survey for the reason – amongst others – that it continues to support a European and not a global financial transaction tax. The report calls on the European Council to set up a tax on financial transactions to enhance sustainable job creation. I am afraid that this cannot even be considered by politicians claiming to represent the interests of the British people.

In fact, it is also ridiculous to talk of job creation as a result of such a tax, which would have a disastrous effect on some of the 1.9 million people employed in our financial sector in the City of London and beyond. I will not vote in favour of a report which proposes a tax that could harm jobs for the people from my constituency in the East Midlands, many of whom commute to London every day. It is time for the rest of Europe to wake up and realise that Britain will defend her interests and will not be bullied into accepting disproportionate responsibility for euro area failure.

(Applause)

  Krišjānis Kariņš (PPE). – (LV) Mr President, there is a saying in Latvian that you cannot extract money from a beggar, however hard you try. In Europe as a whole, the greatest challenge we have at the moment is to increase economic activity and provide prosperity to our people. It is very important for us to take these austerity measures to put the budgets of our Member States in order, but we also need growth.

There are many people who think that the only path to growth is for Member States to print even more money, in order to stimulate the economy, but this would be at the cost of borrowed money, and is not the right path. The right path to foster growth is two-fold. Firstly, Member States must make the structural reforms required to reduce overall government spending. Secondly, we must continue to improve Europe’s single internal market, removing obstacles to cross-border activity. Ladies and gentlemen, without economic growth, we shall not have prosperity in Europe.

Report: Jean-Paul Gauzès (A7-0018/2012)

  Kay Swinburne (ECR). – Mr President, in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, we spent a long time discussing this report, and there is much in there on growth and innovation that I support. However, I cannot accept the central conclusion of this report, namely, that we need to change the EU Treaty in order to give Parliament codecision rights over the Annual Growth Survey.

I am not convinced that this is something we should be legislating for. It is fundamentally a matter for Member States and not a policy area where Parliament would add any value. I find it concerning that, yet again, the European Parliament is navel-gazing over its institutions and the interaction between them instead of seeking proportionate responses to the current crisis.

  Janusz Władysław Zemke (S&D). – (PL) Mr President, I do think that in the current economic situation in Europe, carrying out analyses of growth planned for 2012 is a good idea. However, an obvious weakness of this analysis is that it concentrates mainly on the financial and debt crisis. Measures to stimulate growth are only to be seen in the background. Also omitted are measures which would support employment by stimulating investment in the Union. I am worried, in particular, by the lack of measures to create Eurobonds for funding key infrastructure projects. For Member States like Poland, and for provinces like mine – the Kujawsko-Pomorskie Province – this may mean problems in the future with development and securing growth in employment.

Written explanations of vote

Recommendation: Timothy Kirkhope (A7-0013/2012)

  Damien Abad (PPE) , in writing. – (FR) The Schengen area, which brings together 22 EU Member States and four non-EU states (Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Liechtenstein), offers its inhabitants the opportunity to move freely. The abolition of internal borders between these States in favour of a single external border leads them to harmonise their external border controls and step up their police and judicial cooperation. It is vital to associate these four non-EU States fully if we want to fulfil the objective underpinning the Schengen agreements, namely, the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice. I therefore supported their participation in the work of the committees that assist the European Commission in the implementation of the Schengen acquis.

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this recommendation, as it is vital to step up EU cooperation with, in this case, Norway, Switzerland, Liechtenstein and Iceland, particularly with regard to one of the most important legislative achievements of the EU, namely, the Schengen Agreement. At present, it is all the more important that we facilitate dialogue between countries, and between countries and the institutions, so that the EU runs smoothly and so that the objectives of the Treaties can be achieved in full.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. – I voted in favour of this important result of negotiations with the Republic of Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein, the Kingdom of Norway and the Swiss Confederation on the participation by those States in the work of the committees which assist the Commission in the exercise of its executive powers as regards the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis. I support the final outcome of the agreement by which, among other activities, the associated states will be associated as observers with the work of the current and future Comitology committees assisting the Commission in Schengen matters. I also support a Joint Declaration which stresses that this specific association shall not be regarded as a legal or political precedent for any other field of cooperation between the European Community and those countries.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The Schengen area, which simplifies the everyday lives of our peoples and our companies by opening the internal borders of the European Union to people, capital and services, got bigger today. Indeed, I supported the request by Iceland, Switzerland, Liechtenstein and Norway, countries at the heart of Europe but which do not belong to the European Union, to become associated states of the Schengen acquis. This text aims to formalise their participation in the process of drafting texts within the Schengen Comitology committees, made up of representatives of the governments of associated states, of the Council of Ministers and of the European Commission. The latter, in particular, have the opportunity to raise problems that any particular measure suggests to them and to provide answers to problems faced by the other delegations. They also enjoy the right to make suggestions. However, insofar as they only participate in drawing up actions, ‘the associated states do not vote within the Schengen Comitology committees, and withdraw when these committees proceed to the vote’, rapporteur, Timothy Kirkhope, reminds us.

  Adam Bielan (ECR), in writing. – (PL) The Schengen area is tangible evidence of European cooperation and integration. Enlargement of this arrangement to cover the entire European Economic Area has contributed to a strengthening of mutual relations between different countries of the continent. Unrestricted freedom of movement throughout Europe is the undisputed and greatly valued privilege of every citizen.

For implementation of the Schengen acquis to be effective, it is essential for there to be permanent cooperation with the signatories from outside the Union. The participation of Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and the Swiss Confederation in the work of the committees which assist the European Commission in the exercise of its executive powers in this area therefore seems obvious. By signing the agreement, we will enable these countries to take part in policy discussions concerning regulation of the Schengen area and to present their position and report problems. In accepting the resolution, I express consent to conclusion of the recommended arrangement.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The association agreement concluded by the Council of the European Union, on the one hand, and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway, on the other, resulted in the establishment of a mixed committee consisting of representatives of the governments of these countries. Consequently, the representatives of the associated states participate in mixed committees that meet as Council working groups, with extensive participation of representatives of the associated states. At Coreper (Committee of Permanent Representatives) or Council level, these are chaired alternately for six-month periods by representatives of the European Union and by the representative of the government of the associated state. Participation in the mixed committee gives the associated states the timely opportunity to express any concerns regarding developments in the Schengen acquis, which must be adopted by all the associated states, and the implementation of this acquis. Following discussions in the mixed committee, the measures taken to develop the Schengen acquis are adopted by the Council and the European Parliament through the appropriate decision-taking procedure laid down in the Treaties.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – Although I do not support the extension of the Schengen acquis, I do, however, believe that EFTA Member States, in this case Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland, have the right to join any compact they wish to without UK interference. I therefore chose to abstain from this vote.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I welcome the conclusion of this agreement between the EU and the four Schengen-associated states; namely, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Liechtenstein. This will enable these countries to participate in the work of the committees that help the Commission with its executive activities in terms of the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis. In my view, this agreement is important because it seeks to ensure greater consistency, while at the same time guaranteeing that all associated states are treated the same. The participation of the associated states gives them the opportunity to express, in good time, their ideas and concerns about the implementation of the Schengen acquis or potential changes thereto. The enlargement of the Schengen area to countries that are not EU Member States has brought significant economic benefits for European countries, as well as immediate practical results for the daily lives and travel of the European public.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I welcome the conclusion of this agreement between the EU and the four Schengen-associated states; namely, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Liechtenstein. This will enable these countries to participate in the work of the committees that help the Commission with its executive activities in terms of the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis. The conclusion of this agreement is of the utmost importance in ensuring greater consistency, while at the same time guaranteeing that all associated states are treated the same. The participation of the associated states gives them the opportunity to express, in good time, their ideas and concerns about the implementation of the Schengen acquis or potential changes thereto. However, their participation is restricted to contributing to the drafting of decisions; they cannot participate in the decision-making process itself, as they do not have the right to vote. They will be subject to a set of rules and obligations that will allow them real participation as observers, and they may also contribute financially to the administrative costs arising from their participation in the Schengen Comitology committees.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this agreement, which authorises the participation of Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland in the work of the committee on the implementation of the Schengen acquis. This limiting and regulated participation will strengthen the EU area of freedom, security and justice and will make it possible to identify more quickly problems related to police and judicial cooperation as well as to the control of the external borders of Europe.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Today’s vote aims to endorse the participation of the Republic of Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein, the Kingdom of Norway and the Swiss Confederation, which assist the Commission in the exercise of its executive powers as regards the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis. Parliament has thus given its consent to the representatives of these associated states being able to comment on any proposed measure constituting a development of the Schengen acquis, or voice any problems encountered in implementing these measures. In addition, each of these associated states will decide on the transposition of all measures adopted by the Schengen Comitology committee procedures concerning the implementation and development of the Schengen acquis, thereby confirming the rules set out in the basic association agreements. This is a good thing.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this report because I consider that as Schengen-associated states, Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein and Switzerland should be involved in the procedure which assists the Commission in the exercise of its executive powers as regards the application and development of the Schengen acquis. Likewise, these states should also be involved in the reform process of the Schengen governance which is currently being negotiated, but which, unfortunately, faces opposition from several Member States.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the recommendation on the participation of Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland and the Schengen acquis, as I consider it positive that there is agreement between the EU and these countries on their participation in the work of the committees that help the Commission with its executive activities, in terms of the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The participation of the Republic of Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein, the Kingdom of Norway and the Swiss Confederation in the committees that help the Commission with its executive activities, in terms of the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis, is of the utmost importance for the complete transparency of information and, as such, for the security of the citizens of EU Member States and countries subject to the Schengen Agreement.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This recommendation concerns the draft Council decision on the conclusion of an agreement between the European Union, of the one part, and the Republic of Iceland, the Kingdom of Norway, the Swiss Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein, of the other, on these countries’ participation in the work of the committees that help the Commission with its executive activities in terms of the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis. The Schengen Agreement, concluded in 1985 and integrated into EU law by the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1997, establishes a geographical area of free movement of people, abolishing internal borders between signatory countries, and provides for cooperation and coordination between police services and the judicial authorities. The agreement provides for the participation of the associated states, as observers, in the work of current and future committees that assist the Commission through certain rights and obligations, including the payment of a financial contribution. Given that the participation of the aforementioned countries is provided for in the Agreement on the European Economic Area or based on the exchange of letters annexed to the association agreement with Switzerland, I am voting for this recommendation.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The Schengen Agreement was signed in 1985 and the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement was adopted in 1990. The agreement’s objectives were to abolish internal border controls between signatory states and create a single external border with common rules on external border controls and a common visa policy, and to establish police and judicial cooperation and to create the Schengen Information System.

We have always criticised this approach of building a ‘Fortress Europe’, which fosters and fuels the growth of racism and xenophobia, of other forms of intolerance, and of authoritarian and anti-democratic practices.

In the same way, we have criticised the security-focused, criminalising, exploitative and selective immigration policy. We advocate an immigration policy that respects immigrants’ rights, in particular, regarding access to work, health care and education. Despite these long-standing stances, we believe that the decision to join the Schengen acquis should arise from a sovereign choice by the countries in question; a view which we have also held for a long time. That is why we abstained.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The European Parliament, taking into account the draft Council decision and the draft agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein, the Kingdom of Norway and the Swiss Confederation on the participation of these States in the work of committees assisting the Commission in exercising its powers in relation to the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis, and also with regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, has granted approval for the conclusion of the agreement. It also authorises its President to convey this position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States, the Republic of Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein, the Kingdom of Norway and the Swiss Confederation.

  Pat the Cope Gallagher (ALDE), in writing. – I welcome the adoption of this report in my capacity as the Chairman of the European Parliament’s delegation to Switzerland, Iceland, Norway and the EEA Joint Parliamentary Committee. The arrangement provides for the participation by the Schengen-associated states in the work of the committees which assist the Commission in the exercise of its executive powers as regards the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this legislative resolution on the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the Union, of the arrangement between the European Union and the Republic of Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein, the Kingdom of Norway and the Swiss Confederation on the participation by those States in the work of the committees which assist the European Commission in the exercise of its executive powers as regards the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis. The arrangement provides that the associated states will be associated as observers with the work of the current and future Comitology committees assisting the Commission in Schengen matters. The list of the Schengen Comitology committees will be regularly updated by the Commission and will be published in the Official Journal. Consequently, the arrangement establishes clear rights and obligations to ensure effective participation by the associated states in the Schengen Comitology committees.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the Kirkhope report. By adopting this report, Parliament has given its consent to an arrangement made between the European Union, the Republic of Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein, the Kingdom of Norway and the Swiss Confederation on the participation by these States in the work of the committees which assist the European Commission in the implementation of the Schengen acquis. The arrangement adopted provides for these States to be associated with the work as observers, albeit without voting rights. Furthermore, they will be asked to make a financial contribution to administrative expenses. Finally, this arrangement contains a joint declaration which provides that this association shall not be regarded as a legal or political precedent for any other field of cooperation.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report. This is a consultation procedure to give the consent to the 2012 rollover of the guidelines for the Member States’ employment policies initially adopted in 2010. The aim is that the employment guidelines remain stable until 2014 to ensure a focus on implementation.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) This arrangement, which has been under negotiation since 2006, associates the Republic of Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein, the Kingdom of Norway and the Swiss Confederation with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis by the European Commission and the committees which assist it. It is right that these Schengen countries can comment on the application of the Schengen acquis that concerns them. These States will be able to participate in the work of the committees as observers and to voice any problems encountered. To associate all the countries participating in the Schengen area is also to work for greater uniformity in the application of the Schengen acquis.

  Iosif Matula (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The participation of Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland in the committees which assist the Commission in developing and implementing the Schengen acquis provides these associated states with the opportunity to express any objections to the application of the provisions concerned. Thus, these states participate in the development of the relevant legislation, but not in the decision taking. Therefore, it is necessary to formalise their association to the Schengen Comitology, following an appropriate procedure. The proposal for a decision in this regard is welcomed in order to ensure equal treatment of the associated states as observers, through a single agreement and based on clearly defined rights and obligations. The final decision on the implementation of the measures adopted by the committees is taken by each state individually, as stipulated by the original terms of the association agreements. As a Romanian Member of the European Parliament, I hope that the principle of equal treatment will be respected in all aspects of the Schengen process, including in the acceptance of the accession of states that have already fulfilled all formal criteria.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) As they are participating in the Schengen Agreement, these countries also have to contribute to its development by actively participating in the work of the committees that help the Commission with its executive activities in terms of the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis. That is why I voted in favour.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The arrangement between the European Community and Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and the Swiss Confederation on the participation of those States in the work of the committees which assist the European Commission in the exercise of its executive powers as regards the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis should be concluded. I am in favour.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) For many Norwegians, the main reason for voting against joining the EU in 1994 was that this allowed them to retain their self-determination and democracy. Just as the Swiss did, they preferred to access the EU market only via the European Economic Area (EEA). A report on the 18-year Norwegian membership came to the conclusion that Brussels is exerting pressure on Norway by means of its access to the EEA. Switzerland has also made a similar accusation on the occasion of a variety of amendments. This is unacceptable. Nevertheless, there is nothing in this report which prevents me from voting in favour of it.

  Katarína Neveďalová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The Schengen system currently comprises 22 EU countries and four non-member States – Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland. The non-member States are integrated into the Schengen system on the basis of association agreements. These agreements set up a mixed committee consisting of representatives of the governments of the associated states, and of the Council of the European Union and the Commission. Consequently, the representatives of the associated states participate in the activities of the mixed committees, which meet in the form of Council working groups enlarged by the representatives of the associated states. In Coreper or the Council, these groups are chaired alternately for six-month periods by a representative of the European Union and by a representative of the government of an associated state. I consider the conclusion of agreements between the European Communities and the four States on cooperation in the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis to be very important, and I therefore fully support the conclusions of the vote of the LIBE Committee.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution. In order to ensure consistency between and equal treatment of all associated states, I believe that it is appropriate for a single arrangement to be concluded which would grant Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland the right to participate as observers in the work of current and future committees assisting the European Commission in Schengen matters. These countries will thus be able to express themselves on any questions concerning the development or implementation of provisions of concern to them, but representatives of these countries will not take part in the voting of these committees. This would thus ensure the application and uniform implementation of the new Schengen acts or measures.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Over the last year, we have often returned to the effective application of the Schengen acquis, and on several occasions, the cornerstones of the regulation on the free circulation of citizens in European Member States have, unfortunately, been questioned or specifically debated, as in the case of Romania and Bulgaria. Parliament’s recommendation, which I fully support, involves the implementation and application of the Schengen acquis through the conclusion of an agreement between the EU countries in Schengen and the Republic of Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein, the Kingdom of Norway and the Swiss Confederation, non-EU countries considered suitable for compliance with the minimum security standards required for free circulation.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) This particular recommendation concerns an arrangement between the European Union and the Republic of Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein, the Kingdom of Norway and the Swiss Confederation on the participation by those States in the work of the committees which assist in the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis. Extending the Schengen area to countries which are not EU Member States has brought about considerable economic benefits for EU Member States and direct practical results and facilities in the daily lives and movements of European citizens. Certainly, States which are not EU Member States but which participate in the Schengen area must have a voice in debates on the future and the application of the Schengen area, which is why I voted in favour of this particular report, which will be forwarded to the Council for further action.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this recommendation of the European Parliament on the draft Council decision concerning the conclusion, on behalf of the EU, of the agreement between the EU and the Republic of Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein, the Kingdom of Norway and the Swiss Confederation in relation to the participation of these countries in the work of the committees that help the Commission with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Following the agreements reached between the European Union, the Republic of Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein, the Kingdom of Norway and the Swiss Confederation regarding their participation in the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis, I voted in favour of the participation of the Member States belonging to the agreement in mixed committees, in order to be able to examine any issues regarding development of the Schengen acquis promptly.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Council has submitted a draft agreement between the EU and Republic of Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein, the Kingdom of Norway and the Swiss Confederation to Parliament on the participation of these countries in the work of the committees that help the Commission with its executive powers in the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis. As the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs has not raised any objections to the conclusion of the agreement, which may help the Schengen area to run more smoothly, I voted in favour.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. The association agreements with Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland set up a mixed committee consisting of representatives of the governments of the associated states as well as of the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities. Consequently, the representatives of the associated states attend mixed committees, which meet in the form of Council working groups enlarged by the representatives of the associated states. Participation in the mixed committee gives the associated states the opportunity to voice, in good time, any concerns they might have regarding developments of the Schengen acquis, which must be adopted by all the associated states, and the implementation of this acquis. After discussion in the mixed committee, the measures taken to develop the Schengen acquis are adopted by the Council and by the European Parliament through the appropriate decision-taking procedure laid down in the Treaties. Thus, the associated states participate in decision shaping but not in decision taking.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This recommendation provides for the genuine participation of Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland in the work of the committees in which the Commission exercises its executive power in terms of the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis. I support Parliament giving its assent to this recommendation, giving those associated states rights and obligations. The aforementioned countries have observer status in the Schengen committees, so their representatives cannot vote, although they should be informed about the acts and measures to be implemented and contribute financially to administrative costs. Finally, a joint statement has been appended, specifying that this agreement will not have repercussions in other areas. In order for the Schengen area to develop, its component countries need to meet their obligations in full. This will bring about a real European area without borders.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) I welcome the effective involvement of the associated states Iceland, Switzerland, Liechtenstein and Norway in the comitology committees in the Schengen area. This gives the associated states the opportunity to take part in formulating decisions without actually becoming involved in the decision-making process.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I supported Parliament’s resolution on the proposal for a Council decision regarding the conclusion of an agreement between the European Union and Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland on their participation in the work of the committees working with the European Commission in the exercising of its executive powers as regards the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The Schengen Agreement was established in 1985 and the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement was adopted in 1990. The objectives of the Schengen Agreement were to abolish controls at the internal borders of the signatory states, to create a single external border with common rules on external border controls and a common visa policy, and to establish police and judicial cooperation and the Schengen Information System. We have always criticised this approach of building a ‘Fortress Europe’, which fosters and fuels the growth of racism and xenophobia, of other forms of intolerance, and of authoritarian and anti-democratic practices.

‘Fortress Europe’, the Europe of Schengen, is being constructed through a security-focused, criminalising, exploitative and selective immigration policy. We also advocate an immigration policy in which the Member States respect immigrants’ rights, in particular, in relation to access to work, health care and education. Despite our views, we believe that we should not make pronouncements on the choices of the countries in question, namely Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland, in relation to agreements signed with the EU.

Report: Pervenche Berès (A7-0011/2012)

  Damien Abad (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Between now and 2020, there will be 73 million job openings in Europe. Nonetheless, it is essential that we think about how to fill these vacancies as efficiently as possible. I believe that this can be achieved through the provision of a skilled workforce, with training that will offer new opportunities, particularly to young people, who represent 20% of the total EU population. Let us not forget that, today, the crisis affects one in five young people.

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report, as the guidelines suggested to support active employment policies should be the EU’s highest priority at this time. Austerity does not guarantee growth or liquidity, which would, in turn, create jobs, particularly in small and medium-sized enterprises, which employ the vast majority of the EU population, and for which specific incentives should be devised. As such, the EU should ensure that all the Member States, especially those subject to Troika intervention, are able to implement these kinds of measures.

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The European Union finds itself in a highly critical situation that requires immediate, specific action. Parliament has accepted the proposal for a Council decision on guidelines for the employment policies of Member States, adopted in accordance with the provisions of the Treaties and in line with the Council’s conclusions at the end of January. As decided by the Council, employment policies are now, more than ever, a priority of the EU, in order to be able to deal with 23 million unemployed and revive the European economy, as well as meeting the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy. I believe that coordination between Member States is fundamental, in order to develop a competent workforce throughout the EU, reduce unemployment, particularly among the young, and promote social inclusion, education, training and lifelong learning in order to reverse these effects of the crisis and combat the risk of poverty.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I endorsed the guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States for 2012, which provide for the continuation of the efforts embarked on two years ago. I support this policy, which is based on solid annual guidelines: labour market participation, the fight against social exclusion and poverty, as well as the quality and performance of education and training systems. We all agree that we need to step up our efforts to put Europe back on the road to growth and employment. However, that must not be to the detriment of the need to strengthen European economic governance and to reduce public deficits. We, centre-right Members, are convinced that we will only get out of this crisis by restoring our public finances to health in a sustainable way. Any other way of thinking is purely selfish, because it places the burden of our current well-being on the shoulders of our children, who will have to pay off our debts. Yet healthy finances do not mean decline and unemployment. Quite the contrary, they guarantee and are the necessary bases for ensuring a return to growth and full employment. I therefore insist on the need to combine a responsible economic policy and long-term growth objectives for the EU.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this report because the employment strategy needs to be modernised. • The EU needs a sustainable economy able to create jobs. • The reforms aimed at improving labour market flexibility and security need to be encouraged. • I would like to point out that the EU’s workforce is shrinking. Only two thirds of the active population currently have a job. • The employment rate is particularly low among women and the elderly. • The high rate of youth unemployment is also disturbing. • In this context, it is necessary to improve the performance of education and professional training systems. • Action must be taken to increase the appeal of education and professional training. • The implementation of the principles of lifelong learning is important.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Today, we are saying that the guidelines for employment laid down in 2010 are indeed still valid, but we are also saying, take heed, that this approval is not the equivalent of giving the Council and the Commission free rein: it is predicated on action. It is more than time we acted, outside austerity and budgetary rigour, to promote employment in our Member States. France, like many other EU countries, has seen a sharp rise in unemployment in recent years. We are then saying we should promote the quality of employment, develop a skilled workforce, promote education and lifelong learning, improve the quality of education and training systems, and promote social inclusion: all these objectives behind the guidelines are, more than ever before, relevant, but we want the means of achieving these objectives to be developed and made a reality. At the end of January, the Commission started something by launching a youth employment initiative. This must continue: the social consequences of the crisis are too serious for us not to devote to it all the energy and resources that we have at our disposal.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) This report asks for all the essential points of the programme outlined by the Council in 2010 for implementing the Europe 2020 strategy to be confirmed for this year as well. The programme contained elements about which I was sceptical at the time, and the events in Europe over the last two years have only served to reinforce my initial opposition. We now know that the measures against budgetary imbalances we were discussing in 2010 are austerity measures imposed from above that have had catastrophic effects on people, social systems and standards of living, without helping to resolve the problem in the slightest. Furthermore, there was, and continues to be, an emphasis I cannot share on the need to open up the labour market in our countries to immigration. Today, at a time of such a tough crisis, we must think, above all, and first of all, of our own citizens. I therefore voted against the report.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – Member States understand the needs and specifics of their own countries and, as such, should not be subject to one-size-fits-all legislation that affects the daily practices of the majority of the population and has a direct impact upon growth and economic stability. Thus far, employment policy emanating from Brussels has posed many difficulties for companies and organisations across the UK struggling to assimilate EU law into quotidian practice. It is also essential at a time of financial hardship that the legislative approach to work and productivity be dynamic in order to permit the flexibility to foster growth and develop the job market to cater for the greatest number of people. Parliament has not been consulted on the issue and has merely approved an EU-level strategy for employment, without full understanding of its potential repercussions. The regulation of employment within the UK and Wales must be fully coherent with the specific needs of the citizens affected in constituent regions and demands a targeted and measured approach that is undermined by the imposition of top-down generalised legislation. Westminster should remain the unique decision-making body on employment law, and the sole author of a development strategy for the UK, without restrictive infringement or interference from the unelected EU Commission.

  Cristian Silviu Buşoi (ALDE), in writing. – (RO) Member States’ employment policies and, especially, the creation of new jobs are among the most important aspects at this time, given that the increase in the unemployment rate has generated numerous protests in several Member States of the European Union last year and this year. I am aware of the labour market problems currently experienced in all EU Member States, which are accelerated by the financial crisis. This is why I believe that the objectives stated in the Europe 2020 strategy are very relevant in this respect. The EU must encourage Member States in their efforts to develop their economy, based on a labour market that is inclusive, highly trained, and, last but not least, meets the demands. However, the role of the Member States in this area should not be ignored either. Member States can find significant support in the European Social Fund programme that provides them with considerable sums to create an increasingly competitive labour market.

I therefore support this report and believe that these guidelines are fully justified and absolutely necessary for the implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy and, in particular, of the employment-related objectives.

  Antonio Cancian (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Today, we debated and voted on the three reports by Ms Cornelissen, Mr Gauzès and Ms Berès drafted in relation to the Annual Growth Survey 2012, proposed by the Commission last November. My vote for the report by Ms Berès reflects Parliament’s decision to adopt the proposal for a Council decision on guidelines for the employment policies of Member States as it is consistent with the economic and social growth objectives identified in the Europe 2020 strategy, which must remain in place until they have been met. The strategy, in fact, outlines a programme for intelligent, sustainable and inclusive growth, with high levels of employment, productivity and social cohesion.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report because the adoption of this resolution today finally draws attention to a matter that is vital to the future of Europe. Employment has been the biggest victim of the crisis and inadequate employment policy over recent years. The situation is becoming ever worse, particularly among young people. Market reform to stimulate employment, supported by a policy of real investment geared towards the younger generation will give them a concrete response: a new plan to modernise employment, education and training systems and, ultimately, to improve individuals. The real challenge will be enabling and encouraging diverse professional experience in life, preserving and ensuring professionalism and remuneration. There is an even greater need for major changes to national labour markets, with the aim of reviving the European economy. Only making the EU more competitive will give investors greater confidence and promote the growth of new jobs.

  Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union makes provision for the Council to lay down general economic policy guidelines and employment guidelines. These particular guidelines must serve the objectives of the EU 2020 strategy and must be in keeping with general economic policy guidelines. As the EU 2020 strategy moves in a neoliberal direction, it fails to respond to the needs of European citizens, especially European workers, and especially following the outbreak of the crisis. The basic approach is to increase competitiveness at European level by dismantling labour relations. Furthermore, the general EU economic policy approach and answer to the crisis is to impose harsh austerity programmes and to cut back labour and social rights. At the same time, unemployment has broken all records. Therefore, the employment guidelines, within their framework, are not an important tool for containing poverty and unemployment. On the contrary, they serve policies that exacerbate social exclusion and impoverish European citizens. That is why I voted against this particular report.

  Andrea Cozzolino (S&D), in writing. – (IT) Parliament’s confirmation of the guidelines for the employment policies of Member States adopted by the Council in 2010 is an act that is not completed by a mere formality, even if the committee responsible voted to follow the simplified procedure. We have had the opportunity to hold another debate on the initiatives Member States will have to adopt in order to achieve the Europe 2020 strategy objectives, and to respond, in particular, to the by now unsustainable unemployment situation that young Europeans, more than anyone else, are facing. Opportunities such as this, and the Annual Growth Survey and its transformation into ‘annual guidelines for sustainable growth’, on which we are being asked to vote, allow us to make the future of the young generations of Europeans the focus of our debate and to play an active and immediate role in the interaction between Member States and the European Commission.

  Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union stipulates that the Member States and the EU must develop a coordinated employment strategy and promote a skilled, trained, adaptable and capable workforce, as well as labour markets able to respond rapidly to economic change. The Europe 2020 strategy proposed by the Commission for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth sets out five main objectives guiding the action of Member States, including the European employment strategy. However, in the current economic crisis, there is a risk that all this will be nothing more than words on paper. I agree that the employment guidelines adopted in 2010 should remain in place until 2014, so that efforts are focused on their implementation, and that Member States should consider using the European Social Fund to implement the guidelines on employment. Unfortunately, I cannot share the Commission's optimism in this respect, given that while most of the measures adopted, as well as some of those envisaged, are necessary, they are not sufficient, as shown by the upward tendency of unemployment at European level.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The European Union is, and has always been, a very popular social model. However, there has been a recent decline in the right to work, in social rights, and in the employment policies of Member States. I consider it essential that Member States take action at the time of the current economic crisis in order to put into practice their commitment to increase employment levels, improve individual skills and create employment opportunities with a view to reducing poverty and increasing social inclusion.

I believe that a solidarity and cohesion policy is needed at EU level, with concrete legislative, fiscal and financial measures. It is vital that Member States observe these commitments to achieve more effective exchanges of best practices and experience in the area of combating social exclusion and reducing poverty, closely in line with the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy related to the eradication of poverty.

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Pursuant to Article 145 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Member States and the EU are working towards developing a coordinated EU strategy for employment and the promotion of a skilled workforce that is qualified, well trained and adaptable. The Europe 2020 strategy puts the EU on the right track with a view to the desired sustainable, inclusive and self-perpetuating economic growth, enabling higher levels, not only of employment, but also of social cohesion, productivity and competitiveness. In the context of the objectives set out in terms of increasing labour market participation and reducing structural unemployment, of developing a skilled workforce and promoting good-quality jobs and lifelong learning, of improving education and training performance at all levels and increasing uptake of higher education, and of promoting social integration and combating poverty, I believe that these guidelines should remain unaltered until 2014, and that any updating thereof should be strictly limited after that date. I voted for this report because I agree with the rapporteur.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D), in writing. – I voted in favour of this report on the employment policies guidelines for the Member States because it represents an important step in maintaining the continuity of the European Union’s strategy for growth and employment, Europe 2020. I am very much looking forward to the Member States following these guidelines while adopting employment policies, in particular, because of the stress on a skilled, trained and adaptable workforce – a real engine for the future growth of Europe. In these days of economic and financial problems for the European Union, employment and growth become probably the most sensitive issues for the whole political debate. I believe that Europe should recognise job creation as a central goal for the revitalisation of our economy.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report, which supports the Commission proposal to launch a new employment strategy based on greater coordination of economic policy. It is worth highlighting the importance of this strategy putting sustainable growth and competitiveness at the heart of the European agenda.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) As yet, there are few signs that the economic and financial crisis that began in 2009 is coming to an end. On the contrary, it is affecting countries that initially seemed to be immune. It was against this background of uncertainty over the end of the crisis that the last European Council took place. The report drafted by Ms Berès concerns the draft Council decision on the guidelines that the Member States should follow with regard to their employment policies. I welcome the measures adopted by the Council to channel funds into programmes promoting growth and employment, particularly those targeted at small and medium-sized enterprises and jobs for young people. As it is vital that the EU has a strategy for growth and employment, I voted for this report, which sets out a range of measures for combating unemployment and promoting sustainable economic growth.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report by the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs simply recommends that Parliament accept and retain the 2010 employment policy guidelines and does not propose the necessary changes to the economic and social policy that the Commission has been following. It does so as though everything were going swimmingly; as though unemployment in the EU had not risen to more than 23 million people without work; as though youth unemployment had not reached its current tragic proportions. Such levels have never before been seen in many countries, such as Portugal, which has had its highest rates of unemployment since the revolution of 1974.

In other words, through this report, drafted by a Member of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, Parliament is endorsing neoliberal doctrine, which it often criticises in an opportunist way. This doctrine includes promoting flexicurity, raising the retirement age and so-called ‘austerity policies’; in short, increasing the exploitation of the workers. For our part, we do not accept the continuation of these policies and demand new guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States that do not attack workers’ rights, but rather increase them and bring them into line with scientific and technical progress. We therefore voted against.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) Article 145 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides that the Member States and the Union shall work towards the development of a coordinated strategy for employment and, in particular, the promotion of a skilled, trained and adaptable workforce. The Europe 2020 strategy, proposed by the European Commission, will enable the Union to steer its economy towards smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, which will be accompanied by a high level of employment, productivity and social cohesion. The European strategy for employment has the leading role in meeting the objectives of the new strategy for employment and the labour market. I am of the opinion that it is necessary that the Member States continue their efforts to address the priority areas of increasing labour market participation and reducing structural unemployment, strive to develop a skilled workforce in line with labour market needs, and strive to promote the quality of employment and lifelong learning. I believe that the employment guidelines adopted in 2010 should remain unchanged until 2014 to ensure their uninterrupted implementation. They should be changed as little as possible, except where absolutely necessary.

  Lorenzo Fontana (EFD) , in writing. – (IT) Our position with regard to the Europe 2020 strategy has traditionally been a sceptical one, and the need to maintain a critical approach in relation to it seems to require reconfirmation in light of the developments that have affected Member States over the last two years. If, in 2010, the Union was being asked to take corrective action to resolve macro-economic imbalances affecting Europe, particularly in the more vulnerable Member States, in 2012, the dramatic consequences of the austerity measures introduced by this action have confirmed our original scepticism. The amendments to the proposal also introduced the objective of increasing the number of immigrant workers in the Union, an objective I do not share. I therefore voted against the proposal.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) After the adoption of several European measures aimed exclusively at imposing budgetary rigour in Europe, this vote, which confirms the validity of the guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States for 2012, is a timely reminder that Europe needs growth and employment to revitalise its economy.

That is why I voted in favour of the report by Ms Berès. Indeed, it is vitally important that we focus our efforts on combating unemployment and poverty, which are increasingly affecting EU citizens. To this end, the Member States must continue to do everything in their power to increase the participation of women and men in the labour market and to promote quality education and training for young people in accordance with the objectives of the guidelines.

Moreover, I support this report because it proposes a more democratic form of governance for the European Union in terms of economic policy than that which seeks to impose financial sanctions on the Member States, through the institution of a dialogue on economic policies between the Council and the European Parliament, with the participation of national parliaments.

  Małgorzata Handzlik (PPE), in writing. – (PL) I am pleased that the European Parliament has approved today the guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States. We need enhanced coordination of economic policy which will focus on the key areas where action is needed to use Europe’s potential for sustainable economic growth. This is important so that we can create jobs, particularly for young people.

Let us remember that the Europe 2020 strategy places particular emphasis on action for work and growth. We need the guidelines so that we can increase employment. The labour market should be open and, above all, accessible to young people. However, it is, in fact, young people who have the greatest difficulties in finding work in a labour market which is so unstable. The Member States should continue to concentrate their efforts on priority areas, and this includes efforts to reduce unemployment. A joint action plan of this kind is an effective method to find a remedy for this currently growing problem.

  Jim Higgins (PPE), in writing. – I welcome this report. What we need to focus on now is implementation of the guidelines. We need to ensure effective governance of the employment and social policies by the Member States. Member States should involve stakeholders, the social partners and parliamentary bodies in the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the national reform programmes. Above all, we need to focus on the implementation of the guidelines in order to ensure a coordinated strategy for employment which will promote a skilled, trained and adaptable workforce. I am confident that we will achieve smart, sustainable and inclusive growth with a high level of employment, productivity and social cohesion throughout the EU. These employment guidelines will remain unchanged until 2014 and their updating should remain strictly limited within the three years. However, we must ensure that the integrated economic policy and employment guidelines are the main focus of the annual review of the Europe 2020 strategy

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the Berès report on the guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States for 2020. The Europe 2020 strategy makes it possible to gear the economic system of the European Union towards smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, with a high level of social cohesion and productivity.

  Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) The proposal put forward by the European Commission sets out ambitious tasks for the whole Union in relation to combating the painful effects of the economic crisis for the European labour market. I would like to express support for the amendments proposed in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, which emphasise the fundamental role of European funds in coping with the crisis and recovering stability in the labour market, and propose simplification of systems for allocating funds so that they will be an attractive form of aid for potential beneficiaries.

However, even the most appropriate strategies and guidelines will not bring the expected result without close cooperation between all the European Union’s Member States. The greatest threat to achieving the aims of this strategy seem to me to be the announcements of reductions in the resources available from the Structural Funds in the next financial framework, for the years 2014-2020, which is a clear symptom of a particularistic mindset at the expense of support for the Union as a whole. Not even the best modified legal, institutional and systemic frameworks, even though they are consistent with the guidelines we have adopted, will bring the expected improvement in the labour market without a guarantee of the funds needed for their implementation.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the report because I believe that the Member States should take action in line with the economic employment policies. The definition of the framework of actions covering the period from 2010-2014 involves limited intermediate amendments, and moves towards a standard approach that will make employment policies most effective. Control and monitoring of the execution of these policies by Member States is an equally important aspect that needs to be closely borne in mind when preparing the final considerations on the issue. I am convinced that these guidelines are valid indications that help to reconcile economic and employment policies. Indeed, we should not forget the value of employment at a time when every Member State is outlining its economic policies which, as well as necessarily restrictive measures to tackle the current crisis, also need to take into account the growth and development that will take place through a new boost to employment.

  Ramona Nicole Mănescu (ALDE) in writing. – (RO) I voted for the report on the Guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States, taking into account the following considerations. In view of the economic and social difficulties faced by the Member States, it is absolutely necessary to coordinate economic and employment policies. It is important that, in their national reform programmes, Member States prioritise the development of the labour market, the reduction of unemployment, especially among young people, and the creation of new jobs. Now, more than ever, we need integrated policies addressing both the economic and the social aspects.

We cannot talk of sustainable economic growth without envisaging the creation of sustainable jobs. Member States must implement appropriate fiscal policies to support investments and encourage SMEs to create jobs, as well as make effective use of the Structural Funds. Thus, by supporting SMEs and using Structural Funds, new jobs will be created and youth unemployment can be combated.

  Barbara Matera (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted for the report by Ms Berès as, in the light of the severe economic and employment crisis afflicting Europe today, the sustainable growth objectives have become extremely important and crucial. The European Union has set itself the long-term objective of creating seventeen and a half million new jobs through a common economic policy.

In this context, we need to focus our attention on certain groups of European citizens. In particular, those who are looking for their first job, in other words, young people who are really struggling to enter the world of work, those with few qualifications and people approaching pensionable age. In my capacity as Vice-President of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality, I have to point out that of these, women are still marginalised and discriminated against in the workplace.

Policies to improve the budget indiscriminately affect women’s social and economic status. The policy for economic recovery proposed by the European Commission must remain a strategy for sustainable and inclusive growth, and not become exclusive as a result of the economic and financial crisis, to the detriment of women.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the report by Ms Berès. I agree with the Commission’s decision to maintain the guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States in 2012, as per the annex to the Council decision of 21 October 2010 on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. – I voted in favour of this report, which calls for the development of a coordinated strategy for employment and the promotion of skilled and trained workers across the EU. In the context of the financial crisis, it is important that a harmonised approach is adopted in order to address employment policies in the EU.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) The 2011 guidelines for employment were synonymous with raising the retirement age, making the labour market more flexible and lowering wages. The terrible results of such a policy cannot have escaped Ms Berès. However, with the majority of this Parliament, she proposes maintaining them for 2012. I voted against this text, which I condemn.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Unemployment has been reaching worrying levels since 2008, with 23 million people now unemployed in the EU, which corresponds to 20% of the active population, and the EU will have to create jobs for a further 17.6 million people by 2020 if it is to hit its employment targets. In view of this, it is with concern that I am voting for this resolution. I would like to see more determination to hit the Europe 2020 strategy’s targets and to create sustainable jobs, by improving conditions for increased participation in the labour market, particularly regarding education and training.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (ES) I voted against this report, as when it comes to growth and employment, I do not share the spirit of the 2012 Annual Growth Survey presented by the European Commission. The proposed solutions will not help to tackle the crisis, nor will they impede a generalised recession throughout the EU. Rather, they will worsen the effects of the crisis, increasing social inequalities, poverty, unemployment and the impoverishment of EU citizens. Both this survey and the EU initiatives are in line with the neoliberal policies that have led us into crisis. In the name of market confidence recovery, competitiveness and growth, salaries are being cut, the European social model destroyed and the basic rights of citizens infringed.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – I am sure that continued use of the Guidelines is necessary in 2012, and I agree that EU Member States should use these Guidelines when implementing their own national employment policies. I voted in favour.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) Employment policy in the European Union is one of those areas of policy where the EU plays a coordinating role, in particular, by drawing up guidelines. However, the individual Member States are largely responsible for turning these guidelines into concrete measures and legislation. The key objectives of the new guidelines are increasing the employment rate of women to 75%, developing a labour force whose skills meet the requirements of the market, lowering the early school leaving rate to below 10%, increasing the share of people who have completed a university degree to at least 40% and combating social exclusion and poverty. I have abstained because, although the EU’s employment policy guidelines are ambitious, the requirements of the Member States in these areas carry far more weight and, therefore, need more support.

  Tiziano Motti (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Growth and employment are certainly very sensitive issues, especially for our young people, but the way in which the Commission has presented its proposal is frankly worrying. Our warning refers to the Commission’s plan to channel up to EUR 82 billion in uncommitted EU Structural Funds into schemes to create jobs for young people and to support small firms, which could undermine trust in the EU’s regional policy. In fact, the plan proposes to use funds in specific regional projects, but without the necessary involvement of the local authorities. We have here a proposal which creates the false impression that cohesion policy was performing poorly, while noting, on the other hand, that two thirds of regional policy funding has already been used or legally committed. While supporting initiatives to increase the take-up of funds, help small firms and fight youth unemployment, it is right to wonder how the Commission’s approach could be improved: according to it, up to EUR 22 billion of allocations from the European Social Fund (a third of its budget for the 2007-2013 period) and up to EUR 60 billion in regional and cohesion funds have not yet been committed to specific projects.

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE), in writing. – (ET) I supported this report, as I consider it crucial that Member States immediately introduce measures to fulfil their obligations with regard to increasing employment, improving skills and reducing poverty. Unemployment remains very high in the Member States of the European Union, especially among young people, with the relevant figure already above 40% in some Member States. Such a situation, in which a large proportion of the working-age population suffers from long-term unemployment and discouragement, paralyses the European economy and saps its vitality. It is therefore essential to launch a so-called guarantee plan in cooperation with social partners, in order to ensure that every young person has the right to obtain work, an internship or training if he or she has been unemployed for four months. Instead of European companies consistently moving their manufacturing to Asia, they should devote more attention to their home region, and the European Union and its Member States should also promote this more actively.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) Employment policy is one of the main factors increasing economic growth and jobs. I believe that every Member State should pay particular attention to extending flexicurity and removing obstacles to growth. Social inclusion and the fight against poverty constantly need to be strengthened and the functioning of the labour market improved. Above all, we need to increase opportunities to participate in the labour market and reduce structural unemployment. Furthermore, training systems should be adapted to the needs of the labour market and skills should be developed. Only by implementing these and other measures provided for in the employment policy guidelines throughout Europe will we create more and better quality jobs and foster employment-enhancing growth.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because I am concerned about the low level of employment in the EU Member States and agree that EU policy guidelines are needed to address this issue. Youth unemployment in some countries is as high as 49%, and insecure and low paid jobs, the lack of suitably qualified workers, social exclusion and combating poverty are common challenges for EU Member States. Only by acting together and pursuing a coherent policy can we therefore ensure sustainable growth. I agree that the Member States must coordinate their national programmes and the implementation of these, and these programmes’ measures should be directed towards promoting entrepreneurship, and adapting education and training systems to market needs. We need to use money from the European Social Fund more efficiently and improve the system for granting micro-credits to small and medium-sized enterprises.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The Annual Growth Survey 2012 contains the plans for guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States. The economic crisis and the European common market’s need for measures to make it stronger and more competitive have brought about one of the most serious social problems of the present and the future: unemployment. I voted for the report by Ms Berès because we need special guidelines for employment policies in order to restore momentum to the economy and trust among our citizens. Europe needs guarantees for the future and the guarantee of work, particularly for young people, is the first step towards a better European Union.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Since the major objectives and priorities set out in the guidelines for employment policy, adopted on 21 October 2010, remain valid, I voted for this European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a Council decision on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States. In fact, in this document, Parliament is limiting itself to confirming the employment policies that, in line with the decision to adopt them, should remain stable until 2014, in order to ensure a focus on implementation.

  Miguel Portas (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The draft European Parliament legislative resolution on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States, tabled by the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, has merely rubber stamped the employment guidelines set out by the Commission in 2010. Despite the exacerbation of the economic situation since then, with unemployment rates that are increasing exponentially in almost all the Member States, the European Parliament has given up its right to demand that the Council and the Commission table new binding measures geared towards increasing investment in job creation. That is why I voted against.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Pursuant to the Europe 2020 strategy, provision has been made for a series of central objectives aimed at economic growth and social cohesion, in a policy of linking up the actions of the Member States and the EU institutions. I voted in favour because these guidelines are included in the Commission proposal.

  Robert Rochefort (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) In a fully integrating single market, in which the Member States are becoming increasingly interdependent, coordinating employment policies is an overarching objective in ensuring that actions are coherent and effective. In voting for the report by Ms Berès, I support this objective by approving the continuity of the guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States adopted by the Council decision of 21 October 2010. These guidelines are essential if we are to achieve this objective: increasing labour market participation, reducing structural unemployment, promoting the quality of employment and social inclusion, promoting education and lifelong learning, improving the performance of education and training systems, and combating poverty. They are necessities that I have defended for a long time. Finally, I welcome the Commission’s desire, endorsed today by the European Parliament, to strive to maintain the stability of these guidelines until 2014 to ensure a focus not on the conclusions of endless negotiations on their minor modification, but on their practical implementation. It is now the duty of the Member States to take them into consideration in their employment policies.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. – (IT) We cannot support a text which seeks to resolve problems related to employment, and which deals with the employment policies of the Member States, with proposals which seek to ‘remove the barriers’ that prevent immigrants from accessing the EU’s labour market. We cannot accept these kinds of measures, since due precisely to the regulations helping legal immigrants, it is already more likely that they will be the ones asked to take on a job rather than an EU citizen.

We also realised that when the European Union proposes corrective measures for the Member States, it tends, in fact, to decide for them and, in the wake of the dramatic consequences of the austerity measures introduced by interventions like this, we are sceptical towards EU strategies such as the ones in question.

  Tokia Saïfi (PPE), in writing. – (FR) As part of the Europe 2020 strategy, the EU has drawn up a list of priorities and joint initiatives aimed at smart, sustainable and job-rich growth. Boosting employment has been identified as the main driver of growth and recognised, quite rightly, as a key factor in greater social cohesion at European level. Thus, since their adoption in October 2010, guidelines have guided national employment policies. The Member States must, in accordance with the provisions of the Europe 2020 strategy, reduce structural unemployment, train a skilled workforce, promote quality jobs and ensure lifelong vocational training. The European Parliament has declared its support for the continuation of these employment guidelines until 2014. This position, which I share, reflects increased awareness on the part of the European institutions: employment is our priority and we need to reflect upon the ways and means to promote it and to make it more sustainable. To this end, the Member States have the possibility of using the European Social Fund.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) In the Annual Growth Survey (AGS), the Commission has identified five priority actions for 2012: fiscal consolidation; restoring normal lending to the economy; growth and competitiveness; tackling unemployment and the social consequences of the crisis; and modernising public administration. Personally, I would like to underline my full support for the five priorities identified, as expressed with my vote in favour this morning. I would also like to draw attention to the fact that it is absolutely necessary to accelerate the initiatives to create the single market and to extend the reach of the AGS. Finally, I would like to underline my appreciation of the integrated structure of the document and the unprecedented attention to social issues.

A final word on young people: the fourth priority addresses youth unemployment and the social consequences of the crisis, which is having serious repercussions on social inclusion and on levels of poverty. Keeping people active – whether through work, training or even in the search for a job – is fundamental, both for the economy and for society. Therefore, the text suggests revising wage-setting mechanisms to better reflect productivity, removing legal obstacles to the recognition of professional qualifications between countries, restricting access to early retirement schemes and promoting entrepreneurship.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) According to Eurostat, the European Union currently has around 23 million unemployed; that is 8 million more than in 2008, with the majority of them young people who cannot find a foothold in the labour market. The EU Member States with the highest unemployment rates are Spain, with 22.9%, followed by Greece, with 19.2% in October; Portugal is in sixth place, with 13.6%. At the other end of the spectrum, those with the lowest rates are countries like Austria, with 4.1%, the Netherlands, with 4.9%, and Luxembourg, with 5.2%. Article 145 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union stipulates that Member States shall work towards developing a coordinated strategy for employment, so they have agreed to the intention expressed by the European Commission and the European Parliament to strengthen guidelines on employment policy, pursuant to the Council decision of 21 October 2010.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the resolution on the proposal for a Council decision on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States because, due to the financial and economic crisis, unemployment has increased alarmingly in the EU. According to Eurostat, over 23 million people are unemployed in Europe. The guidelines provided in Decision No 2010/707/EU will be applied by the Member States in 2012 as well. Employment policies should be directed towards increasing labour market participation, reducing structural unemployment and promoting quality jobs, developing a skilled workforce to meet labour market needs and promote lifelong learning, improving the quality and performance of education and training systems at all levels and increasing participation in tertiary education or equivalent forms of education, promoting social inclusion, and combating poverty. These guidelines are aimed at the implementation of the main EU objectives for 2020, such as increasing the employment rate to 75%, reducing the school dropout rate to less than 10%, achieving a tertiary graduation rate of at least 40% among young people, and reducing the number of people at risk of poverty and social exclusion by at least 20 million.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) I voted against the Berès report calling on the European Parliament to approve the proposal for a Council decision on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States.

This vote is about ensuring the ‘compatibility’ of the employment guidelines with the economic policies of the EU. It is quite a programme and, every day, we are increasingly seeing what this means through the sad example of what is being imposed on Greece. It is about ‘implementing the Europe 2020 strategy’, ‘boosting Europe’s potential for sustainable growth and competitiveness’, ‘promoting labour markets responsive to economic change’, ‘complying with the Stability and Growth Pact’ and ‘giving precise guidance to the Member States on defining their national reform programmes’.

This says it all. We can talk all we like about reducing structural unemployment, developing a skilled workforce and promoting quality jobs. These are just words, sacrificed at the altar of austerity policies.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) It is essential that the guidelines on employment policy measures in the Member States are retained in order to boost growth and competitiveness in Europe and to guarantee that the Europe 2020 objectives are achieved. We must focus, in particular, on increasing the labour market participation of men and women, eradicating structural unemployment, combating poverty and improving the performance of the European education system.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report comes direct from the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. It simply recommends that Parliament accept and retain the 2010 employment policy guidelines, and does not propose the necessary changes to the economic and social policy that the Commission has been following. This means that Parliament is accepting the continuation of the neoliberal policies of promoting flexicurity, of increasing the retirement age, of so-called ‘austerity policies’; in short, of increasing the exploitation of the workers. We do not accept the continuation of these policies and demand new guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States that do not attack the sacrosanct rights of the workers, the right to collective bargaining, and the social rights they have won.

Recommendation for second reading: Czesław Adam Siekierski (A7-0032/2012)

  Damien Abad (PPE), in writing. – (FR) In a spirit of European solidarity, I voted in favour of maintaining the European Programme of food aid for the most deprived (PEAD) for 2012 and 2013. This vote is taking place after agreement in Council. However, this agreement cannot, under any circumstances, be used as a long-term solution. Indeed, we need to consider now the period beyond 2013 and how to reform the food aid programme and to enable the most deprived to benefit from this programme.

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting in favour. One of the problems still demonstrated by the EU, despite the level of development we have reached, is that of the malnourishment that has a particular effect on the homeless, on families in difficulties, on the unemployed, whose numbers are increasing substantially at the moment, on single-parent families, on immigrants, on asylum seekers, on socially disadvantaged older people and on disabled children. Seven countries initially rejected the support programme under consideration, on alleged legal grounds. This was a lamentable decision that has, regrettably, only been put on hold until 2013. I would stress that the EU was very quick to help the banks, but is showing itself to be very insensitive when it is a case of solidarity with the most disadvantaged. This reflection serves to demonstrate that we live in a Europe with these contradictions, which urgently need to be abolished.

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I was pleased to hear that the blocking of the Commission’s proposal at the Council, lasting some two years, has been overcome. Considering the urgency of providing support to the most deprived persons in the Union and the delay that has been seen, I voted in favour of the report by Mr Siekierski in order to allow a rapid distribution of food products to the most deprived citizens and, at long last, to offer them the Union’s support during this time not just of economic crisis but also difficult weather conditions. I am firmly convinced that the programme should be fully funded by the Union and that the programme should be accompanied by temporary measures to avoid a sharp cutback in food aid and to ensure that people who are dependent on food aid do not suddenly suffer from food poverty once again. I am pleased with the agreement reached for these reasons, but also due to the fact that the food to be distributed will be of Union origin, and will therefore support our production and growth.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) This week, the European Parliament has made progress on a critical issue: a compromise has finally been reached with the Member States to maintain funding for the European Programme of food aid for the most deprived (PEAD) for 2012 and 2013. This programme supplies food to more than 13 million beneficiaries across 15 Member States. We must now work to ensure the future of this programme after 2013, and I can assure you that the European Parliament will continue to fight for this. My colleagues and I have demanded that, in the short term, the European Commission and the Member States provide a transition mechanism and that, in the mid term, they change the legislation to enable this programme to continue. I proposed, in this regard, contributions from the European Social Fund (ESF). Finally, I believe that this programme is also an instrument for combating food waste. In any event, while we need to save money at a time of crisis, we should certainly not do so by leaving 13 million vulnerable Europeans by the wayside.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) For the time being, the most important thing has been saved. We have managed to secure the continuation of the European food aid programme for 2012 and 2013. The annual budget of EUR 500 million will be kept in its entirety for the next two years. While congratulations are in order, especially for all the organisations working on the ground, vigilance is still called for, because the issue is far from being settled. Europe, they said, is being built in small steps and gathers momentum in crises, when its back is against the wall. This time, it has failed miserably! The programme has only obtained a reprieve, which, during the current period, when austerity policies are taking a heavy toll on the people of Europe, and the European Union is in full existential crisis, amounts to a denial of the future of the EU. There will be no EU in the future without a social Europe, without a rebalancing of the economic dimension to take account of the social dimension. So there is much yet to be done. We must, right now, think of new, effective solidarity mechanisms in collaboration with the European Commission to ensure that we maintain this action in favour of the most deprived people in Europe.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because I fully support what it has achieved. This European Parliament report confirms the EU institutions’ compromise decision, on the basis of which the European Union will be able to provide the most deprived citizens of the European Union with the same amount of food aid as before for the remaining two years until the new multiannual financial framework. Indeed, the Council’s desire to reduce the amount of food aid at this difficult time, when the number of people requiring aid has grown as a result of the crisis, was particularly difficult to understand. I agree that today, we have to make savings, both at EU level and in the Member States, but we cannot do this by reducing assistance for the poorest people who have increased in number. Savings in this area would not solve the problem of the financial crisis. Instead, we would be turning our backs on our citizens and undermining the goals that we set ourselves a year ago – of lifting as many as 20 million people out of the poverty trap. It really is disappointing that this has dragged on for so long.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Although the EU enjoys, on average, one of the highest living standards in the world, some people are unable to provide the necessary food for themselves. It is estimated that within the EU, there are 43 million people at risk of food poverty, meaning people who cannot afford to eat a complete meal every other day. The programme for the most deprived persons supports the provision of food to these highly vulnerable individuals or families who are in a difficult situation. Charities and NGOs are counting on the EU’s contribution to support these people in need. For example, 51% of the products distributed in 2010 by the European Federation of Food Banks came from this programme. Each year, more than 18 million people in 20 EU Member States receive food aid distributed within this programme. In Romania, over 2.8 million people benefited from this programme in 2010, including pensioners, people with no income or very low income, and people with disabilities. Therefore, I think it is essential to find rapidly a solution leading to overcoming the current problems and which can make use of the available funds.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of Mr Siekierski’s report which aims to protect and support the most deprived persons in the Union through a funding programme for the purchase of food products.

Due to the two-year deadlock in the Council, it was necessary to pass the proposal quickly without the addition of further amendments. In the Commission’s amended proposal, the programme will remain fully funded by the EU budget but, to secure proper coverage and financial stability, a ceiling of EUR 500 million has been put in place.

The programme will be active during 2012 and 2013, but it is to be hoped that Parliament will have more say on the programme’s future beyond 2013. Due to the economic and financial crisis, which continues to damage Europe’s economy through worrying repercussions on our social fabric, we need a strong voice from Europe to speak out on aiding a more vulnerable civil society.

  Arkadiusz Tomasz Bratkowski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) I would like to express my satisfaction at the decision taken by the European Parliament, which, on 15 February 2012, adopted the recommendation of the Vice-Chair of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, Czesław Siekierski, of the Polish People’s Party, on continuation of the programme for the distribution of food to the most deprived persons. As a result of a long process of negotiations between representatives of Parliament, the Commission and the Council, and also due to the efforts among others of the Polish Presidency, it was possible to work out an agreement on the level of the budget for the programme for 2012-2013.

I am profoundly convinced that the importance of this programme has grown during the current economic crisis, at a time when European society is becoming increasingly impoverished. At present, over 40 million people in the European Union are affected by poverty, while a further 40 million are under threat of poverty. Among those who benefit from this aid are people who are unemployed, homeless people, migrants, elderly people, disabled people and those who are in a difficult material situation, including families with many children and single parents, and in all, there are around 18 million deprived people who have received help from the European Union.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – I do not, of course, oppose any measure that aims to combat poverty and hunger in the EU; however, the policy laid before us is both legally unsound and fails to address the real issue of the causes of poverty. The money should not come from the CAP budget as a social policy, which, in the opinion of at least the United Kingdom, should be a Member State domestic competence. What is so mind-boggling about this proposal is that it has failed to acknowledge the leading factor in poverty creation in the EU. Reports from Athens demonstrate that EU policy adherence to the erroneous single currency project is, in fact, one of the key drivers in poverty creation. Greening of CAP will also undermine the potential for self-sufficiency in Europe and exposes Member States to the possibility of food shortages and dependency upon importation. The creation and expansion of PEAD sets a dangerous precedent in permitting such erroneous and damaging legislation to continue to be made by issuing an illegal ‘back-up plan’.

  Cristian Silviu Buşoi (ALDE) , in writing. – (RO) The programme for the distribution of free food to the most deprived citizens of the European Union, started in 1987 as part of the common agricultural policy (CAP), currently grants support to 18 million people living in poverty in 20 European Union Member States. In the EU, 43 million people are at risk of food poverty, and this figure will rise due to the economic and financial crisis and rising food prices. If no action is taken, the funds for this programme will have to be reduced in 2012 to EUR 133 million, compared with EUR 500 million in 2011. The interruption of the aid programme without notice or preparations will have serious repercussions for the most vulnerable EU citizens. It is necessary to find a way to continue the food distribution system for the needy in 2012 and 2013 (the remaining years within the current funding period), and also in the funding period 2014-2020.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The programme distributing free food to the most deprived EU citizens, set up in 1987 under the common agricultural policy, currently provides food aid for 18 million people suffering from poverty in 20 Member States. The present economic crisis, alongside difficult climate conditions, has been hitting poor people hard. Around 18 million people in Europe currently benefit from the food aid programme for the disadvantaged. I voted for this programme to be continued until the end of 2014, with a maximum annual budget of EUR 500 million, intended to aid 18 million of the most deprived people in 20 EU Member States.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this draft amendment to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, intended to improve the general rules on supplying certain organisations with food products from intervention stocks for the benefit of the most deprived persons in the Union. This reform is essential, not just because of higher demand resulting from the recent EU enlargements, but also because of increased problems due to high food prices in Europe and the cost of supplying it. In order to ensure that the supply of foodstuffs will continue to reach at least those already benefiting from this support, the priority has now changed, with greater emphasis given to the long-term sustainability of agriculture at the expense of the primary goal of increasing food production.

The following are the two most important of the amendments tabled. Now more than ever, there needs to be a long-term perspective when national authorities are planning distribution schemes, so distribution programmes lasting around three years will be implemented in order to increase levels of efficiency and flexibility. Secondly, I agree with the need to set out priorities more clearly. The Member States will have to draft their requests for aid on the basis of objective and pre-established national programmes for distributing food to the most disadvantaged.

  Emer Costello (S&D), in writing. – I supported the recommendation because it guarantees the continuation of the food aid programme, which currently provides food to more than 18 million people across Europe, for 2012 and 2013. However, I am opposed to the position of the conservative German and French governments to discontinue this programme after 2013. The Commission should come forward with proposals that comply with the Court of Justice’s April 2011 ruling to allow the continuation of the programme from 2014 onwards. I welcome the Irish Government’s support for this stance. The subsidiarity argument should not be used to suggest there is no role for measures such as a food aid programme at European level. In reality, we need a much stronger social dimension to Europe and a greater emphasis on growth and jobs to ensure that citizens do not have to depend on food aid to help them make ends meet. We can only consider ending this type of programme when there is no demand from the public for it.

  Andrea Cozzolino (S&D), in writing. – (IT) The report follows the controversial confirmation of the European programme for providing aid to the needy. The text is a compromise between those who were in favour of the programme’s continuation and those who wished to see it come to an end. Therefore, the compromise reached avoids the risk of a sudden end to the programme which would have threatened the survival of that sector of the population which is dependent on this food aid. Recent statistics have shown that the crisis is affecting increasingly large and central areas of the continent. This means that increasingly wide sections of the population in rich countries risk finding themselves in poverty. In this context, the attitude of those who, in the name of futile austerity, insist on rejecting such important interventions which have such a limited impact on the EU budget seems increasingly short-sighted and counterproductive. This compromise is very welcome and a new agreement to guarantee the programme’s funding for the future would be especially welcome. In any case, the hope is to investigate the possibility of strengthening the campaign against food wastage, with a programme capable of using recovered food through distribution and rational use, and redistributing it to the weakest and most at-risk sectors.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I think it is vital to continue the provision of this support in the future, and that it is necessary to support the European disadvantaged people at a level comparable to that of this year, knowing that the common agricultural policy has social components, too, and that poor people must continue to be assisted. Based on the principle of European solidarity, Member States that oppose this must show understanding of the situation of poor social categories and accept that it is necessary to continue the programme within the required parameters. This would also demonstrate solidarity within the EU.

  Arnaud Danjean (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of maintaining the funds of the European Programme of food aid for the most deprived (PEAD) for two additional years (2012 and 2013). Indeed, it is our responsibility to ensure the survival of such a programme, which has helped more than 18 million deprived people in 19 Member States of the European Union since 1987 (under the CAP). This programme will therefore continue to supply food to numerous charities working to eradicate hunger, with an annual ceiling of EUR 500 million. At present, our new fight, in which I wish to be fully engaged, is to ensure the long-term sustainability of this important solidarity programme by guaranteeing its funding beyond 2013.

  Michel Dantin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) This is the culmination of intense diplomatic work on the part of Bruno Lemaire, French Minister for Agriculture, at Council level, and of the Members of the European Parliament at the level of our institution. Europe has thus demonstrated that it is capable of being an area of solidarity for the citizens of Europe.

  Rachida Dati (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I used my vote to approve the Council’s position, which will make it possible to extend the European food aid programme at its current level of funding for an additional two years. It would have been inconceivable to reduce it, now that the crisis has increased the number of people dependent on food handouts. This solution remains a temporary one, however. The validity period of the compromise for which we voted is two years. Two years is what was needed for the more than 13 million Europeans for whom this programme is vital. However, two years is not enough. I will remain fully committed to finding a lasting solution and to ensuring that this programme, which is essential to the maintenance of solidarity, is kept in the European budget.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this text enabling the European Programme of food aid for the most deprived (PEAD) to be maintained and funded for 2012 and 2013. I will continue to work actively in the European Parliament and call on the European Commission and the European Council to find a solution, so that this programme, which provides food aid to more than 18 million of our fellow citizens, and which we need more than ever in these times of crisis, can continue after 2013.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D), in writing. – I voted in favour of the Council position at first reading because the distribution of food products to the most deprived persons is too urgent an issue to be delayed any further. A second reading procedure would only have meant more suffering for the people in need, a scenario which is simply unacceptable. Therefore, I think that the position voted for, by overcoming the stalled situation in the Council, has to be considered as a valid transitional solution for the remaining years of the current MFF. I would also like to express my desire for such a crucial programme to be maintained, or even enhanced, after 2013. Too many people still depend on food distribution in Europe and we – as representatives of the European people – must undertake this as a personal commitment.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report on food distribution to the most deprived persons in the Union, as I believe it was crucial to reach an agreement that broke the two year deadlock in the Council on this issue and to ensure that this programme will continue in the next financial framework. European solidarity for those with the least protection is even more necessary at times of crisis. The right-wing majority in the Council has demonstrated great social insensitivity.

  Göran Färm, Anna Hedh, Olle Ludvigsson, Jens Nilsson, Marita Ulvskog and Åsa Westlund (S&D), in writing. – (SV) We Social Democrats are opposed to extending the food distribution programme to the most deprived persons in the Union, as we believe that poverty and social exclusion should be tackled in the social sphere and not within the framework of the EU’s agricultural policy.

The programme was introduced during a period when there were large stockpiles of agricultural products and it was considered to be a fair solution to distribute this food to those in need. As the EU’s agricultural policy has been adapted to the market, these stockpiles have dwindled and the option of using EU funds to stockpile commodities has been abolished for several products.

We would have liked to have seen other forms of support for the most deprived persons in society, as the EU and the Member States need to take responsibility during times of economic crisis, not only for the financial institutions, but also for their own people.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) According to data provided by the Commission, 43 million people in the EU are at risk of food poverty, making aid programmes essential for providing them with a minimum level of subsistence. For this very reason, it is neither comprehensible nor defensible that the issue of distributing food to the most deprived people has been deadlocked for more than two years, at a time when the crisis is threatening to increase poverty levels, nor is it comprehensible or defensible that the decision we have adopted today is to retain the food aid programme only until 2013. A programme is needed beyond 2013. Once again, I would reiterate that the need to reduce expenditure cannot justify a lack of social sensitivity, especially when it comes to the poorest and most vulnerable members of our society.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This recommendation for second reading, drafted by Mr Siekierski, concerns the Council position at first reading with a view to the adoption of a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 as regards distribution of food products to the most deprived persons in the European Union. Following a delay in solving this problem, it has, in the end, been possible to reach an agreement on freeing up the EUR 500 million to support deprived people through food banks. I welcome the fact that this aid has been made available and hope this will continue after 2013.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) Poverty and social exclusion have been on the increase in the European Union. Their growth goes hand in hand with the massive backwards strides currently being taken by society. The latest Eurostat figures, for 2010, show that we are in a tragic situation: 26.9% of children aged 0-17 and 19.8% of older people are at risk of poverty. In total, 115 million people in the EU are at risk of poverty; that is equivalent to 23.4% of the population. These figures will certainly be worse today, owing to the impact of so-called ‘austerity’ and, particularly, of the sordid IMF-EU pacts of aggression against Portugal, Greece and Ireland. There is more unemployment and wages are lower. Moreover, decreased social rights, and the increased prices and privatisation of public services have further exacerbated this situation.

It is in this context that it becomes even more pressing to continue with and step up the food distribution scheme programme for the most deprived persons, so as to ensure that those dependent on food aid – and the many others currently becoming so – will not suffer food poverty. That is why we voted for this report. That is why the stance of countries like Germany in the Council blocking the continuation of this programme is unacceptable.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3730/87 laid down the general rules for the supply of food to the most deprived persons in the EU. This regulation was subsequently repealed and incorporated into the regulation establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products. Rising food prices are currently adversely affecting the food security of the most deprived persons and, moreover, increase the cost of providing food aid. The objectives of the common agricultural policy therefore include market stabilisation and, in particular, ensuring supplies for consumers at reasonable prices. With regard to the distribution of food, however, the EU scheme cannot be the only response to the growing need for food aid in the EU. From the perspective of food security, national policies implemented by public administrations and the mobilisation of civil society are also necessary. The scheme could nevertheless serve as a model for the distribution of food to the most deprived people and could help encourage public and private initiatives aimed at increasing food security for those in need.

  Elisabetta Gardini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) According to the most recent statistics, around 16.3% of the EU population lives below the poverty line. As the crisis continues, the situation even looks set to deteriorate: indeed, it is estimated that from one day to the next, millions of Europeans could find themselves without even enough money for food. Thanks to today’s vote, the European food aid programme will remain operational until at least 2013, offering concrete and direct support to needy citizens who do not have sufficient means to feed themselves.

I think that now more than ever, and in the light of the worrying economic, financial and social situation, we need to guarantee the right to food for all Europeans and continue to ensure proper funding for this programme, which today supplies food aid to around 18 million people in 20 Member States. I hope therefore that this scheme can be improved with increased efficiency, even beyond 2013.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. – (FR) 25 years ago, Coluche went to see Jacques Delors, then President of the Commission, to request his support for the Restos du Coeur. Mindful of its image, the European Community agreed to make some of its existing agricultural stocks available to charitable organisations to enable them to distribute meals to those who, already victims of policies emanating from Brussels, no longer had any means of feeding themselves. It was buying itself a conscience on the cheap.

Today, this aid represents EUR 500 million. This shows the extent to which poverty has exploded. However, the systematic dismantling of the common agricultural policy (CAP) has hit stocks and, against the backdrop of the current economic crisis, a number of Member States have sought to save money on a budgetary item which, however, only represents a fraction of the EU’s EUR 150 billion budget.

The Court of Justice in Luxembourg, to which the matter was referred, wanted to cut 80% of the aid. This decision created such a public outcry that here we are today voting on extending this programming for two years, with no assurance that it will continue beyond 2013. That does not solve the problem. For those of us who voted in favour of this aid, it is only a stop-gap measure.

  Louis Grech (S&D), in writing. – This agreement is to be welcomed as it will ensure that we avoid the abrupt halting of the European food aid scheme, and the suffering that would entail for those dependent on food aid. It is vital to ensure that food aid continues to reach the most vulnerable Europeans, and that they are not subject to crippling food poverty. Making food available to those most in need will help them better their lives and, in turn, better the community around them. After a two-year deadlock, I am glad that the Member States at last came together to continue this worthwhile programme for 2012 and 2013. Nevertheless, we must now find a solution within the forthcoming financial framework to safeguard the long-term future of the European food aid scheme. Such a worthy scheme should not be subject to disruptions due to political disputes within the Council.

  Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) This is a major success for the Members of the European Parliament, who, on 15 February, saved the food programme providing food aid to the 18 million most deprived European citizens in 20 Member States. Last April, it was estimated, under the auspices of a number of Member States, that the programme needed to reduce its funding from EUR 500 million in 2011 to EUR 133 million in 2012, which would have been catastrophic in these times of crisis for millions of European citizens, the survival of whom depends on this programme. We therefore opposed this decision and, last July, the European Parliament sought a temporary solution to save the programme and to prevent a reduction in food aid. As a result of the intervention of the European Parliament, the programme will be effective until the end of 2013, and it will benefit from an annual budget of EUR 500 million.

  Mathieu Grosch (PPE), in writing. – (DE) I strongly support the EU food aid regulation for the most deprived people, because it enables Member States to use products from intervention stocks to provide food aid.

Charitable organisations and, in particular, the deprived people they help are reliant on this ongoing programme. It is of the greatest importance for us to guarantee that this aid will still be available after 2013 and to enable charities to continue their work.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report, through which the European Parliament gives its agreement to the continuation, in 2012 and in 2013, of the European Programme of food aid for the most deprived (PEAD), in view of the extremely urgent situation facing charities and food banks.

However, I find that continuing this programme for just two years is unacceptable, and I very much regret the Franco-German agreement, which, admittedly, has broken the deadlock in the medium term, but which threatens the survival of the programme after 2014. This is simply unacceptable, especially since the economic and social crisis is jeopardising the jobs of more and more Europeans and reducing them to poverty.

My fellow Members in the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament and I repeat that we need to build a more social Europe. It is our duty to ensure that our citizens can feed themselves and live in dignity. This means that we need to set to work immediately and to take action to guarantee the continuation of the food aid programme, placing it on an appropriate legal basis in the next financial period 2014-2020. Time is of the essence.

  Brice Hortefeux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The European Programme of food aid for the most deprived (PEAD) provoked strong and passionate reactions throughout 2011 following the decision by the European Court of Justice to repeal the provisions authorising the purchase of food products on the market under the common agricultural policy for the benefit of redistribution associations. This scheme had been set up in 1987 because there were surplus stocks of farm produce, which is no longer the case today. Following this decision, which had been introduced by Germany, France and the members of the majority in Parliament took action to preserve this essential programme supplying food to more than 13 million people. In November, a compromise was finally reached between the Member States guaranteeing the existence of this programme for 2012 and 2013. In turn, the European Parliament, fully aware of the urgent need to release funds to relaunch the supply process in a particularly difficult period combining an unprecedented financial and economic crisis with extreme weather conditions, supported this agreement on 15 February.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour because, given the particularly unusual situation created by the blocking of the proposal at the Council for two years, the European Parliament has no real margin for an extensive negotiation in order to amend the Council position. It should also be remembered that Parliament, in its resolution of 7 July 2011, had called on the Commission and the Council to develop a transitional solution for the remaining years of the current multiannual financial framework (MFF) so as to avoid a sharp cutback in food aid as a result of the reduction in funding from EUR 500 million to EUR 113 million and ensure that people dependent on food aid do not suffer from food poverty. At a trialogue organised on 6 December 2011, the European Parliament negotiating team recognised, in its majority, that in view of the explanations given by the Presidency and Commission representatives on the absence of a better solution in this particularly difficult situation, it saw itself obliged to agree to the Council compromise as the only means for achieving a transitional solution for the remaining years of the current MFF. In view of those arguments, also shared by the majority of MEPs at the AGRI special meeting of 12 December 2011, I welcomed the rapporteur’s proposal that the Council position should be accepted without amendments, so that it can finally be adopted in its current form at the European Parliament Plenary (as a so-called early second reading).

  Lívia Járóka (PPE), in writing. – The economic crisis and the resulting rise in food prices are having a serious negative impact on the food security of the most deprived EU citizens. I therefore welcome the fact that Parliament opted to accept the Council’s position without amendments since, following a two-year obstruction, any further delay would worsen the situation and undermine the credibility of the programme. Both the Commission and the Council have taken on board most of the EP’s recommendations at first reading, so the scheme will be based solely on food of Community origin, purchased on a competitive basis, with preference given to locally produced fresh products, and with a clear obligation for distribution points to advertise the EU’s involvement. It is also very important that storage costs incurred by charitable organisations will be reimbursed and that, by doubling the sources of supply, distribution will no longer be limited to products to which intervention applies, so Member States, in cooperation with civil society, can make their choices on the basis of nutritional balance. Further issues, such as the review of the 100% ratio of EU funding and the introduction of cofinancing, might be discussed again later, given the possibility of reviewing the plan in exceptional circumstances.

  Anne E. Jensen (ALDE), in writing. – (DA) The Danish Liberal Party is able to accept the fact that we now have a legal basis for this budget line in 2012 and 2013 but, as a matter of principle, we do not believe that the EU should pursue a social policy of buying up food products on the open market and distributing them to the poor. It is therefore a good thing that the agreement expires at the end of 2013.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Today’s vote is a success for Europe and will help 18 million deprived European citizens for a further two years. However, we must not drop our guard; we must stand together and continue to support people in need. France also undertakes to continue to provide food aid through charities. Food aid to the most deprived was doomed. It is thanks to France’s action that the European Parliament has recently saved it. With Nicolas Sarkozy, Europe also stands for solidarity.

  Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE), in writing. – (DE) After lengthy discussions, the supporters and opponents of the programme have finally reached a compromise. Without this, it would not have been possible for the planned programme for deprived people to continue. The resolution is a response to the ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union. We should definitely consider whether the Agricultural Fund is the right area to enable this programme to meet its objectives or whether it would not make more sense to move the programme to the Social Fund.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I cast my vote in favour of Mr Siekierski’s report, through which we have made excellent progress on helping the millions of EU citizens who face difficulties in their everyday lives. I am delighted to point out that Parliament played a crucial role in reaching this outcome, in full compliance with the decision of the Court of Justice. We have managed to find a transitional solution capable of unblocking food aid for the poor this year and next, thereby avoiding a dangerous reduction in funds from the current level of EUR 500 million per year, which was to be cut back to roughly EUR 113 million per year. Obviously, we felt duty-bound to take this step to protect the less fortunate among us, particularly in view of the ongoing global crisis. It is absolutely clear, however, that this step does not resolve the issue of funding the programme to help the poor after 2013, when we will also be engaged in negotiations over the new multiannual financial framework for the period 2014-2020.

  Agnès Le Brun (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I am delighted that the European Parliament has endorsed the agreement reached in the Council last December extending the funding for the European Programme of food aid for the most deprived (PEAD) for 2012 and 2013 with retroactive effect from 1 January 2012. The food aid programme is indispensable in helping charities to fulfil their missions. Consequently, its continuation is a great relief. Nonetheless, we should not make do with this compromise. An emergency solution has been found. Priority should now be given to finding a lasting solution. We cannot be satisfied with this partial solution. It is important for the Council of the European Union to assume its responsibilities and to stop hiding behind legal arguments.

  Constance Le Grip (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report by Czesław Adam Siekierski approving the decision taken in the EU Council on 23 January 2012, maintaining funding for the European Programme of food aid for the most deprived (PEAD) for an additional two years in 2012 and 2013.

I welcome the fact that a solution could be found to break the deadlock and not to deprive the charities and the most deprived persons of this crucial support. It would have been completely incomprehensible, especially in view of the serious economic crisis we are going through, had we not been able to find a solution to maintain this European programme, which is a symbol of European solidarity towards the most deprived. However, the battle is not yet won, and we must now continue this fund beyond 2013.

  Marine Le Pen (NI), in writing. – (FR) While the European Union comprises developed countries, almost 20% of its population lives below the poverty line and abolishing food aid to the most deprived from 2014 is not going to improve the situation.

Abandoning this programme, which, however, represents just 1% of the total CAP budget, will simply accelerate the growing impoverishment of populations. This says a lot about the current situation of Europe. When it comes to supporting the banks, agreements are reached, but when it comes to alleviating poverty, European solidarity no longer exists, reducing the contribution to 23 centimes per person.

Yet this comes as no surprise, since the European Union appears to go on as usual, dominated by the desires of Germany, the ultraliberal policies of which leave thousands of people in unbearable misery. As was the case with John I of France, social Europe is stillborn and will simply remain in the imagination of my dyed-in-the-wool Europhile colleagues, who stubbornly believe in this social utopia.

I voted for this recommendation and for extending this aid, but, in the conviction that it will be abolished in 2014, I ask that the appropriations earmarked for France under the European Programme of food aid for the most deprived (PEAD) (EUR 73 million) be deducted from our contribution.

  Bogusław Liberadzki (S&D), in writing. – (PL) I endorsed this report, among other reasons, in view of the huge contribution made by the rapporteur, Mr Siekierski. Extending the programme by two years is the right decision. In relation to this, I would like the Commission to submit in the near future a proposal for the method of distributing the food and the main objectives in terms of geography and social groups. At least until the end of the crisis, this aid, which is addressed to those who are affected by poverty and social exclusion, is particularly important.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Over time, it has been proved that intervention stocks provided by the Community have been a secure and stable food supply source for the most deprived persons. The need to provide food has increased considerably due to the substantial growth in the number of deprived people and the increase in food prices, affecting the food security of these people.

I think that we need both appropriate national policies and the mobilisation of the civil society to provide food security for all people. In addition, changing the community programme will generate a strong element of cohesion and serve as a model for distributing food to the most deprived persons. This proposal seeks to maintain full funding from the EU for the programme. The maximum level of community funding will continue in the future. However, in order to ensure budgetary stability, an annual cap of EUR 500 million is envisaged for the financial contribution of the EU.

  Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE), in writing. – (PL) I endorsed the recommendation on the distribution of free food to the most needy citizens of the EU with full conviction. I have supported the work of food banks, social committees and non-governmental organisations operating in Poland, particularly in the Podkarpacie region, for a long time. The EU programme is an important initiative that should be continued and developed, which is why I think we must conduct further talks with all the EU institutions so that the programme does not end in 2013.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – In July 2011, I supported the Parliament’s Committee on Employment resolution calling on the Commission and the Council for a transitional solution for 2012 and 2013 and a new programme beyond. I do not like the fact that cofinancing has been removed from the proposal, as it would ensure that Member States spend the money efficiently and effectively. We also understand and share concerns of our Scandinavian colleagues. However, at a time of economic crisis, it is important that we have a mechanism at European level to ensure that we are able to get food to those most in need. Furthermore, it is a good thing that money from the agricultural budget is being used to meet the needs of all citizens, not just farmers.

  Clemente Mastella (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Full Union funding for the programme to distribute food to the most deprived persons must be maintained We think it is worth ensuring that the current rate of 100% EU funding for the programme is retained for the future but, in order to ensure its budgetary stability, an annual ceiling of EUR 500 million for the Union’s financial contribution is foreseen.

We welcome the inclusion of a number of substantial changes suggested by Parliament, namely: the notion of the Union origin of the foods; the obligation for distribution points to clearly display the participation of the Union in the plan; purchase of food products to be made on the basis of competitive procedures; reimbursement of storage costs incurred by charitable organisations.

  Barbara Matera (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I have voted in favour of a procedure that can take important steps to help the most deprived EU citizens. The European institutions are duty-bound to intervene financially to support the charitable organisations that look after the disadvantaged and the needy among the population. Due to the harsh winter, many people have died as a result of the lethal combination of cold and malnutrition. Confronted with these deaths, we cannot continue to stand by and take no action. That is why I am pleased that the Council has adopted a number of substantial amendments suggested by Parliament, especially the amendment providing for full Union funding for the food distribution programme.

  Marisa Matias (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The European Union is facing a grave crisis of poverty and social exclusion. With the impact of the economic and social crisis, and of the austerity being implemented, this problem is worsening, resulting in more unemployment, pension cuts, low wages, greater vulnerability and more poverty. In this context, it is crucial to support stepping up the food distribution programme for the most deprived persons. I therefore voted for this report.

  Iosif Matula (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Food aid distribution in the EU is necessary as a result of the increase in the number of people in precarious situations, as new Member States joined the EU, but also due to the rise in food prices. Every EU citizen has the right to be granted access to food. Thus, funds must be allocated to cover the cost of procurement on the intervention stock market adequately. It is the EU’s responsibility to provide food resources and reduce food insecurity among its citizens. Investment in people’s welfare is an essential component of the healthy development of each individual, contributing to the prosperity of the EU. The cold wave during this period that has hit the centre and south-east of the continent, including my country, Romania, confirms the importance of implementing a rigorous plan for food distribution. Preventive measures, such as the one we are debating today, can reduce the suffering of the poor and, in the long term, can remove some of the barriers to the development of the EU to its full capacity. These are some of the reasons why I support the report on food distribution to the most deprived persons in the Union.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) As many of my fellow Members pointed out during the debate, the future of the programme after 2013 remains unresolved. Accordingly, I think that Parliament, together with the Commission and the Council, should immediately start working on concrete proposals that will allow the programme to be continued and that demonstrate that the EU takes care of its most vulnerable citizens.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. – The food distribution programme for the most deprived persons in the Union provides food aid for nearly 18 million Europeans with an aid package of EUR 500 million per year. I voted in favour of this report and welcome this important step towards assisting the 40 million people currently living in poverty in Europe.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) The decision taken by the Council under pressure from certain governments is totally unacceptable. At a time when the Council is imposing unprecedented restrictions on the people of Europe, it is destroying one of the rare solidarity mechanisms of the European Union. It is even withdrawing charity from those it is starving. It is shameful. Today, it has left Members with a single choice: let good people starve to death in the days to come or accept aid today and its disappearance tomorrow. This Europe is not worth anything any longer. We are going to rebuild it.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The food distribution scheme for the most deprived individuals, set up in 1987 under the common agricultural policy, currently provides food aid for 13 million people suffering from poverty in 19 Member States and has distribution chains encompassing some 240 food banks and charities. According to the Commission’s own estimates, 43 million people in the European Union are at risk of food poverty, a number set to rise due to the economic and financial crisis and the sharp increase in food prices. We must therefore try to avoid an immediate and drastic reduction in food aid as a result of the reduction in funding for the programme from EUR 500 million to EUR 113 million. Halting an existing and functioning aid scheme abruptly and without prior notice or preparation will have a major impact on the most vulnerable EU citizens. It is therefore necessary to find a way to continue with the food distribution scheme for the most deprived people in 2012 and 2013 – the remainder of the current funding period – and also for the new funding period, 2014-2020. Following a number of deadlocks in the Council that have led to delays with this programme, there is an urgent need to overcome the problems, if those in need of aid are not to continue being harmed.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (ES) A positive political signal is being sent through this report to the most deprived people who are personally suffering from the crisis. Given that the crisis in Europe has meant that the number of people who are on the threshold of poverty has increased exponentially, I have voted in favour of this report. I believe it could lead to temporary assistance for these people. Charity is not the solution, however. The solution will involve structural changes and the abandonment of the neoliberal policies that have led these people into poverty, together with a commitment to a social Europe. That means a Europe which places its citizens at the heart of its concerns and which uses European resources to promote the well-being of its citizens, rather than big business and the financial sector.

  Louis Michel (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) In this period of economic, social and financial crisis, the EU needs to show solidarity towards the more than 18 million most deprived persons in Europe. That is why I voted for extending this aid programme, which has been in existence for more than 25 years. This decision is the right one, because the EU is far more than an economic project. It is a way of living together and sharing values. Without solidarity, Europe loses all legitimacy. A growth strategy only makes sense if it is accompanied by a social strategy. We need to think about what will happen after 2013. We need to establish a European strategy to help the 3 million homeless people in Europe. The European model is a social model. If proof were needed, the Europe 2020 strategy counts combating poverty and social exclusion among its five priorities. We must not forget our commitments during the establishment of the new financial framework, which will be up and running from 2014. A lasting solution will have to be found which leaves no one by the wayside.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – If there is a possibility of market purchases of food products in the event of unavailability of suitable intervention stocks for food distribution, then it is important to guarantee continuation of the food aid programme, on the most appropriate legal basis, in the next financial period. I voted in favour.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) Although the EU is one of the wealthiest regions in the world, around 16% of the people in the EU live on or just above the poverty line. This means that 43 million people in the European Union are affected by food poverty and cannot afford a proper, balanced meal every second day. As many as 18 million people rely on the EU ‘Food for Free’ programme. Germany, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands and the Czech Republic took a case concerning the legal basis for the programme before the Court of Justice of the European Union and, last April, the court ruled in their favour. The reason for this is that, according to the court ruling, the programme does not fall within the scope of agricultural policy, but should instead be part of social policy. This will be resolved at the level of the individual Member States. In the absence of a new resolution by the Member States, the EU must now bring the food aid programme for the most deprived people to an end. In past years, EUR 480 million has been available on an annual basis for the programme. Now the figure is only EUR 113 million and, from 2013, no more funding will be forthcoming. I have voted in favour of the report because I agree with the rapporteur that any further delays will affect deprived EU citizens and this would definitely not be a responsible way to behave.

  Elisabeth Morin-Chartier (PPE), in writing. – (FR) By voting for this text, I supported the need to reassure MDP recipients. The blocking minority gave way to the need not to take away vital support from associations and the most deprived people they help. However, we should not be satisfied with this compromise. It was necessary to find an urgent solution, but the priority now is to identify a long-term solution. We cannot content ourselves with this partial agreement and the Council of the European Union must not hide behind legal arguments. Between the economic crisis across Europe and the particularly harsh winters this year, our fellow citizens must find in Europe the solidarity they expect.

  Tiziano Motti (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The proposal on distributing food to the poor has remained blocked in the Council for some two years. For people who live in misery, two months, two weeks or two days would have been too long. It is also worth considering that the Commission’s amended proposal of 3 October 2011 and the Council’s position being discussed in this House have incorporated all the substantial amendments adopted by Parliament at first reading, supporting the funding for the programme, which the Union will continue to pay for in its entirety. We have maintained full Union funding for the programme for the future, but in order to ensure its budgetary stability, an annual ceiling of EUR 500 million for the Union’s financial contribution is foreseen. Other substantial changes suggested by EP amendments have been accepted in their essence, namely: the notion of the Union origin of the foods; the obligation for distribution points to clearly display the participation of the Union in the plan; and purchase of food products to be made on the basis of competitive procedures. Furthermore, storage costs incurred by charitable organisations will be reimbursed. Finally, this is a compromise that we think is worthy of support, and we hope it gets the green light in short order.

  Mariya Nedelcheva (PPE), in writing. – (BG) I voted in favour of the report by Czesław Adam Siekierski on ‘Distribution of food products to the most deprived persons in the Union’ because I am convinced that this is an important step towards improving the conditions of the most vulnerable citizens in the EU. I believe that it is these people who have been affected most directly by the economic crisis, and that now is the time for us to send an important political message by showing that the EU is doing everything in its power to help the most deprived at one of the most difficult times. The programme serves to show that the EU is responsible for its citizens not only in terms of progress and stability, and this is an important message not just for us but for the entire world. It provides concrete support to over 18 million people in 19 Member States in a similar way to the ‘School Fruit Scheme’ and ‘School Milk Scheme’. This is a rather large percentage of the EU population, and I am of the opinion that any further delays will have a negative impact on all the programme’s beneficiaries, which is the last thing we should be doing to them. Finally, I would like to add that we need to be more ambitious in our intentions to find a way for us to guarantee support to the needy after 2013 as well.

  Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the report and welcome the fact that it was passed with such an extraordinary majority of votes. This programme is one of the most important social protection programmes undertaken by the European Union, and the majority vote today allows us to hope that Parliament, the Council and the Commission will find solutions in the course of this year to ensure its continuation after 2013. The fact that every thirtieth European citizen is dependent on this programme is enough to give us food for thought in this regard, and Parliament’s efforts in this direction should start straight away.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. – (DE) Given that an estimated 43 million people in the EU are currently threatened by food poverty and that, as a result of the economic and financial crisis and the dramatic increase in food prices, this figure is continuing to grow, I support this report and all the measures which it proposes. For me, the focus should be on creating jobs and sensible social security systems.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution. The right to food is a fundamental human right, and is achieved when all people, at all times, have physical and economically feasible access to suitable, safe and nutritious food. Food aid measures are one element in a larger integrated policy to combat poverty. Given the current economic, financial and social crisis, the provision of aid at European level to the most vulnerable and poorest members of society is vitally important and cannot suddenly be reduced or cancelled. Only through joint efforts, by implementing coordinated and effective measures, will we be able to ensure that people dependent on our food aid do not suffer from food poverty simply because there was a significant reduction in funding for food aid.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) The food aid programme is used by 18 million EU citizens. It has become even more important during the crisis. In Lithuania alone, more than half a million citizens on low incomes ask for food aid. With increasing energy prices due to high heating costs, an increasing number of working families and families with children are falling into poverty. The unemployed, and some elderly and disabled people and single mothers are living in poverty. The extension of this programme is therefore vitally important. It is to be welcomed that the European Commission and the Council have found a consensus on the extension of the programme during 2012-2013 and have provided EUR 500 million for its implementation. This decision by the EU institutions proves that European solidarity is not a paper principle. I welcome this report, which underlines the importance of food originating in the EU, and the proper and transparent purchase and distribution of foodstuffs. Following this transition period of several years, we also need to ensure the continuation of the programme and the work of non-government organisations like the FoodBank.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the text on the adoption of the regulation on the distribution of food products to the most deprived persons in the Union because it involves the realisation of one of the main objectives of the common agricultural policy (CAP). The text has been drawn up on exactly the same lines as the Council’s position and sets out the Commission’s responsibilities to fund the programme in its entirety. The EU will have a EUR 500 million budget to fund the project from 1 January 2012 until the end of 2013, with a particular view to stepping up future funding in line with the Europe 2020 strategy. Another important goal that has been set is that of ensuring that all the food to be distributed is of Union origin.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of the recommendation. The agreement achieved between the Member States in the Council to increase financing for the programme to distribute food to deprived persons to EUR 500 million per annum (from EUR 113 million initially proposed by certain Member States) is, of course, most welcome. In these very difficult economic times, with unemployment increasing in numerous Member States, especially those hit by the economic crisis, such as Greece, governments and national bodies must focus their attention on making full use of these funds. In previous years, we have seen inefficient take-up of funds due to a lack of information for the bodies involved, red tape and other such factors. It is unforgivable in terms of the social framework of Europe for money available for such a sensitive issue, for which no national contribution is required, to go to waste as a result of negligence.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report so as to enable 100% EU finding for the programme in 2012 and 2013. I also voted for all the substantive amendments tabled by Parliament and accepted by the Council. I am referring, in particular, to the notion of the EU origin of the foods; to the obligation for distribution points to clearly display EU participation in the plan; to the purchase of food products being made on the basis of competitive procedures; and to the reimbursement of storage costs incurred by charitable organisations. At this point, I am also bound to express my deep concern about the future of this programme, when there is currently an agreement in the Council that it will be gradually abolished following the conclusion of the 2013 annual plan. This programme has been key to mitigating the problems of many of our poor. We cannot accept the ‘death foretold’ of this programme in the current situation of universal economic crisis, which has unfortunately seen a dramatic rise in the number of poor people.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The Council blocking the proposal on the distribution of food products for two years has created an urgent situation. Moreover, in its resolution of 7 July 2011, Parliament called on the Commission and the Council to develop a transitional solution for the last two years of the funding period (2012-2013) so as to avoid a sharp cutback in food aid, as a result of the reduction in funding from EUR 500 million to EUR 113 million, and to ensure that people dependent on food aid do not suffer from food poverty. In light of this, I am voting in favour of the proposal on Parliament accepting the Council’s position adopted at first reading on 23 January 2012 without making any amendments

  Alojz Peterle (PPE), in writing. – (SL) I support the regulation because I believe that in the current circumstances, such an expression of solidarity at a European level for people in need is justified, necessary and appreciated. I welcome the decision to include food originating in the European Union in the food distribution scheme.

  Franck Proust (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I wanted to clearly position myself in favour of this reform, so as to legally guarantee aid for the most deprived in 2012 and 2013. Previously threatened by Germany and the Nordic countries, a compromise was reached last year. I welcome the decisive action taken by France and other countries. This is an important step. However, we must remain mobilised and commit to aid in the long term. The same countries that once jeopardised this aid want to see it disappear completely from 2014. Solidarity and unity are at the heart of Europe. These countries are sending out a message which completely contradicts the realities of millions of our fellow citizens. In Gard, this aid is valuable, even vital, for the associations which support the most deprived on a daily basis. I will continue to defend these values.

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) In today’s plenary session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg, we voted on the report by Mr Siekierski. The food programme for the EU’s most deprived citizens supports around 18 million EU citizens who are homeless, unemployed, old or disabled, as well as large families and single parents. Thanks to the agreement reached in the Council and the vote held today, the programme will carry on providing food to EU citizens in need for a further two years. This has made it possible to avoid a massive reduction in food aid at a time when the number of people in need is on the increase due to the effects of the global crisis.

  Robert Rochefort (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) For 25 years now, the European food aid programme for the most deprived persons has provided EUR 18 billion annually to European citizens. Due to the blocking which persisted for two years at the Council, an emergency decision had to be taken to ensure the continuation of funding, and thereby help people in need, by rescuing the associations concerned from a difficult situation. I therefore voted in favour of Czesław Adam Siekierski’s recommendation, which contains the compromise reached with the Council. This text includes essential points, such as the continuation of funding until 2013 inclusive and the retroactivity of the decision from 1 January 2012. Furthermore, the Council’s position is consistent with the principal recommendations made by the European Parliament, which I strongly support: 100% EU funding, the possibility of giving preference to products of EU origin, displaying the participation of the EU – an important provision to increase the visibility of the added value of European action – and the reimbursement of storage costs incurred by associations. I hope that, from now on, the debates will continue in order to ensure a future for this programme after 2013 and that the Commission will play its part by publishing a proposal soon.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. The current vote offers a solution for the coming two years, so that the 18 million people who are dependent on the programme are not suddenly left without food. The two years are meant to be used as a transition period, in which the foodbanks can prepare themselves for a future without direct food aid from the EU. However, the debate is polarised between those who want to see it continue indefinitely and those who would like it to stop as soon as possible. The danger is that foodbanks will do nothing and we will be faced with the same problem in two years’ time. The Greens advocate a constructive alternative. For the longer term, we want structural solutions to food security and alleviating food poverty. Ultimately, the aim is that foodbanks are redundant, because poverty would have been eradicated.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of this document because I think that accepting the position adopted by the Council on 23 January 2012 is a matter of priority, since it has incorporated the amendments put forward by Parliament at first reading. Accordingly, I think it should be adopted without any further amendments so that an agreement can be reached quickly at second reading. The ultimate goal must be to provide the fastest possible help to the beneficiaries of this food distribution programme, who are the most deprived persons in the European Union.

  Tokia Saïfi (PPE), in writing. – (FR) In its early days, Europe was an exciting economic adventure; then it grew strong political ties; finally, it developed its social dimension and became involved in improving the living conditions of its citizens. The European Union, true to its history and founding principles, is therefore oriented towards protecting the most vulnerable, those struggling to survive and the hungry. As some of my colleagues have argued, it is true that food aid is the responsibility of the Member States, which support, as best they can, the needs of the most deprived. Nevertheless, given the enormous social or even humanitarian consequences of situations of extreme poverty, Europe cannot do without a programme for the distribution of food products. However, this has been the case for the last two years (distribution blocked for legal reasons) and thousands of Europeans have most certainly paid the price. Therefore, I welcomed news of a compromise reinstating the programme for 2012-2013, a compromise in favour of which I voted in plenary.

  Marie-Thérèse Sanchez-Schmid (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The mobilisation of civil society by a number of governments (notably the French Government) and the actions of the European Parliament have paid off, and we should congratulate ourselves. The Food distribution programme for the most deprived persons in the Community (MDP) will be extended to at least 2013, allowing charitable organisations throughout Europe to gain some respite during this period of serious economic crisis. It also gives us to time to convince those who once voted against the renewal of the programme after 2013 that Europe only makes sense if it promotes solidarity for its most at-risk citizens. Over 18 million homeless, unemployed, elderly people or people with disabilities, and those from large families and single-parent families, are dependent on this European Union aid. Can we really say to them: ‘make the most of it, as it is not going to last’? The new European Social Fund regulation is looking to fill the hole left by the decline in available agricultural stocks in order to continue to come to the aid of the poorest people. Currently in codecision, this regulation is an occasion for the European Parliament to show that the interests of certain Member States will not prevail against common interests and to demonstrate our vision of a social, united Europe.

  Vilja Savisaar-Toomast (ALDE), in writing. – (ET) Today, I supported the conclusion of the second reading of the report regarding the distribution of food products to the most deprived persons in the Union. I believe that this report is extremely important, considering the economic conditions of recent years and the increased need for food aid. I concur with the rapporteur that this report must be adopted as quickly as possible and without amendment in order to ensure the rapid, efficient and sustainable continuation of food aid. I am glad that after two years of blocking, the Council has decided to move forward and has also taken into consideration several positions that were previously expressed in Parliament. Among the positive developments, we can emphasise the fact that the Commission and the Council have agreed to a 100% rate of financing, and have also set the total amount of aid at EUR 500 million. One important point that I would like to emphasise is that I wholeheartedly support the distribution of food originating from the EU, which is also supported in the Council’s positions.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Following the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development’s approval of the Council’s text without any amendments, this House is this morning called to vote on the adoption of the regulation on the distribution of food products for the most deprived persons in the Union. Once approved, the regulation will take retroactive effect, applying from 1 January 2012 until the completion of the 2013 annual plan.

An annual ceiling of EUR 500 million is envisaged for full Union funding for the programme. The proposal incorporates the notion of the Union origin of the foods, the obligation for distribution points to clearly display the participation of the Union in the plan, the purchase of food products to be made on the basis of competitive procedures, and the reimbursement of storage costs incurred by charitable organisations.

On behalf of Parliament, we MEPs now call for unconditional support for continuing the programme beyond 2013, in view of future proposals from the Commission on the multiannual financial framework 2014-2020.

  Bogusław Sonik (PPE), in writing. – (PL) I endorsed continuation of the EU programme for the distribution of food to the most deprived persons. Aid programmes are very much needed at the moment. During the economic crisis, which is hitting hardest at the poor, the Union should be doing its best to protect the interests of those most affected by poverty. Cofinancing from national budgets is not a good solution, because this could place restrictions on some Member States or even exclude them from participation in the programme, particularly those countries in which per capita income is low. The beneficiaries of the EU food distribution programme are most often homeless, unemployed or elderly people, but the programme is also used by families with many children and single parents. The statistics show that over 18 million poor people in 20 Member States benefit from the programme.

  Michèle Striffler (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I am very pleased with the European Parliament’s approval of the continued funding for the EU’s Food distribution programme for the most deprived persons in the Community (MDP), which will last for two additional years (2012 and 2013), in an agreement that was reached in October by the Council of the European Union. The few Council members who opposed this measure yielded in view of the pressing need to not deprive associations and the most deprived persons of essential support. Nevertheless, we must not rest on our laurels with this compromise: a stop-gap solution was needed, but now, finding a long-term response should be a priority. We must not be satisfied with this partial agreement and I urge the Council of the European Union to not take refuge in legal arguments but to embrace a sense of responsibility. Now it is the turn of the European Union Member States to show their willingness to act.

  Ciprian Claudiu Tănăsescu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I welcome the fact that, following negotiations with the Council, it has been decided to continue the distribution of food to the most deprived people in the 2012-2013 period. I wish, however, to emphasise that this positive vote granted to the compromise text does not represent in any way support for the Member States that envisage the complete elimination of this aid by the end of 2013. On the contrary, I think that now more than ever, the current economic situation shows us how important it is to continue this programme during the next period as well, i.e. 2014-2020.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In this recommendation, Parliament is proposing to adopt the Council position at first reading with a view to the adoption of a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards distribution of food products to the most deprived persons in the Union. Since the Council position includes all the substantive amendments tabled by Parliament at first reading, and since I believe, in particular, that full EU funding for the programme should be retained, I voted in favour.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the draft recommendation for second reading on the Council’s position at first reading with a view to the adoption of a regulation to continue the distribution of food products to the most deprived persons in the Union. Given the urgency of the situation generated by the Council blocking the proposal for two years, we believe that any delay in adopting this regulation would only result in prolonging the suffering of the most deprived EU citizens who could benefit from the food distribution programme.

In the Commission’s amended proposal of 3 October 2011 and in the Council’s position currently under review, all the substantial amendments made by Parliament on first reading on maintaining full EU funding for the programme have been included. The current level of 100% EU funding is maintained and, in order to ensure budgetary stability, an annual cap of EUR 500 million has been provided. The proposal that the food should come from the EU was also incorporated.

We emphasise the need to continue this programme of food distribution to the most deprived even after 2013, and urge the Commission to present a legislative proposal in this regard as soon as possible. Over 18 million people benefited from this programme in 2010.

  Thomas Ulmer (PPE), in writing. – (DE) The European Parliament has rescued the food aid programme for the most deprived people and I was pleased to be able to vote in favour of this. Almost 20 million citizens rely at least in part on the EU food aid programme. The programme now has funding of EUR 500 million until the end of 2013, which will enable it to take action. We were able to prevent the funding being reduced to a quarter of its current level, as the Council had proposed.

  Viktor Uspaskich (ALDE), in writing. – (LT) According to a Eurostat report published last week, 20% of Lithuanians are living on the poverty line. That is one of the highest rates in Europe. In Greece, for instance, the rate is 11.6%, while in the Czech Republic it is 6.2%. In Lithuania, the at-risk-of-poverty rate is much higher than the EU average (8.1%). In single parent families in Lithuania, this rate is 46%. It is therefore obvious that we cannot significantly reduce the distribution of food when the number of poor people is increasing. I agree with the rapporteur that we should seek a compromise with the Council on the scheme for ‘food distribution to the most deprived persons’ because it is shameful that the proposal was blocked for as much as two years at the Council. The compromise is perhaps a temporary measure, but would address a difficult situation for people who are dependent on the scheme and would give sufficient time for further negotiations on the implementation of the scheme post 2014. The report states that 18 million of the most deprived people in the EU are dependent on this food scheme. We cannot allow bureaucratic procedures to prevent us from helping those who urgently require our assistance.

  Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. – I fully support this resolution to continue the distribution of food to those most in need in our society. The programme supports almost 18 million people, including the unemployed, the homeless, single parents and the disabled. This important resolution will enable these people to continue benefiting from the scheme at least until the end of 2013. In the current economic climate, schemes such as this are vital in helping to guarantee the welfare of EU citizens.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) Given the importance of the food aid programme for the most deprived people, this regulation must be adopted immediately in order to prevent further delays. The European Parliament’s main amendments, including the clear indication of the participation of the EU in the plan, the purchase of food on the basis of competitive procedures and the concept of the EU origins of the food, have been accepted. For this reason, I have voted in favour.

  Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR), in writing. – While I recognise that this scheme has helped many needy people across Europe, I do not believe that the common agricultural policy should be spending money on social actions. We must do more to stop food wastage and we must also ensure that the most deprived members of society receive the help that they need. However, I am not persuaded that this is a job for the European Union and I am certainly not convinced that this is a job for the common agricultural policy.

  Roberts Zīle (ECR), in writing. – (LV) I call upon you to support the agreement that has been reached concerning the regulation, because it has a comprehensible, clear goal: continuing to offer EU support to the neediest people in the Union. I also think we should endorse the move to adopt the regulation at so-called ‘early second reading’, in order to prevent delays to the food programme, which would exacerbate the situation for those in need. It is also important to continue the programme in view of the fact that the euro area crisis and the unimpressive forecasts for the EU’s economic situation make it impossible for us to hope for an increase in economic activity and people’s prosperity over the next few years. I should like to stress that, given Latvia’s socio-economic situation, it would be a political mistake to eliminate the food programme on the basis of purely theoretical considerations about whether or not it complies with the subsidiarity principle. As a result of the crisis, Latvia’s people are suffering huge losses and a drop in real living standards, and the poorest have become even poorer. In part, this has happened because of the method chosen for resolving the crisis, with Latvia’s taxpayers taking responsibility for covering private debts and, at the same time, a decision not to devalue the national currency. This led to a highly significant reduction in government spending and a dramatic fall in GDP. The people of Latvia, particularly the poorest, in fact saved the Scandinavian and European bank system from considerable shocks. It would therefore be only logical if the EU were to look after the fate of Latvians, at least in the form of packages of the most essential food items.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The latest Eurostat figures, for 2010, show that we are in a tragic situation in terms of poverty and social exclusion: 26.9% of children aged 0-17 and 19.8% of older people are at risk of poverty. In total, 115 million people in the European Union are at risk of poverty; that is equivalent to 23.4% of the population. These figures will certainly be worse today, owing to the impact of the so-called ‘austerity measures’, with more unemployment and lower wages for workers. Moreover, decreased social rights and the increased prices and privatisation of public services have further exacerbated this situation.

In this context, it is even more crucial to continue with and step up the food distribution scheme programme for the most deprived persons, so as to ensure that those dependent on food aid – and the many more currently becoming so – will not suffer food poverty. We therefore voted for the report. However, we consider it essential to decide immediately that this aid will be retained for the next financing period, 2014-2020, at least under the current conditions; that is, the full annual European Union funding of EUR 500 million.

  Milan Zver (PPE), in writing. – (SL) After two years of deadlock, we have finally made a decision about the food distribution scheme. I am pleased that there are two parliamentary proposals in the final compromise proposal, incorporating 100 per cent financing by the EU and an obligation to indicate at distribution points the Union’s participation in the scheme. Several European countries are facing budgetary problems. By requesting cofinancing from other countries, it is possible that many countries could reduce their use of the scheme or even withdraw from it completely. Since last March, the number of unemployed in the EU has risen by well over a million. The number of people living in poverty has also increased at an alarming rate. The proposal providing for the participation of the Union may seem, at first glance, to be something of a cosmetic measure. In these difficult times, however, when we are faced with economic problems and doubt and mistrust of European integration, it is paramount that the weakest and most vulnerable members of our society know they are not alone. They must know that the EU is not only a synonym for the common internal market, but also represents solidarity and care for individuals, especially those who find themselves in need. It is alarming that the scheme will be gradually phased out after completion of the 2013 annual plan. I very much hope that by then, we have found a satisfactory solution to helping the most vulnerable.

Recommendation for second reading: Gunnar Hökmark (A7-0019/2012)

  Damien Abad (PPE), in writing. – (FR) During this digital era, the demand for radio waves is growing. Therefore, it is essential that the EU establish a concrete policy on the subject. For this reason, I am in favour of the first European common radio spectrum policy programme. The gradual disappearance of analogue television from now until 2013, as it is replaced by digital, will free up radio frequencies which could help to improve mobile Internet. This programme also advocates access to broadband Internet in remote areas.

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) At this time of economic crisis, the importance of the communications sector must be stressed, since it is currently the sector most associated with economic growth. It also contributes to the continuous creation of new services for the European public and it represents value added for the European Union to exploit. The Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament advocates the innovative management of this vast spectrum by the European Union, for the purposes of economic, social and cultural well-being. The adoption of this report will enhance cooperation among the Member States, with the trend being towards harmonisation, with a single EU-level strategic instrument on the radio spectrum. This will make it possible to resolve shortcomings, to reduce the differences between Member States, and to find the best economic, social and cultural solutions.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this legislative resolution on radio spectrum policy. I welcome the resolution’s second reading, consolidating such important achievements as freeing up the 800 MHz frequency band for wireless broadband Internet services in all Member States by 1 January 2013 and speeding up the development of mobile broadband of at least 30 Mbps by 2020 for all EU citizens, etc. I agree with the rapporteur that this political agreement will pave the way for a development that will allow the EU to take the global lead on broadband speeds, mobility, coverage and capacity. This agreement will also be particularly important for creating a flexible and coordinated European spectrum policy.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this recommendation, which aims to make the 800 MHz frequency band available to telecommunications providers. Currently used for television, it will allow the future broadening and improvement of wireless broadband Internet performance and access from 1 January 2013. This rare resource is a factor of economic progress, which is beneficial for citizens as strategic planning and the harmonisation of spectrum use will be utilised in a number of areas, such as maritime transport, health care, the environment or even defence. Mr Hökmark (Sweden), from the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), stated that this programme ‘affords opportunities for both European industry and for new services and growth’. He also specified that ‘it does not only impact on telecommunications, but also offers a new economic dynamic to the European Union’, in order to regain a competitive edge in a new global economy which now includes large competitors such as China and India.

  Sergio Berlato (PPE), in writing. – (IT) In 2010, the Commission tabled a proposal establishing the first radio spectrum policy programme and setting out policy orientations and objectives for the strategic planning and harmonisation of the use of the spectrum until 2015. Following five informal trialogues, the EU’s Parliament and Council have reached a policy agreement on the legislative proposal in question. I am pleased with the policy agreement, which lays the foundations for development that will enable the European Union to take a global lead on broadband speeds, mobility, coverage and capacity. In my view, this will be a crucial building block in creating a flexible and coordinated European radio spectrum policy, which will make it possible to meet the exponential growth of mobile data traffic. Furthermore, the endorsement by Member States and by Parliament of the Commission’s proposal to open up the 800 MHz band for electronic communication services by 1 January 2013 will help to create a pan-European telecommunications market where new services could generate jobs and growth for a 500 million strong consumer market.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because I agree that during the economic downturn, we must improve and develop the telecommunications sector because it is one of the sectors creating the most jobs, thereby making a significant contribution to economic growth. It is also one of those sectors in which innovative technological solutions are most quickly adapted and people are offered the most new services. The objective of this document is to establish a common radio spectrum management framework throughout the EU. Indeed, this is a public resource, not subject to countries’ borders, and its management at European Union level would help balance the interests of both broadcasters and citizens and would ensure European cultural diversity. The practical expression of this coordinated management will allow the radio frequency hitherto used by analogue television to be used for wireless broadband Internet. This will consequently reduce pressure on ‘third generation’ networks currently used, will contribute to bringing fast broadband connections to people in remote areas, and will give a new impetus to wireless Internet services across Europe.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – I voted for this report as it intends to reject a new attempt by the EU to introduce new legislation and take over control of part of the telecommunications market. I oppose the new strategic planning and unnecessary harmonisation of spectrum use/radio frequencies. I believe that the development and control of the radio spectrum should remain in the hands of democratically elected Member States, which should solely regulate in this area and decide upon what strategies to pursue to ensure the promotion of the development of broadband connectivity and availability.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this text because it will encourage the use of mobile broadband and will stimulate economic growth in the EU. I am pleased to know that a pan-European telecommunications market will create new opportunities, will open up new territory and will stimulate the growth of a market with 500 million consumers. Access to the radio spectrum is essential to a huge range of activities: telecommunications, energy, research and, above all, global development. It will also enable all Europeans, in the city and the country, to enjoy the benefits of digital technology and broadband connections. I voted for this report in plenary for all these reasons.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) We have been working to promote a coordinated EU approach, so as to prevent market distortions, to maximise the benefits of the spectrum, and to ensure its best possible use in social, economic and environmental terms. This initiative relating to the radio spectrum is key to the Digital Agenda and the Europe 2020 strategy, since use of the spectrum is increasingly important to sustainable development, to competitiveness and to productivity in the internal market, at the level of various important EU sectoral policies.

Given that the radio spectrum is a scarce resource, this initiative should make it possible to set out guidelines and political objectives for the strategic planning and harmonisation of use of the spectrum until 2015, thereby contributing to the existence of a flexible and coordinated European policy that ensures that radio frequencies will be allocated and used efficiently and effectively. I would congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Hökmark, on having achieved a political agreement with the Council, paving the way for a development that should allow the EU to take the global lead on broadband speeds, mobility, coverage and capacity.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report on the reorganisation and freeing up of radio spectrum frequency bands, which will allow all European citizens, in both urban and rural settings, to reap greater benefits from the advantages of digital technology and high speed broadband connections.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Since the dawn of the digital era, frequency bands have been freed up and can meet the growing demand for new technology and new services. Due to the scarcity of the spectrum and its economic, social and cultural value, it has been agreed on a European level that priorities for the allocation and use of radio spectrum will be established. This programme makes provisions for general regulatory standards and policy developments as well as joint provisions in order to strengthen efficiency and flexibility, protecting and encouraging competition, and calls for an inventory and the monitoring of the existing uses and emerging needs of the spectrum. The report also pays particular attention to an efficient use of the spectrum, to greater flexibility to encourage innovation and investments and guarantee fair conditions of competition in the European Union and to the need for a consolidation of the proposal for an inventory of the existing uses and emerging needs of the spectrum. The European Parliament has managed to implement a large scale inventory of the existing use of the spectrum from 400 MHz to 6 GHz, in order to create a flexible and coordinated European spectrum policy, allowing it to rectify inefficient use of the spectrum and to cope with the exponential increase of wireless data exchange by future reallocation of frequency bands.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report on radio spectrum policy because it includes measures to increase the European legal framework as regards the radio spectrum and, therefore, to make better use of the associated economic, social and cultural benefits.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Access to the radio spectrum is key to guaranteeing all European citizens, whether in rural or urban areas, access to digital technologies and broadband, and the total turnover of this industry is approximately EUR 200 billion. Therefore, given the value of the radio spectrum, it is imperative to set out the EU’s priorities for its allocation and use. The Digital Agenda, the digital economy and this, the first policy programme for five years, are therefore aimed at stimulating our economy and realising the Internal Market in all its aspects. It is crucial for the European telecommunications industry to regain its global leadership and create an impetus for greater productivity, cohesion, competitiveness and access to a single market.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In the past, the European Union led the way in technological innovation, particularly as regards mobile communications. As the years have gone by, both the United States and Japan, as well as other countries with emerging economies, have been taking the lead in this area. The time has come for the EU to reclaim the leadership in this regard, by taking advantage of the new opportunities offered by the Internet. This is a new dynamic that could help to relaunch the European economy. The text before us is a recommendation for second reading on the Council position at first reading with a view to the adoption of a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a multiannual radio spectrum policy programme. The data being transmitted online is currently increasing exponentially. However, radio-frequency transfer conditions have not been keeping pace with demand, despite the installation of fibre optic cables. I voted for this recommendation, since I am sure of the benefits of the multiannual plan to increase frequencies, specifically to 800 MHz by 2013 and to 1 200 MHz by 2015. The economy of the future will be a digital economy and, with these measures, the EU is making progress in terms of competitiveness.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This proposal sets out the guidelines and political objectives for strategically planning and harmonising the use of the radio spectrum by 2015. While we agree that there is a need to plan and organise the radio spectrum, we consider it essential that this be done in a context of cooperation among the Member States, retaining it as a public good and keeping it free of guidelines intended to put the radio spectrum at the service of the ‘Europe 2020 strategy’, the ‘Digital Agenda for Europe’ and the ‘Single Market Act’. Policies whose purpose is supposed to be improving the market, competitiveness and competition for the launch of the so-called ‘digital single market’ have, in reality, contributed greatly to exacerbating the crisis of capitalism and its negative consequences for the public. The radio spectrum, from low frequencies to very high ones, has been argued over and used for multiple purposes, so opening the way to the business of future EU-level digital services and fostering genuine competition. However, it is essential to preserve and defend space for public access, and to prevent it all being committed to commercial ends, which is the track down which European Union policy is headed.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) In September 2010, the European Commission presented a proposal for a decision establishing the first radio spectrum policy programme, which was based on Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 8a(3) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002, which provides that the Commission may submit a legislative proposal establishing a multiannual radio spectrum policy programme. The proposal sets out the policy direction and objectives for strategic planning and the harmonisation of spectrum usage for the period until 2015. This proposal will enable the EU to take the lead with regard to broadband speed, mobility and coverage. It is a prerequisite for the creation of a flexible and coordinated European radio spectrum policy. Making the 800 MHz band available for electronic communications services from 1 January 2013 will contribute to the creation of a pan-European telecommunications market, and new services can create opportunities for the consumer market. If we strive to exploit its potential, focusing mainly on the economic, social and cultural well-being of society, telecommunications is one of the sectors that is capable of bringing about growth and activity and the availability of new services for European citizens at a time of economic crisis.

  Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), in writing. – (IT) The proposal under discussion sets out the policy orientations and objectives for harmonising the use of the radio spectrum, which now affects innumerable public and private services across a vast array of sectors. The regulation that this proposal deals with will pave the way for a development that will allow the Union to take the global lead on broadband speeds, mobility, coverage and capacity, with the notable benefits for areas including the economy, security, health, culture, science, the environment and technology. That is why I will be voting in favour.

  Françoise Grossetête (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report, which promotes the use of mobile broadband and stimulates economic growth in European regions.

In May 2011, we approved measures aimed at accelerating the development of mobile broadband for everyone, using the radio spectrum freed up by the transition from analogue to digital television.

The allocation of radio frequency falls within the jurisdiction of national governments and not the European Union, but the rules on the way in which spectrum is shared between Internet providers and users must be decided at a European level. In accordance with the agreement, all European Union Member States must free up the 800 MHz frequency band for wireless broadband services by 1 January 2013.

A pan-European telecommunications market will also be created, where new services can create new opportunities to open up regions and stimulate growth for a 500 million strong consumer market.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcome the provision that this political agreement will pave the way for a development that will allow the EU to take the global lead on broadband speeds, mobility, coverage and capacity. This agreement will be a crucial building block in creating a flexible and coordinated European spectrum policy where the exponential growth of mobile data traffic can be met by future re-allocations and where inefficient use of the spectrum belongs to the past. The endorsement by Member States of the Parliament’s and Commission’s proposal to open up the 800 MHz band for electronic communications services by 1 January 2013 will help to create a pan-European telecommunications market where new services can create opportunities and growth for a 500 million strong consumer market. However, due to the economic crisis and difficult financial situation, not all of the Member States are able to implement the goals set on time, and this may become an additional burden for them, and not just a financial one. I also believe that the Member States should have more leeway when implementing the goals set because the Member States’ technical and financial capacities vary.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) In September 2010, at the request of the European Parliament, the Commission published its multiannual radio spectrum policy programme. This programme sets out policy direction and the means for implementing it in order to achieve a harmonised use of radio spectrum in the European Union for the period 2011-2015. Furthermore, it makes provisions for joint measures to strengthen efficiency and flexibility, foster innovation and encourage competition. Lastly, it calls for the implementation of an inventory of the existing uses and the emerging needs of the spectrum. Access to the radio spectrum is essential for a wide range of activities, from telecommunications and diffusion of broadband to transport, energy, research and development, and space applications. It also enables all European citizens, in both urban and rural settings, to benefit from the advantages provided by digital technology and high speed broadband connections. For these reasons, I voted in favour of this report during the plenary session.

  Edvard Kožušník (ECR), in writing. – (CS) I support the agreement reached in the trialogues conducted between the European Parliament and the Council of the EU. I am pleased that the compromise at least defends the allocation of the 1 200 MHz spectrum for mobile data transmission through to 2015. In my opinion, the accelerated development of mobile broadband connections through speeds of at least 30 Mbps is equally important for EU citizens, and should be available within the next eight years. At the same time, I understand the limits of the radio spectrum and the need to make very effective use of it. I would therefore like to call for radio spectrum policy not to be seen as a purely EU policy, but to proceed on the basis of agreement with the Member States. Failure to comply with this procedure could disrupt or restrict competition in some EU countries.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted against this report, which aims to open up radio frequencies in view of fresh allocations. Although I am in favour of a liberalised market and of introducing new competitors to the sector, I have serious doubts about how easy it will be to adopt the new frequencies and their distribution across Europe. Indeed, a road map including times and procedures needs to be set out in order to ensure adequate regulation in the sector, particularly bearing in mind the fact that this issue has a direct influence on the information sector and therefore often has significant repercussions on society and the economy. I therefore think that the goal of the digital agenda ought to be achieved in other ways and by reviewing decisions that do not currently enable the European Union to make significant improvements to radio communications policy.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Access to the radio frequency spectrum is essential for a very wide range of activities, from telephony and radio broadcasting to transportation and space applications. In order for European citizens in both urban and rural regions to enjoy all the benefits of digital technology, it is extremely important to ensure broad and fair access to the radio frequency spectrum. Moreover, the better use of the spectrum can be a boost for the European economy, as high-speed wireless services will promote competitiveness and economic development.

Following today’s report, an 800 MHz band for electronic communications services will be made available in all EU Member States by 1 January 2013, and an adequate spectrum for wireless services will be allocated, totalling at least 1 200 MHz by 2015, thus providing the best capacity for European industry. Digital economy is the key to the future, and the lines drawn by this report will ensure future economic success.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report, which seeks to ‘make sufficient and appropriate spectrum allocated for mobile data traffic, amounting to at least 1 200 MHz by 2015 to best meet the increasing demand for mobile data traffic, thereby allowing the development of commercial and public services’. It hopes to bridge the ‘digital divide’ and ‘realise the objectives of the Digital Agenda, ensuring that all Union citizens have access to broadband, not less than 30 Mbps by 2020, and making it possible for the Union to have the highest possible broadband speed and capacity’. In doing so, it hopes to secure opportunities for both the commercial sector as well as public services by means of increased mobile broadband capacities. It also aims to ‘reduce the fragmentation and fully exploit the potential of the internal market in order to establish a pan-European level playing field in order to foster economic growth and economies of scope and scale at Union level’. It further aims to ‘reduce the Union’s carbon footprint by enhancing the technical efficiency of wireless communication networks and applications’.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the report by Mr Hökmark. The agreement reached will pave the way for a development that will allow the European Union to take the global lead on broadband speeds, mobility, coverage and capacity. This is an important step towards realising a flexible and coordinated European radio spectrum strategy.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In this day and age, when new technologies have an increasingly important role, it is vital that all European citizens have the same level of access to digital technologies and broadband, regardless of whether they live in rural or urban areas. Thus, the digital agenda, the digital economy and this, the first policy programme for five years, which have just been adopted, are vital for the development of the Internal Market. The aim is for the European telecommunications industry to regain its global leadership and increase productivity, cohesion, competitiveness and access to a single market. The Member States’ adoption of the proposal by Parliament and the Council to free up the 800 MHz frequency band for wireless broadband Internet services in all Member States by January 2013 will help to create a pan-European telecommunications market, where new services can create opportunities and growth for a market of 500 million consumers.

  Alajos Mészáros (PPE), in writing. – (HU) The European Union is one of the largest economies in the world. Contrary to misconceptions, neither the US nor China have larger economies; they are simply able to provide better conditions for competitiveness, new services and innovation. The Digital Agenda and a digital economy could be the key to the EU also being able to take a global position of leadership in respect of the speed, mobility, coverage and capacity of broadband IT services. The agreement adopted just now ensures access to the largest capacities and the highest speeds for Internet and broadband applications. We must open up to new services and increased mobile traffic as soon as possible.

In the framework of broadband services, we must lay the foundations for new opportunities for culture and content, broadcasters and public services. Today, it has become almost natural to hold video conferences and meetings over the Internet, and in future, these will only grow more common. This is why we must ensure the acceleration of the development of mobile broadband so that by 2020, every EU citizen can have access to Internet connection speeds of at least 30 Mbps, thereby bridging the digital divide and contributing to the achievement of the objectives of the European Digital Agenda. With my vote, I, too, intended to contribute to this.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The first radio spectrum policy programme promotes technology neutrality, innovation and investment. It is thus a very important programme.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) The joint establishment of broadband networks and digital infrastructure will help to increase the competitiveness of the European economy, promote cooperation and interoperability among national networks, improve access to them and encourage the further development of a digital internal market. The instruments used to finance this development form part of the Connecting Europe Facility. The aim is to eliminate bottlenecks, which means creating network connections and enabling access to a digital services infrastructure across national borders. I have voted in favour of the report because the provision of a high-quality network with broad coverage can only bring benefits for the citizens of the EU Member States and for the European economy.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) As we have seen time and again, legislation often lags behind progress in the relations it regulates. This is especially true of digital technologies, for instance. I therefore welcome the view expressed by the European Parliament in this document, that at least as far as data transfer by digital and radio networks is concerned, we should not be chasing technological progress, but overtaking it and establishing lines of action for at least a decade ahead.

  Katarína Neveďalová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) Access to the radio spectrum is essential for a wide range of services, from telecommunications and broadcasting to transport and space applications. The importance of wide and equal access to the radio spectrum lies in the fact that citizens will be able to take full advantage of digital technology. Better use of the spectrum could also support the European economy, since the introduction of fast wireless services will boost competitiveness and growth. This political agreement will pave the way for development, which will enable the EU to assume a global position in terms of broadband speed, mobility, coverage and capacity. The approval of the Member States and the proposal of the European Parliament and the Commission to make the 800 MHz frequency band available for electronic communications from 1 January 2013 will contribute to the creation of a pan-European telecommunications market, where new services can create opportunities and growth for a market of 500 million consumers.

It should also be borne in mind that speeding up the development of mobile broadband to at least 30 Mbps by 2020 for all EU citizens will contribute to achieving the objectives of the Digital Agenda for Europe.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. – (DE) This report describes the political measures and objectives for the strategic planning and harmonisation of frequency use by 2015. This is intended to pave the way for a development that will allow the EU to take the global lead on broadband speeds, mobility, coverage and capacity. It will be a crucial building block in creating a flexible and coordinated European spectrum policy, where new services will open up new opportunities and, above all, ensure growth in a market of 500 million consumers. Therefore, I have voted in favour.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I believe that radio spectrum policy must be based on the principles of efficient management and use of limited resources, technological neutrality, functional parity, proportionality, transparency and non-discrimination. Furthermore, in order to implement this policy effectively, we should ensure the minimum amount of regulation necessary in this area, legal certainty in the changing market, and take appropriate account of criteria for economic development, guaranteeing effective competition, the protection of consumer rights and the objectivity of conditions and procedures. Given the importance of radio spectrum not just for the EU, but for each individual Member State, and the consequences of the last financial crisis, we must avoid hasty decisions on radio spectrum allocation. It should be noted that not all countries will be adequately prepared or have sufficient resources to implement the technical conditions for the allocation of the 800 MHz radio spectrum band by 2013. In order to safeguard against anti-competitive behaviour and anti-social measures, we should therefore ensure that regulation at EU level is kept to a minimum, and decisions on key issues should fall within the competence of the Member States.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The political agreement on a multiannual programme for radio spectrum policy reached with this report will pave the way for a development that will allow the EU to take the global lead on broadband speeds, mobility, coverage and capacity. I voted in favour because I believe it will be a crucial building block in creating a flexible and coordinated European spectrum policy, where the exponential growth of mobile data traffic can be met by future reallocations and where inefficient use of the spectrum belongs to the past. Studies indicate that the Member States’ adoption of the proposal by Parliament and the Council to free up the 800 MHz frequency band for wireless broadband Internet services in all Member States by January 2013 will help to create a pan-European telecommunications market, where new services can create opportunities and growth for a market of 500 million consumers.

  Alojz Peterle (PPE), in writing. – (SL) A few years ago, I urged the European Commission to reduce the overseas roaming charges made by mobile phone operators, resulting in a significant price reduction. Naturally, I support the continuation of a common policy in this area and I support the establishment of a multiannual radio spectrum policy programme. Opening up the 800 MHz frequency band to electronic communications services in all Member States by 1 January 2013, accelerating the development of mobile broadband services to speeds of at least 30 Mbps by 2020 for all citizens of the European Union, and the allocation of 1 200 MHz of spectrum to mobile data traffic by 2015 are truly strategic decisions, essential to the establishment of a pan-European telecommunications market.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The legislative procedure for adopting a multiannual programme regarding radio spectrum policy was launched with a proposal for a decision tabled by the European Commission on 20 September 2010. This led to the European Parliament adopting its position at first reading on 11 May 2011, proposing a series of amendments. However, following five informal trialogues, the European Parliament and the Council have reached an agreement on the legislative proposal. Following the work done as a result of a process of cooperation between the various institutions, I voted for the European Parliament’s position at second reading, in the hope that the regulation achieved will contribute to the vitality and dynamism of the European economy.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour of the recommendation for second reading on the Council position at first reading with a view to the adoption of a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a multiannual radio spectrum policy programme (2010/0252(COD)).

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I think it is essential that Parliament and the Council reach an agreement to plan out a common strategy on the use of the spectrum until 2015. This will make it possible to pave the way for Europe to become the leader in broadband speed, mobility, coverage and capacity. Lastly, putting in place an effective strategy for the use of the radio spectrum will make it possible to deal with the exponential growth in mobile data traffic.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. – (IT) At long last, we have reached an agreement at second reading on the policy orientations and objectives for harmonising the use of the radio spectrum. These decisions affect important sectors and services from scientific activities to transport, mobile communications and television, radio and medical devices. We must not forget that exacting management of it will be essential for the security and civil protection services.

Other fundamental points include the spread of wireless broadband Internet across all Member States and the increase of bandwidth by 2020, not to mention the Commission assessing, in cooperation with Member States, the feasibility of extending the allocations of unlicensed spectrum for wireless access systems, radio local area networks and Wi-Fi. We need to take particular care over the idea that has been hinted at by the Commission, though not included in this text, of considering the use of European broadband funds as State assistance rather than EU assistance. Clearly, such an inauspicious decision would be against the spirit of this measure.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I consider the radio spectrum policy to be a key element for the creation of a single European digital market, particularly in terms of its objective of setting out the policy orientations and objectives for the strategic planning and harmonisation of the use of the radio spectrum, thereby ensuring the functioning of the internal market.

According to the agreement that we adopted in the Chamber this morning, the Member States are expected to make 800 MHz frequencies available for wireless broadband services by 1 January 2013. At least 1 200 MHz of spectrum should be assigned to mobile data traffic between 2013 and 2015, as previously requested by this House.

I am sure that this measure will create a pan-European telecommunications market where new services can create opportunities and growth for a 500 million strong consumer market. Accordingly, Europe will be at the forefront in guaranteeing broadband Internet to its citizens and promoting future network developments.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In September 2010, the European Commission adopted three complementary measures intended to facilitate the implementation and uptake of fast and ultrafast broadband in the European Union. In May 2011, the European Parliament adopted its opinion at first reading, having made 88 amendments to the proposal tabled by the Commission. The most important of the amendments adopted are extending the allocations of the unlicensed spectrum to allow for greater use of Wi-Fi and guaranteeing all EU citizens access to broadband at not less than 30 Mbps by 2020. I am voting for the draft at second reading tabled by the European Parliament, since I consider this an important means for the EU to take the global lead on broadband speeds, mobility, coverage and capacity. I also believe this will lead to exponential growth in mobile data traffic, helping to create a pan-European telecommunications market, which will benefit around 500 million consumers.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the legislative resolution on the Council’s position at first reading with a view to the adoption of a decision establishing a multiannual radio frequency spectrum policy programme. The EU needs a programme to cover the internal market in all EU policy areas involving the use of the radio spectrum, as well as the policies on electronic communications, research, technology development, space, transport, energy and broadcasting. The policy objectives that Member States and the Commission should implement include the following: ensuring adequate availability of the spectrum, maximising spectrum flexibility, increasing spectrum efficiency through general authorisations and spectrum flexibility, avoiding distortion of competition, avoiding prejudicial interference and disruption, harmonisation of technical requirements, and ensuring protection of the population’s health.

This programme creates a very broad-scope inventory of the current utilisation of the 400 MHz - 6 GHz spectrum, in order to create a flexible and coordinated European policy on the radio frequency spectrum. Furthermore, the Commission, in cooperation with the Member States, is assessing the timeliness and feasibility of extending systems, including local radio networks, to allow, for instance, increased use of Wi-Fi technology.

  Thomas Ulmer (PPE), in writing. – (DE) More frequencies will be available from 2013 which will make mobile Internet access quicker and simpler. Initially, the 800 MHz frequencies will be released, followed by the 1 200 MHz frequencies in 2015. The additional bandwidth is needed to allow rapid transmission of data in all areas of Europe and for all citizens. Effective cost control measures will be followed up. I have voted in favour of the resolution because it represents another positive step towards an Internet- and data-based future.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – This political agreement will pave the way for the development of a flexible and coordinated European spectrum policy in which the exponential growth of mobile data traffic can be met by future re-allocations and inefficient use of spectrum belongs to the past. The proposal opens up the 800 MHz band for electronic communications services by 1 January 2013 and will help to create a pan-European telecommunications market where new services can create opportunities and growth for a 500 million consumer market.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This proposal sets out the guidelines and political objectives for strategically planning and harmonising the use of the radio spectrum by 2015. While we agree that there is a need to plan and organise the radio spectrum, we believe it is essential that this be done in a context of cooperation among the Member States, retaining it as a public good and keeping it free of Commission guidelines, particularly those that mention putting the radio spectrum at the service of the Europe 2020 strategy, the Digital Agenda for Europe and the Single Market Act.

Policies whose purpose is supposed to be improving the market, competitiveness and competition for the launch of the so-called ‘digital single market’ have, in reality, contributed greatly to exacerbating the crisis of capitalism and its negative consequences for the public. The radio spectrum, from low frequencies to very high ones, has been argued over and used for multiple purposes, thereby opening the way to the business of future EU-level digital services and fostering genuine competition. However, it is essential to preserve and defend space for public access, and to prevent it all being committed to commercial ends, which is the track down which European Union policy is headed.

Report: James Nicholson (A7-0262/2012)

  Damien Abad (PPE), in writing. – (FR) In light of the crisis that resonated deeply through the milk sector in 2008-2010 and the expiry of dairy quotas in 2015, I voted in favour of these measures, which aim to strengthen the bargaining power of producers, making contracts between producers and buyers compulsory and giving improved visibility to inter-branch organisations. I am very pleased with this significant progress made in the dairy sector.

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am abstaining from the vote on this report because I see it as a lost opportunity. It includes positive elements, such as increasing the role of producer organisations and interprofessional organisations, as well as contract-related issues. However, it could have gone further and taken the opportunity to establish more legislation for the EU’s dairy sectors. There is a need to go beyond improving the condition of self-regulation in the relationship among stakeholders in this area. This sector should benefit, above all, from the European agriculture that we want and from access to the fair distribution of value along the food-supply chain, and should not be transformed into the agriculture of large, intensive farms, concentrated in a few Member States.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. – I voted in favour of this resolution because the European dairy sector is extremely sensitive and economically important to the EU. The milk and milk products sector faced exceptional events between the years 2007-2009 which, combined with the effects of the financial and economic crisis, resulted in farm gate prices crashing in 2009. Europe’s dairy sector will experience a major shift after the expiry of quotas in 2015. The Commission identified three key elements: the bargaining power of producers, contractual relations and inter-branch organisations. In its report, the Committee on Agriculture also highlighted the need for PDOs (protected designations of origin) and PGIs (protected geographical indications) to be able to manage the volume of their production. I agree with the proposal that, in order to secure a stable future for the sector, the bargaining power of producers needs to be strengthened. However, still further negotiations between the institutions are needed to define the best rates and quotas to maintain competition among farmers, but also to protect consumers and the European market.

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The European dairy market has been and is still characterised by a strong imbalance and reduced predictability, mainly due to unfair commercial practices existing in the production, processing and distribution processes. The main actors affected by this phenomenon are, on the one hand, the farmers who, as we have seen, happen to be often unaware of the price they will get for their milk, and, on the other, end consumers as well, who do not pay the producer price but the amount determined by all the other factors involved in the processing and distribution processes. I consider it necessary for the dairy chain operators to be given a sense of responsibility, and this target can be achieved through the use of formalised written contracts. I also believe in strengthening the bargaining power of producers vis-à-vis processing units. Last but not least, another reason why I am voting for this report is its purpose: to promote good practices and ensure transparency of the market as a whole. That is because, in my opinion, it is the only way we can speak in the future tense about the EU dairy sector. I voted in favour of this report.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) This week, we voted on a report which directly affects dairy producers. The sector has been blighted by serious crisis, which was prolonged and aggravated by the global economic crisis. The price volatility that followed has been profoundly unsettling for our producers, who already face the expiry of dairy quotas in 2015. This report amends contractual rules with a view to increasing the bargaining power of dairy producers, in order to ensure that fairer prices are achieved for the raw milk that they produce and to facilitate their preparations for the expiry of dairy quotas. All parties, except the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, have faced up to their responsibilities. Producer organisations can now negotiate in partnership for up to 33% of the total national production of a Member State or up to 3.5% of total European Union production. This text also strives to achieve improved transparency and comprehensive data analysis of EU milk production, which should allow the former relative stability to be achieved once again. Even though this report could have been more ambitious for the rapporteur, Mr Nicholson, it is nevertheless a compromise that represents considerable progress for our dairy producers and aims to protect the most vulnerable.

  Zoltán Bagó (PPE), in writing. – (HU) In keeping with the opinion I expressed in connection with the pan-Euro-Mediterranean system of cumulation of origin, I support not only the extension of the system of diagonal cumulation, but also its practical introduction and integration into the EU regulatory system. I agree with the conclusion of the agreement because it represents the culmination of the Barcelona process. Thanks to this agreement, the EU will be able to respond efficiently to excessively complex mechanisms arising in connection with existing bilateral regulations with Mediterranean partners, and to the new opportunities as well as challenges presented by the Arab Spring. In connection with the convention, I find that it is particularly worth highlighting the effort to set as one of the more distant goals the extension of the system of diagonal cumulation to the countries of the Western Balkans, thereby facilitating agreements with future Member States from this region.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) • I voted in favour of the report drafted by Mr Nicholson because the dairy sector represents an essential component of the common agricultural policy (CAP) reform. • The debate is necessary in the context of the events that had affected this industry deeply in 2007-2009, as well as of the obstacles in the food distribution chain. • Farmers are currently financially disadvantaged in their contractual relations with the dairy industry. • Therefore, I think that the specific measures promoted by the CAP reform can correct this imbalance. • At the same time, including dairy products in the scope of the quality policy is extremely useful. • It may provide the protection and preservation of traditional and regional recipes, particularly those in isolated or peripheral areas. • The new measure will also support the activity of small-sized farm holdings, as well as local cultural diversity.

  Sergio Berlato (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The milk package contains specific rules for the dairy sector regarding: the creation of producer organisations for the collective sale of milk; the recognition of inter-branch organisations that will be able to provide information and promote dairy products; and measures on drawing up purchase and sale contracts for raw milk. The compromise on the regulation was reached during last December’s EU trialogue. It contains numerous improvements on the previous proposals, including the requests of the Italian and European dairy industry on retaining flexibility in contracts, where the basic elements proposed by the Commission – price, volume, delivery schedule and duration – can be freely negotiated by the parties. Parliament’s efforts in the negotiations enabled the inclusion within the regulation of the protected designation of origin (PDO) and protected geographical indication (PGI) classifications for cheeses, which were absent in the initial proposal from the Commission. This is a fundamentally important measure which can be used by the Member States under certain conditions to match up supply and demand for products, preventing fluctuations deriving from the possible build-up of excesses of aged Italian PDO cheeses.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because it aims to increase the bargaining power of farmers working in the dairy sector, thus ensuring fairer milk prices and enabling farmers to achieve milk production quotas. The adoption of this regulation was initiated by the European Parliament in reaction to the fall in milk prices in 2008 and 2009 and to stabilise dairy product markets. On the basis of this regulation, farmers’ organisations in the dairy sector will be able to negotiate conditions for the sale of milk such as prices, the marketable production volume, the duration of contracts, etc. Indeed, the concentration of milk suppliers is low, with a resulting imbalance in bargaining power in the supply chain between farmers and dairies. This can lead to unfair commercial practices as farmers often do not know what price they will receive for their milk when delivering because the price is often fixed much later by dairies on the basis of the added value obtained, which, for non-cooperatives, is often outside of the farmer’s control.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) This report is, in part, a response to the terrible crisis that afflicted the sector in 2008-2010, when prices paid to producers collapsed dramatically. Going forward, producers are now able to group together in order to gain greater clout in negotiations with processors and distributors. New tools, established by European legislation, are now available to them in order to help further their interests and to take part in the running of their market. The European Parliament will continue to keep a watchful eye on the dairy sector, in particular, through further measures to come, such as the issue of contracts being drawn up in the supply chain or the establishment of a mechanism to ensure that disadvantaged regions are not ‘drained’ of their milk production upon the expiry of dairy quotas in 2015. We must ensure that the progress reports scheduled for 2014 and 2018 are an opportunity to make new proposals, to ensure that the dairy sector is not hit by another disastrous crisis.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – I voted against this report as I cannot support further EU regulation over the dairy sector, especially interventionist legislation that fails to satisfy the needs of UK farmers. The weakening of the position of Welsh farmers within the dairy sector, rendered unable to oppose aggressive behaviour exhibited by retailers and price-fixing cooperatives within the dairy supply chain, has led to the majority of milk being sold at lower than cost price. The UK Government, in cooperation with the National Farmers Union and other directly representative bodies, should have the freedom to develop legislation in the dairy sector in harmony with our agrarian needs that generates best-fit policies for maximum output, while ensuring an economically viable product and while protecting the industry and the farmers involved.

  Udo Bullmann (S&D), in writing. – (DE) The Members of the European Parliament who belong to the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) would very much have welcomed the introduction by the EU of compulsory contracts at the level of the Member States. However, the Council and the Commission were categorically opposed to this proposal. Nevertheless, the compromise that has been reached allows milk producers throughout Europe to join together in producer organisations. It is of crucial importance for us to ensure that milk producers are put in a stronger position in their negotiations with dairies and retailers. Alongside compulsory contracts, we also strongly supported larger size limits for associations of producer organisations, because that would have further improved the negotiating position of milk producers in Europe. It became clear in this part of the trialogue negotiations that the Council would not have been prepared to accept this, even in the course of a further reading. The opportunity to join together in producer organisations is not a new one for German milk producers because this option is already open to them at a national level as a result of the German Market Structure Act.

Given that it was not possible to achieve a better result in the face of opposition from the Council and the Commission, it was all the more important for us to ensure that the interests of small and medium-sized milk producers are taken into consideration in the forthcoming reform of the common agricultural policy (CAP). Conditions must be laid down in the CAP which enable these businesses to continue producing milk even in less favourable regions. This is the only way that we can meet our main requirement, which is to guarantee the existence of a sustainable and multifunctional agricultural industry throughout the whole of Europe.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report by Mr Nicholson as I believe that it provides a number of solutions to the crisis that the milk sector underwent in 2009. I am pleased with the measures provided by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (AGRI), which bring about greater stability for the dairy sector. It seems to me that it is urgent that we regulate the sector and ensure an acceptable price level as we move closer to the looming expiry of dairy quotas in 2015: this is essential in order to put a stop to unfair commercial practices, which put dairy producers in difficulty. Two proposals in the report caught my attention in particular: the implementation of a new European legal framework on inter-branch organisations and the required establishment of contracts fixing milk price, volume and contract duration. It is good news for dairy producers who see their rights consolidated.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report is important because it aims, above all, not to prevent cooperatives from running effectively. For reasons of clarity, it is important to specify that, if membership of a cooperative means that a producer has an obligation to supply all or part of the raw milk they produce, for which conditions have been laid down in the cooperative’s statutes and in decisions based thereon, these conditions should not be the subject of negotiation via a producer organisation. Moreover, so as to maintain competitiveness in the dairy market, it is advisable that this possibility be subject to appropriate limits, expressed as a percentage of production in the EU and of production in any Member State covered by the negotiations. The limit expressed as a percentage of national production should be applied, first of all, to the volume of raw milk produced in the producer Member State or in each individual producer Member State. The same limit should also apply to the volume of raw milk supplied to a recipient Member State.

  Andrea Cozzolino (S&D), in writing. – (IT) The crisis has highlighted the lack of direction in the dairy product market, making regulations to stabilise farmers’ incomes and improve transparency in the trade a matter of urgency. The long period of fixed quotas and high institutional prices, which created guaranteed outlets, has paralysed the market. The participants in the production chain have not been forced to respond to market indicators and had no incentive to innovate and increase productivity. However, we need to do the best we can to secure a smooth transition to the complete abolition of quotas, avoiding an overly inflexible and abrupt effect that could increase the risks faced by the sector and producers. Accordingly, the switch to advance contracts for the delivery of raw milk between producers and dairies looks to be capable of re-balancing bargaining power, particularly because it allows for joint negotiation of conditions through producer organisations. In the same vein, we welcome the possibility of planning and managing the volumes of certified quality (protected designation of origin – PDO) dairy products, as requested by Parliament. Consequently, it is essential that the urgent reform of the system does not cause problems for producers of the very best of the EU exports.

  Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of this report because lifting EU dairy quotas in 2015 requires increasing producers’ bargaining power by concluding firm written contracts intended to strengthen the responsibility of dairy chain operators, as well as by encouraging farmers to get organised. The example of Switzerland, which abolished quotas in 2009, is useful for understanding the impact of the new system and anticipating its negative effects. In recent years, the decrease in demand and a stable level of production caused prices on the European milk market to collapse. Feed and output costs, including energy, increased as a result of higher commodity prices in recent years.

Therefore, I believe that, under these circumstances, the producers’ bargaining power vis-à-vis processing units should be strengthened for the purpose of a fairer distribution of added value along the supply chain. This would ensure a rational production development and would contribute to maintaining a fair standard of living for dairy farmers.

  Arnaud Danjean (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the proposal for a regulation on contractual relations in the milk sector. In effect, the report is, largely, a response to the terrible crisis that afflicted the milk sector in 2008-2010, when prices paid to producers collapsed dramatically. Furthermore, it looks to prepare dairy producers for the expiry of dairy quotas in 2015. In this way, it aims to increase the bargaining power of dairy producers in order to ensure that they receive fairer prices for their products, without encroaching on the right to competition. In order to do this, the new regulation permits, amongst others things, dairy producers to be able to join producer organisations so that they can gain real clout against processors as well as ensuring fairer distribution of added value along the supply chain. In the long term, this approach aims to provide a fairer standard of living for dairy producers. Today, therefore, I urge dairy producers to fully embrace the new tools established by European legislation, so that they may help further their interests, find their place in the market and prepare themselves for the ‘post-quota era’.

  Michel Dantin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) We should welcome the adoption of this text as some excellent work has been done. Whilst not entirely perfect, the policy changes are significant in comparison with decisions made in recent years, notably, the measure that gives producers the right to group together so that they gain greater clout in bargaining with processors and distributors. From now on, interprofessional agreements will be an integral part of the European vocabulary, and the right of producers of protected designation of origin (PDO) / protected geographic indication (PGI) cheeses to manage their production volumes has finally been recognised.

Other improvements such as, the requirement of contracts in the supply chain, or a mechanism ensuring that disadvantaged regions are not ‘drained’ of their milk production upon the expiry of dairy quotas, must be achieved in the years to come. The ‘soft landing’ promised by the Commissioner at the time of drafting, Ms Fischer Boel, should well and truly become a reality for European producers. From now on, producers must fully embrace the new tools established by European legislation in order to help further their interests and to take part in the running of their market.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report, which allows for an increase in the bargaining power of dairy producers so that they can obtain fairer prices for their products. It will allow for a break from the unfair commercial practices that have an impact on the final price paid by consumers.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The collapse of milk prices that occurred between 2007 and 2009 remains stamped on our memories, as is the distress of producers. Following the difficult conditions faced by the dairy sector, a High-Level Expert Group on Milk (‘HLG’) was set up with the purpose of discussing mid-term and long-term arrangements for the sector. In its report, supported by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (AGRI), the HLG indicated, amongst other recommendations, that it is necessary to act to improve concentration of supply, which is low and results in an imbalance in bargaining power between farmers and dairies. In order to ensure the future stability of the sector, the HLG recommends strengthening the bargaining power of producers, which should result in a fairer distribution of value-added along the supply chain. I am equally in favour of the proposal to create a European legal framework that authorises the establishment of inter-branch organisations in the milk sector.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report on contractual relations in the milk and milk products sector because it includes positive proposals, particularly as regards increasing producers’ bargaining power. However, these are insufficient from the point of view of the future sustainability of the sector, so I believe there is a need to ensure effective instruments for managing supply.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The profound crisis affecting the dairy farming sector means there is an urgent need to adopt more effective measures for supporting producers, and – I continue to maintain – very careful consideration of the elimination of milk quotas in 2015. As we have always said, this is a mistake, and it is not too late to change tack. The stabilisation of the milk market and dairy products will not be achieved through one-off measures alone, but with medium- to long-term solutions for maintaining sustainable production, not forgetting the right of consumers to a fair price. It is vital to give more power to producers and ensure the necessary price stability. In this respect, I would stress that the competitiveness of the outermost regions that depend heavily on dairy production, such as the Azores, is particularly fragile.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The reform of the common agricultural policy, which introduced a policy of quotas for milk production, has not had the desired effect, and in a time of short supply, we have farmers who have invested in the acquisition of quotas. With the announced abolition of these quotas – to which certain Member States are opposed – it is imperative to adopt regulatory measures that ensure the normal functioning of the sector and guarantee a fair income for producers, so that they do not give up farming. Although I am aware that this legislation will not solve all the problems faced by farmers, I voted for this report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards contractual relations in the milk and milk products sector, as I believe it strengthens the position of farmers when negotiating with distributors, as they can negotiate 33% of national production directly. In addition, Member States may opt for a European contract with a minimum validity of six months, either negotiated on an individual basis or by cooperatives.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This proposal for a regulation does not solve the sector’s current problems. Thousands of dairy farms continue to close, as the price of milk paid to the producer does not offset the high costs of production. It is a misconception to think that this regulation – the assumptions of which are based on the fantastical idea of the lamb and lion coexisting peacefully – will solve the problems created by the decision to abolish milk quotas. It stipulates that quotas will increase, with a view to providing the so-called ‘soft landing’, which has been anything but soft for thousands upon thousands of farmers. What is needed is the reversal of the decision to abolish production quotas in 2015, and their adaptation to the needs of each country and to the relative level of development of its productive capacity, thus enabling the Member States making the greatest losses to develop. The Commissioner says that the 2009 milk crisis came about with the system of quotas in place, demonstrating their uselessness; this is a false argument and is regrettable. In fact, the crisis was caused by a situation whereby the end of the quotas was already partly expected, taking account of the decision to increase them. Therefore, the crisis is the result of the decision to end the quotas, not the other way around.

  Carlo Fidanza (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the milk package because the measures brought in will have a positive influence on the dairy sector, which has been in crisis since 2009. The adoption of the regulation rewards Parliament’s long-standing efforts, particularly during the trialogue with the Commission and the Council. I am also very pleased about the positive repercussions that today’s vote could have for Italy and its top quality products. I am referring, for example, to the 37 Italian cheeses with protected designation of origin (PDO), which enjoy greater protection due to the introduction of production planning for dairy products covered by the PDO mark and by protected geographical indication (PGI).

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The gradual reforms of the common market organisation for milk and milk products were market-oriented in order to promote the competitiveness of milk and the milk products sector and its sustainability in the context of globalised trade. In 2007-2009, exceptional developments took place in the milk and milk products sector. Initially, extreme weather conditions in Oceania brought about a significant decline in supplies, leading to a rapid and significant increase in prices. Yet, while world supplies had started their recovery, and prices had started to return to more normal levels, the subsequent financial and economic crisis negatively affected EU dairy producers, aggravating price volatility. In light of the difficult market situation for the milk sector, and while respecting the outcome of a review of reforms to the common agricultural policy, an expert group was to work on a regulatory framework to be put in place, in order to contribute to stabilising the market and producers’ income and enhancing its transparency. In order to ensure the rational development of production and a fair standard of living for dairy farmers, their bargaining power vis-à-vis processors should be strengthened, which should result in a fairer distribution of value-added along the supply chain.

  Elisabetta Gardini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The dairy sector is traditionally thought to be a jewel in the crown of Europe’s food sector. Unfortunately, over the last two years, it has been forced to take considerable steps to try and keep it running and avoid bankruptcy.

Through today’s vote, the EU has done its part to try and prevent a fresh crisis in this sector and all the ensuing repercussions in terms of small producers losing competitiveness and jobs being lost. Accordingly, I think we need to adopt the proposals in the report, especially in terms of retaining flexibility in contract negotiations, which will allow small producers to vary their output more easily.

  Béla Glattfelder (PPE), in writing. – (HU) One of the primary causes of the European milk sector crisis in 2008 was the increase in milk quotas voted for in the Council by Hungary’s former socialist government. The delegation of Fidesz to the European Parliament opposed both the quota increase and the subsequent abolition of the quota system as of 2015. Our position is that even if the quota system is terminated, there will be a need for supply control measures.

On the other hand, as a result of the European Commission’s current milk market proposals, the single internal milk market could fragment into Member State markets where different rules could apply at national level to the sale of milk. With the interests of milk producers in mind, I submitted a motion for amendment. My motion proposed that cross-border supply contracts should be governed by the regulations applicable at the seat of the producer, but it did not receive majority support.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. – (FR) The European Union has decided that agriculture is like any other sector and should thus be subjected to the hazards of the global markets. For this reason, it has decided to allow the expiry of dairy quotas, which facilitated the stability of the milk market and supported the prices paid to farmers, even though they are minimal, at a time when large producer countries would prefer milk to be considered as a strategic product and, as such, shielded in World Trade Organisation (WTO) agreements.

The solution that has been found to replace this outgoing regulation is that of contractual relationships between producer organisations and dairies. However, this does not solve a single one of the issues facing the sector, let alone those facing farmers. It neither guarantees the prices that will be paid to farmers nor strengthens their position in negotiations with large dairy groups, nor indeed their very survival.

Were we to consider the lot of agri-foodstuff producers from a financial point of view, in the opinion of the vast majority of professionals, it will lead to mass production at huge industrial facilities, built in areas with good transport links, at the expense of moderately-sized, established farms. Furthermore, it brings no tangible advantage for consumers, hence we voted against this report.

  Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report as it consolidates the role of milk producer organisations in negotiations with companies on price and volume. While it is an initial response to the milk sector crisis, it is necessary to go further to ensure that the serious crisis which has blighted the sector in recent years does not happen again. Whilst negotiations on the reform of the common agricultural policy (CAP) after 2013 are under way, we must focus our efforts so that farmers and breeders benefit from adequate resources in order to produce successfully and benefit from fairer incomes.

  Mathieu Grosch (PPE), in writing. – (DE) I welcome the report on contractual relations in the milk sector, as it strengthens the negotiating position of milk producers. The aim is to enable dairy farmers to negotiate common contractual conditions with the dairies, including prices.

Although I believe that formal written contracts will help to raise awareness among those involved, I also welcome the fact in this context that the Member States have the right to decide whether or not these contracts should be compulsory.

In addition, I welcome the moves to strengthen the industry associations, as this may make the dialogue between the parties involved in the milk sector much easier, promote best practice and ensure transparency on the market.

  Brice Hortefeux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The European Parliament has voted, with a large majority, in favour of the adoption of the milk package. This decision was necessary following the serious crisis that the dairy sector underwent in 2008-2010. It allows suitable preparations to be made in relation to the dairy sector prior to the expiry of dairy quotas in 2015. The milk package, as it results from negotiations between the Council and Parliament, marks a true step forward for dairy producers, giving them much greater bargaining power than they had previously. They are now able to group together in order to have greater clout in negotiations with processors and distributors. I am also pleased with other ambitious measures that were agreed, such as the recognition of inter-branch organisations, which allows for a facilitated dialogue between all actors in the supply chain. I also refer to the European Union granting producers of cheeses under protected designation of origin (PDO) or protected geographical indication (PGI) status the right to manage their own production volumes. It is an arrangement that will undoubtedly contribute to the economic prosperity of our rural regions.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. – I regretfully had to vote against this report. Mr Nicholson’s original report was a much stronger document; the new regulation has, however, been watered down to such an extent by negotiations that it provides insufficient contractual guarantees for dairy farmers, and, as a result, I was unable to support it.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed this document because it is obvious that the dairy producing and processing sectors are highly differentiated between Member States. There is also a highly variable situation between operators and types of operators within individual Member States. In many cases, however, the concentration of suppliers is low, with a resulting imbalance in bargaining power in the supply chain between farmers and dairies. This imbalance can lead to unfair commercial practices; in particular, farmers often do not know what price they will receive for their milk when delivering because the price is often fixed much later by dairies on the basis of the added value obtained, which, for non-cooperatives, is often outside of the farmer’s control. I believe that following the abolition of quotas, written contracts could serve to increase awareness and reinforce the responsibility of the operators in the dairy chain to take into account market signals, improve price transmission and adapt supply to demand, as well as help to avoid unfair commercial practices. In order to ensure the rational development of production and a fair standard of living for dairy farmers, their bargaining power vis-à-vis processors should be strengthened, which should result in a fairer distribution of added value along the supply chain. Inter-branch organisations can also play useful roles in ensuring dialogue between actors in the supply chain, and in promoting best practice and market transparency. I expect Europe’s dairy sector to experience a major shift when quotas expire in 2015.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I welcome the fact that the Nicholson report on the milk package was adopted today by a very large majority in plenary. The text is largely a response to the terrible crisis that the dairy industry went through from 2008 to 2010, a period during which the price paid to producers fell drastically. Of course, this report is not perfect but it is a first step towards ridding the dairy industry of quotas. My colleagues in the French delegation of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) have been particularly involved with this issue. Their tireless involvement has allowed producers in the dairy industry to henceforth benefit from new tools provided for by European legislation. These tools will allow them to best assert their interests and help steer their own markets.

  Karin Kadenbach (S&D), in writing. – (DE) I welcome the key aspects of the regulation on contractual relations in the milk sector, as it will strengthen the negotiating position of milk producers. My main objective with regard to this legislative package was to ensure that compulsory contracts were introduced at the level of the Member States. Unfortunately, the Council and the Commission were successful in opposing this important improvement. The compromise that has now been reached is acceptable, but it does not go nearly far enough. There will only be a noticeable improvement in those Member States which decide to introduce compulsory contracts. Therefore, we must ensure that the interests of small dairy farmers in particular are taken into consideration in the forthcoming reform of the common agricultural policy (CAP). I believe that there is real potential for improvement in the ongoing restructuring of the common market organisation (CMO). It is a pity that cooperatives were excluded from the requirement to negotiate contracts. It is still unfair that farmers deliver their products to the dairies and are often only paid weeks later by the retail chains. We need to find a solution to this problem. It is important that we do not leave milk producers out in the cold after the phasing out of milk quotas in 2015, in order to avoid giving rise to a new Europe-wide milk crisis, like that of 2009. Small businesses in particular rely on being given protection from the dairies and retail chains.

  Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE), in writing. – (DE) This package of measures for the vulnerable milk sector is a compromise which was preceded by long and intense negotiations. Today’s resolution is the first step and sends out an important signal to milk producers. It takes seriously the problem of imbalances in the production chain. I welcome the fact that this legislation will strengthen the producers’ negotiating position, introduce new rules and minimum standards for contractual relations and establish a legal framework for the creation of industry associations. However, I believe that the courage to introduce far-reaching solutions is lacking and I am calling on the Commission to draw up further measures for the milk sector after quotas are phased out in 2015.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the proposal on the package of measures on the dairy sector. I would recall that from the very start of this legislature, Parliament has set about finding a solution to a crisis that began as far back as 2007. The planned abolition of milk quotas in 2015 was the EU institutions’ starting point for finding ways to reorganise the dairy sector that would be able to address such a radical change. The High-Level Expert Group on Milk (HLG) was set up in October 2009 and the debate about what to do officially got under way against a difficult background characterised by continuing excessive volatility in milk prices. I completely agree with the content of the text that has been adopted, which is in line with the long-standing proposals of European milk producers and the other stakeholders in the sector. We are therefore heading towards greater bargaining power for producers, which can be achieved through new contract conditions that will serve to reinforce the responsibility of operators in the dairy chain so that, taking into account market signals, they will improve price transmission and adapt supply to demand, as well as help to avoid unfair commercial practices.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) With the report adopted today by Parliament, milk producers will have a stronger bargaining position when negotiating fair prices for raw milk, which will enable them to prepare for the abolition of milk quotas in 2015. The current provisions will allow farmer organisations to negotiate raw milk prices independently, without violating the competition law. I supported this report because, by its amendments, the European Parliament asked the Commission to prepare two assessment reports on the situation of milk producers in disadvantaged regions, one by July 2014 and the other by the end of 2018.

  Astrid Lulling (PPE), in writing. – (DE) I support the compromise reached in the trialogue which will strengthen the negotiating position of dairy farmers with regard to the processing industry, despite the fact that it will not resolve all the problems.

This package of measures for the milk sector is the final report from the high-level group which is intended to ensure a soft landing after milk quotas are phased out. It is amazing that there is absolutely no mention of milk quotas in this report.

Young and ambitious farmers in Luxembourg and four other Member States who are attempting to prepare for the deregulation of the milk sector can only do this by buying additional quotas now, shortly before the end of the milk quota system. This involves a huge and unnecessary capital investment and puts them at a disadvantage when compared with farmers in the other 22 Member States. Therefore, five Member States voted against the compromise in the Council, which does not meet the requirements of a soft landing instrument.

The European Commission has a monopoly on introducing legislative proposals.

Therefore, I am calling on the Commission to take responsibility for this area and to submit a legislative proposal to the Council and the European Parliament in 2012 in order to rectify this obvious and costly error in the system.

A linear reduction in the period up to 2015 in the super levy which is imposed on each kilo of milk that exceeds the quota or the abolition of the fat correction mechanism could at least reduce the negative effects of the regulation which is being phased out without harming the Member States that are not affected.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I supported this report and, although I have some reservations, agree with the proposal as a whole. The core elements of the package will give milk producers the opportunity to organise themselves better into producer organisations, thus strengthening their position in the dairy supply chain – especially in relation to large processors.

  Clemente Mastella (PPE), in writing. – (IT) In recent years, there has been a significant crisis in Europe’s dairy sector There will, without doubt, be a major shift after the abolition of milk quotas, scheduled for 2015. We must improve the bargaining power of producers in order to secure a stable future for the sector. Hopefully, this can be achieved through the use of contracts and by encouraging producers to organise themselves into producer organisations.

Inter-branch organisations can, in fact, play a useful role in facilitating dialogue between actors in the supply chain and in promoting best practice and market transparency. In order to ensure the rational development of production and a fair standard of living for dairy farmers, their bargaining power vis-à-vis processors should be strengthened, which should result in a fairer distribution of added value along the supply chain. Measures to improve transparency and comprehensive data analysis of EU milk production should go some way to restoring the relative stability which was once achieved by supply management.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I particularly agree with the statement that: ‘There are disadvantaged regions that depend heavily on milk production, in respect of which it is necessary to assess the guidelines laid down for the milk and milk products sector, as recognised in the Treaties, so that support and the application of these policies continue to be adapted to their specific characteristics’. That is why I voted in favour.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. – I voted in favour of this report as it provides solutions for farmers in some Member States that face particular problems in the dairy sector. While this report does not look at the ‘soft-landing’ issue, I would ask the Commission to consider the position of Member States, where penalties are being imposed on producers for supplying a product for which there is a market. The penalty is extremely severe, despite the fact that the EU is not filling its entire quota over all of the Member States.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) I am in favour of planning production. Dairy quotas fulfil this function, in such a way as to control volumes and therefore regulate the markets and ensure lucrative prices for producers. This text proposes exactly the opposite. It supports the gradual abolition of dairy quotas by 2015. Despite the terrible consequences that this deregulation has already had for dairy producers across Europe, nothing is proposed here to prevent disaster. Not only will the proposal to subject deliveries to contracts merely reflect the existing balance of power, but it can be avoided. I voted against this text.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Between 2007 and 2009, there were some exceptional developments in the milk and milk products sector. Initially, extreme weather conditions in Oceania caused a significant drop in supply, which led to a rapid and considerable price rise. Moreover, although the global supply had started to recover and prices had begun to stabilise, the economic and financial crisis that followed had a negative effect on milk and dairy producers in the EU, exacerbating price volatility. First and foremost, the cost of feed and other inputs, especially energy, increased significantly, reflecting higher commodity prices. In October 2009, in view of the difficult situation of the dairy market, the High-Level Expert Group on Milk (HLG) was formed to discuss medium- and long-term measures for the milk and milk products sector on account of the abolition of milk quotas in 2015. Whilst respecting the results of the ‘health check’, the HLG should work towards developing a regulatory framework capable of stabilising the market and producers’ incomes, and increasing transparency. As this sector is very important for my country, I voted in favour.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (ES) I voted against this report, as the proposed reform does not provide solutions to the problems that led to the 2009 crisis. The negotiating power of producers will not be strengthened without public regulation of production. Production will continue to be concentrated in increasingly larger farms, and will become ever more industrial in nature, to the detriment of sustainable family production and of maintaining production throughout all the milk-producing regions of Europe. With this reform, the dumping of our surplus milk in third countries will continue. It is time for regulation, not for contractualisation in favour of the industry on an unregulated market. Another milk policy is essential, one which gives priority to the regulation of production, a necessary condition for stable and fair milk prices, and to sustainable milk production based on fodder produced in the different regions and closely tied to the land.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – This is a very important regulation, requested by the EP after the dairy price collapse of 2008 and 2009. It aims to boost dairy farmers’ bargaining power, to ensure fairer milk prices and to help farmers cope with the ending of milk quotas. I voted in favour.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) This proposal for an amendment to the regulation is an attempt to compensate for current difficulties in the milk sector. Longer-term contracts are not the norm and the regulation aims to make them compulsory at a European level. One aspect which is highlighted is the fact that industry associations must play a more important role in future, as they will help to ensure transparency and better organisation, in the opinion of the rapporteur. Transparency means that everyone involved in the production chain must provide the relevant information for analysing the market. This will result in much more work for small farmers.

In summary, there is a clear tendency to strengthen the already powerful position of large companies at the expense of smaller businesses. Current practices which have worked well are to be changed to ensure that the last independent dairy farmers join conglomerates. For this reason, I have voted against the amendment of the regulation.

  Claudio Morganti (EFD), in writing. – (IT) In recent years, we have witnessed a multitude of problems affecting Europe’s dairy sector, including dangerous fluctuations in demand, extreme price volatility and imbalances in the production chain. Yet we must not forget that the real problem behind all the trouble in the sector is the existence of the now famous milk quotas.

This system has turned out to be deeply mistaken and unfair, and is especially damaging to producers. Luckily, the Commission has also noticed the mistake – albeit shamefully late in the piece – and the system will finally be abolished in 2015. The report in question sets out changes that are just and necessary, designed mainly to protect dairy farmers, particularly the smallest among them, and to incentivise the creation of associations to protect traditional strengths and top quality products. All these reasons led me to decide to lend my support to this proposal.

  Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of the report. The proposed measures are definitely useful, but we must admit they are not enough. The contracts, the strengthening of professional organisations, etc. will not help consolidate the milk sector without a powerful and well-financed common agricultural policy after 2014. At the same time, the EU must continue to put into practice Parliament’s measures towards ensuring a balance along the entire food supply chain, specifically among producers, distributors, processors and retailers, to the benefit of European consumers.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. – (DE) The milk sector in the EU will undergo major changes after milk quotas are phased out in 2015. Therefore, I am of the opinion that in future, the negotiating position and the interests of the farmers and genuine producers must be strengthened. Milk producers should be encouraged to join together in producer associations. The unfair treatment of those involved in the production chain from the raw material suppliers to the consumer must be eradicated. Dairy farmers have put their demands on the table, but they are apparently still being ignored by the EU. My call for a monitoring body which could respond to unfair market conditions has been completely disregarded. Unfortunately, the Commission’s new proposals pay far too little attention to natural, organic milk production, animal welfare and sustainable management of the countryside with the aim of ensuring a regional supply of milk from dairy farmers throughout the EU. Therefore, I have voted against the report.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution because we need to strengthen the position of dairy producers in the dairy supply chain. Producers must be properly prepared for changes in market conditions following the abolition of the quota system. Given the difficult market conditions in this sector and the price crash which forced many dairy farmers in Europe out of business and put the viability of many other dairy producers at serious risk, producers need to be sure that they will be offered a fair price in the market, that they will be able to continue their activities and that the sector will remain viable and competitive. It should be noted that contractual relations, producers’ bargaining power, inter-branch organisations and transparency are complementary elements, which together will ensure the effective functioning of the supply chain. Written contracts between dairy producers and processors will ensure transparency, fairness and legal certainty. Strengthening producers’ bargaining power will increase this sector’s overall performance, competitiveness and sustainability. Furthermore, we should encourage producers to join together in producer organisations and constantly support measures to promote transparency.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) After the crisis in the milk sector between 2008 and 2009, and in view of the abolition of milk quotas from 2015, a High-Level Expert Group on Milk (HLG) was set up to look into the problems in the dairy sector. I voted in favour of the report, which amends the existing regulation in line with the recommendations of the HLG on contractual relationships in the milk and dairy product sector. The measures strengthen the bargaining power of raw milk producers and make it possible, through production planning, to market cheeses with a protected designation of origin (PDO) or protected geographical indication (PGI), which are often produced in Italy.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Considering that Europe’s dairy sector will experience a major shift after the abolition of milk quotas in 2015, I voted in favour of the use of formalised, written contracts that may help to reinforce the responsibility of the operators in the dairy chain and increase awareness of the need to better take into account the signals of the market, improve price transmission and adapt supply to demand, as well as help avoid certain unfair commercial practices.

  Alojz Peterle (PPE), in writing. – (SL) I support this regulation, in the belief that it can contribute to improving the status of milk producers and strengthen their bargaining power relative to traders, thus leading to a fairer distribution of the value added on the way from producer to consumer. I also support the regulation because we need to prepare for 2015, when milk sector quotas will be abolished.

  Franck Proust (PPE), in writing. – (FR) In the last few years, European dairy farmers have experienced a fall in revenues as unexpected as it has been dramatic. The dairy industry has been badly hit by the crisis. As representatives of the European people, we have to come up with the best solution for everyone, but only as long as we properly understand the causes. That is why I voted in favour of this text because it responds, in part, to the industry’s troubles. Above all, it strengthens producers’ bargaining power in their contractual relations with distributors. Professionals will be able to join together more easily so as to exert more influence. This crisis has, at least, shown that not all deregulation is beneficial for European agriculture. There are industries that we must preserve. We should try to remember them in the model we want to put in place for the CAP after 2013.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) As in the agricultural sector in general, the milk and milk products sector has been facing many difficulties, and recent years have seen not only a drop in demand, but also a clear reduction in prices. The High-Level Expert Group on Milk was therefore formed in October 2009, bringing together professionals from this field, with the aim of finding solutions that would enable the sector to recover its balance. In this context, one of the areas that needs to be rectified most rapidly involves restoring the negotiating balance between producer and distributor. Indeed, the profound disparity between both parties’ economic power leads, in many cases, to a stranglehold on milk producers. In this context, it is worth considering the possibility of agreeing collective regulatory instruments between associations or producers and distributors, as set out under labour law. As such, it is imperative that solutions be found that bring the market back to normal working order. Otherwise, the current weaknesses may become much worse with the abolition of the quotas in 2015. I voted for the resolution, as it is a step in that direction.

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Today, during the plenary session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg, we voted on the report by Mr Nicholson, which strengthens the bargaining power of dairy producers. The legislation will allow dairy producer organisations to negotiate the price of raw milk so as to get the best possible price for their milk.

The producer organisations should help farmers to better organise themselves, thereby strengthening their position in the food supply chain, especially in those Member States where such a system is limited or non-existent. This bargaining power does not, however, come at the expense of competition. Indeed, in order to avoid unfair competition, the volume of raw milk may not exceed 3.5% of total Union production.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – Against. The idea of increasing the bargaining power of farmers in the food chain vis-à-vis ever more concentrated market power of processors was good in principle. Also, the proposal to increase transparency of costs of production in the various sectors and regions was positive. However, the negotiations within the Committee on Agriculture for a first reading agreement step by step dropped the more concrete ideas of making a fair contracting framework obligatory in the Member States and limiting the market power and unfair price policy throughout the EU. We made a number of proposals to strengthen the position of milk farmers and to introduce measures against the market power of the milk processors and supermarkets, like the price monitoring agency and specific support for local and SME processing, but without success. The measures and contracts as suggested in this report will not solve the imminent new milk crisis.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of this text because I think it properly highlights the issues surrounding unjustified price increases along the dairy supply chain. It is necessary to reinforce the responsibility of all the relevant operators, making them aware of the need to keep their final prices competitive with market prices. Now we need to press on in this direction: actions such as recognising producer organisations could actually end up being insufficient to tackle the difficulties in the entire sector.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. – (IT) In 2009, in light of the crisis in the dairy sector, a High-Level Expert Group on Milk (HLG) was set up with the purpose of discussing mid-term and long-term arrangements for the sector, given the expiry of milk quotas in 2015. The group noted an imbalance in bargaining power in the supply chain between farmers and dairies, which can lead to unfair commercial practices. In particular, farmers do not know what price they will receive for their milk, because the price is fixed by the dairies after delivery.

Bearing in mind the failure of the milk quotas system, and in view of the crisis suffered by the sector, the regulation sets out a number of changes. The proposal allows for contracts between farmers and dairies where the price, delivery volume and contract duration must be specified. Producer organisations will be able to support farmers in contract negotiations and set appropriate quantitative limits. Thus, producers will be on an equal footing with dairies and cheese makers, and a suitable level of competition on raw milk supplies will be maintained. The volumes of cheeses with protected designation of origin (PDO) and protected geographical indication (PGI) that come onto the market will be monitored and associations will be recognised, which were measures that Lega Nord was particularly keen to see so that quality cheeses can be protected.

  Antolín Sánchez Presedo (S&D), in writing. – (ES) The 2009 crisis, along with volatile prices and distortion in the workings of the milk market detected during recent years, led me to consider the need for deep reforms of the operation of the sector’s value chain and the responsibility of the European Parliament to promote such reforms, given its role as colegislator for agriculture pursuant to the Treaty of Lisbon.

Today’s approval of the regulation regarding contractual relations in the milk sector is a significant step in the right direction and moves the reform of the CAP forward. It identifies the possibility for producers to negotiate collectively through their organisations and favours interprofessional organisations. The new contracts will provide greater stability and fairer competition. The new framework will make it possible for the most efficient holdings to grow in the future and will also boost product diversification and improvements in quality.

With respect to Spain, it means that the Royal Decree for milk of last April, which anticipated this direction, can now be fully effective. The beneficial effects of the new model can be seen in Galicia, where 45% of milk production is marketed under approved contracts that have helped to level prices out a little more.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) This vote makes it possible to monitor the price volatility of the Union’s dairy products. As early as 2009, the sector set up a High-Level Expert Group on Milk (HLG) in view of the abolition of milk quotas in 2015. The HLG noted that the dairy producing and processing sectors are highly differentiated between Member States.

It was found that there is a problem of price transmission along the chain, which is caused in essence by the lack of Union legislation on contracts, which are not mandatory in all Member States. In order to secure a stable future for the sector, the bargaining power of producers needs to be improved. Hopefully, this can be achieved through the use of contracts and by encouraging producers to organise themselves into producer organisations.

  Francisco Sosa Wagner (NI), in writing. – (ES) Despite the new regulatory framework providing improvements to remedy the shortcomings of the European milk sector, I voted against it, as there are still many loopholes that will make it impossible for the balance between farmers and dairies to be restored as far as negotiating power along the supply chain is concerned.

The legislative reform is linked to the expiry of quotas in 2015. Expiry is not our preferred option, given that there are other models in countries in a similar situation to the European market, where both the quota system and bid management work in a satisfactory fashion, benefiting producers, the sector and consumers in a more balanced way, and avoiding concentration of power in one area of the chain.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The sectors producing and processing milk and milk products in the EU differ considerably from one Member State to another, and there are wide variations between the Member States in operators and types of operator. Supply concentration is low, resulting in an imbalance between producers and dairies in terms of supply chain bargaining power, which can lead to unfair trading practices. The rapporteur has therefore tabled proposals on contracts, on the bargaining power of producers, on inter-branch organisations and on transparency, in order to increase producers’ bargaining power.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards contractual relations in the milk and milk products sector. In 2007-2009, exceptional developments took place in the milk and milk products sector. A number of extreme weather conditions brought about a significant decline in supplies, leading to a rapid and significant increase in prices. Subsequently, the financial and economic crisis had a negative effect on EU dairy producers and aggravated price volatility.

I believe that the use of written contracts that observe particular formal requirements, which contain basic elements, and which are drawn up in advance of delivery, could increase awareness and reinforce responsibility of dairy chain operators to better take into account the signals of the market, improve price transmission and adapt supply to demand, as well as help avoid certain unfair commercial practices. In order to ensure a stable future for the milk products sector following the abolition of quotas in 2015, the producers’ bargaining power vis-à-vis processing units should be strengthened, which should result in a fairer distribution of added value along the supply chain.

  Thomas Ulmer (PPE), in writing. – (DE) I have voted in favour of the motion for a resolution. The regulation which has been adopted today puts dairy farmers in a stronger position in their negotiations with their customers. It allows them to join together in associations to negotiate prices in order to obtain better raw milk prices without coming into conflict with competition law. Prices can be negotiated and agreed on within an acceptable framework and the Member States have sufficient discretionary powers. At the same time, support is being provided for the production of quality regional cheeses.

  Viktor Uspaskich (ALDE), in writing. – (LT) I am pleased that the report considers the issues of price volatility and imbalance in negotiations between farmers and major dairies. This is very relevant to the situation in Lithuania. Although Lithuania comes first among the Baltic States in terms of milk production (approximately 1.9 million tonnes annually, 23.4% of total agricultural production), Lithuania’s dairy industry is ill-structured. Milk prices are therefore higher than the European average. A recent study revealed that today, Lithuanian consumers pay 40% more for milk than they did in 2004. Such a situation is, in part, linked to the fact that 60% of Lithuanian dairy products are exported and, at the processing level, the current dairy industry is made up of just four large companies. The report states that this imbalance may lead to unfair commercial practices. In order to ensure a fair standard of living for dairy farmers, their bargaining power vis-à-vis processors should therefore be strengthened. This would help establish proper distribution along the supply chain. There is a need for greater stability, particularly as Europe’s dairy sector will face a major shift when quotas expire in 2015.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) I voted against the European Parliament report on contractual relations with regard to milk products. This report in no way challenges the total abolition of dairy quotas by 2015, when we can see the dramatic effects on farmers’ incomes of policies already in place to gradually phase out quotas.

We reject a policy based on the undistorted law of the jungle of free competition for a commodity like milk, and one which leaves the dairy industry with the power to impose its conditions on producers. On the contrary, we advocate a policy of supply regulation which is respectful of farmers’ revenues and food sovereignty.

It is not enough merely to recognise the imbalance in the chain and inequality of bargaining power; it is also necessary to equip ourselves with the means to maintain dairy farms throughout Europe and to ensure fair remuneration for producers.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – Despite the improvements that the new regulatory framework contributes to remedy the defects of the European dairy sector, I voted against it because, in our view, there are still many gaps that will not resolve the imbalance of bargaining power in the supply chain between farmers and dairies. This legislative reform is part of the quota regime that will expire in 2015, an option that is not our preference because there are other models in countries like the European market situation where the system of quotas and supply management function satisfactorily and benefit both producers, industry and consumers in a more balanced way, avoiding concentrations of power in a sector of the chain.

  Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR), in writing. – It is not a widely known fact that nearly 9% of land in my constituency of London is still used for agriculture. In fact, London produces 27 tonnes of honey and meat, milk and eggs a year. And it is milk that we are talking about today. I supported my colleague Jim Nicholson’s report because it strengthens the bargaining position for dairy farms – in particular, the smaller farms – and promotes greater transparency in the milk market. What is most significant about the report is that it does not include mandatory EU contracts and leaves the important decision making up to Member States. If we are to help farmers, we need to make it easier for them to do business, not lumber them with compulsory EU quotas and contracts. Farmers have to deal with enough meddling from the EU.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This regulation will not solve the problems caused by the decision to abolish milk quotas, which has affected thousands upon thousands of farmers. Thousands of dairy farms continue to close, as the price of milk paid to the producer does not offset the high costs of production. What is needed is the reversal of the decision to abolish production quotas in 2015, and their adaptation to the needs of each country and to the relative level of development of its productive capacity.

  Milan Zver (PPE), in writing. – (SL) Research shows that the majority of countries will be on their way to a ‘soft landing’ when milk quotas are finally abolished. Nevertheless, transition to a milk sector without milk quotas brings with it numerous challenges, especially for milk producers. Therefore, it is only right and proper that they be better prepared for these changes and their bargaining power be increased. In this regard, I welcome the proposed measures, such as the possibility of mandatory contracts, expansion of the rules on integrating producers and measures for the comprehensive and transparent monitoring of purchased quantities of milk. In particular, it establishes a new system for dealing with the challenges of milk producers in less favoured areas (including Slovenia). These producers will need to give considerable thought to how to move forward and, unfortunately, this will include less desirable options such as the abandonment of milk production and/or farming. In my opinion, the measures proposed will not be enough in these regions and areas. Therefore, I urge you to consider introducing additional measures for these areas, either as part of the common organisation of the markets or in the framework of rural development policy. Since 2015 is fast approaching, I await with great interest the next report on developments in the milk sector due at the end of this year.

Report: Stanimir Ilchev (A7-0399/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report, in view of the lack of consideration that the European institutions currently show towards Parliament’s own-initiative reports because they are not ordinary legislative processes. In line with this report, the role of own-initiative reports will be enhanced by ensuring that they are handled as strategic reports. The treatment of such reports should also be improved.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. – I voted in favour of this resolution proposing the amendment of Rule 48(2) with a view to improving the treatment of own-initiative reports, in particular at the plenary stage, and to examining the question of whether Rules 163 and 167 should apply to INI reports. I agree with the rapporteur’s proposal to reduce the necessary quorum for tabling amendments in plenary from one-tenth to 40 Members, to extend the application of Rule 163 (split voting) and Rule 167 (roll-call voting) to INI reports, and to amend the last sentence of Rule 48(2) to endorse the COP (Conference of Presidents) recommendation according to which the decision on whether an INI report is ‘strategic’ or not should be carried out by the COP at the authorisation stage. These amendments will make Parliament’s work more efficient and dynamic.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Within the European Union, the European Commission has the legislative initiative. However, the Lisbon Treaty has reinforced the rights of the European Parliament regarding the right to legislative initiative, which allows us to call on the European Commission to submit a proposal. With a view to improving how own-initiative reports are dealt with, in particular at the plenary stage, I agree with the decision of the Conference of Presidents, which has assessed that own-initiative reports drawn up on the basis of annual activity reports and monitoring reports should be treated as strategic reports.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of this report because I consider it to be a timely amendment to Parliament’s Rules of Procedure on own-initiative reports. • Without prejudice to the relevance of this type of report and the useful debates thereon, Article 48(2), as amended, shall allow for a greater focus of European Parliament’s activity on the legislative process. • This is necessary also from the perspective of Parliament fulfilling the new missions and exercising the new competences falling on it under the Treaty of Lisbon. • At the same time, a clearer definition of the nature of each own-initiative report as early as the authorisation stage will lead to greater efficiency in the drawing up, amendment and adoption of the text. The role of the expert committees as a central framework for negotiations to reach a compromise shall be reiterated. • Last but not least, I want to emphasise the usefulness of clarifications concerning the criteria for establishing the strategic character of an own-initiative report. These will ensure the positive effects of this amendment to the regulation.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – I voted against this proposal, as it restricts the use of roll-call voting (RCV), only allowing RCV to be applied to final votes on own-initiative reports from Parliament. I believe RCV should be utilised in every situation to ensure democratic control, not just in final reports, but on crucial amendments as well. Information on how each individual elected Member of Parliament voted should also be made available for constituents to monitor, yet this proposal appears to further limit the application of roll-call voting to only certain elements of Parliamentary decision making.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) In my view, not all the amendments to Rule 48(2) of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure planned by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs are timely. While I go along with the idea that the way own-initiative reports are dealt with should be improved, equally, we should not overload the agenda with non-legislative reports. That is why I voted in favour of Amendment 6, which maintains split voting (Rule 163) and voting by roll call (Rule 167) for amendments tabled in plenary and parliamentary committee resolutions. I am in favour of the proposal not to apply split voting to alternative resolutions. I agree with the idea of letting the Conference of Presidents decide on the strategic nature of own-initiative reports.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this amendment because it will incorporate the following amendments into the Rules of Procedure: ‘Motions for resolutions contained in own-initiative reports shall be examined by Parliament under the short presentation procedure set out in Rule 139’. ‘Amendments to such motions for resolutions shall only be admissible for consideration in plenary if tabled by the rapporteur to take account of new information or by at least one-tenth of the Members of Parliament. Political groups may table alternative motions for resolutions in accordance with Rule 157(4)’. ‘Rules 163 and 167 shall apply to the voting on such motions and amendments. Rule 167 shall also apply to the voting on such alternative motions. This paragraph shall not apply in cases where the subject of the report qualifies for a key debate in plenary, where the report is drawn up pursuant to the right of initiative referred to in Rules 41 or 42, or where the report has been authorised as a strategic report’.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Several recommendations have been adopted by the Conference of Presidents to address the need to improve the treatment of own-initiative reports, in particular at the plenary stage. The aim of this initiative is to introduce the necessary amendments to Parliament’s Rules of Procedure in order to incorporate the decision taken by the Conference of Presidents, according to which own-initiative reports drawn up on the basis of annual activity and monitoring reports, as listed in items 1 and 2 of Annex XVIII to the Rules of Procedure, should be handled as strategic reports, pursuant to the criteria set out by the Conference of Presidents.

Regarding the question of whether Rule 163, relating to split voting, should apply to own-initiative reports, it establishes that this rule is not applicable, except for the own-initiative reports mentioned in the last sentence of Rule 48(2), or where the subject of the report qualifies for a key debate in plenary, where the report is drawn up pursuant to Rule 41 or 42, or where the report has been authorised as a strategic report. It also clarifies that the roll-call vote may only be requested for the final vote under Rule 167, with the same exception as set out in Rule 163.

  Diane Dodds (NI), in writing. – One of the many valid criticisms often levelled at this Parliament – and at the EU institutions as a whole – is that its actions lack transparency and real accountability and are not subjected to the necessary level of scrutiny. For any MEP who is a proponent of a more open Europe and of effective parliamentary scrutiny, the Ilchev report is unacceptable. The ability to request and partake in roll-call votes is an essential part of the process by which this Parliament conducts its business and is an important part of the transparency for Parliament which we MEPs should encourage and not seek to suppress.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Own-initiative reports are an important way for Members to carry out their duties and have enabled Parliament to look in greater detail at issues which would otherwise have escaped its notice. Despite these undoubted qualities, this House should resist the temptation to spend most of its time on non-legislative reports. This resolution seeks to improve the framework for this type of report within the Rules of Procedure, as well as their connection to the Conference of Presidents. I hope that the amendments that have been tabled will have the desired result: that the Rules of Procedure will become an increasingly important legal instrument for facilitating and informing the actions of Members and that, as a result, they will increasingly become less of a bureaucratic obstacle to this action, which should be free, active and well informed.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report, drafted by Mr Ilchev, concerns the amendment of Rule 48(2) of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure on own-initiative reports. This draft amendment follows the Conference of Presidents on 7 April 2011, at which it was decided that own-initiative reports drawn up on the basis of annual activity and monitoring reports, as listed in items 1 and 2 of Annex XVIII to the Rules of Procedure, should be handled as strategic reports in the sense of the last sentence of Rule 48(2) of the Rules of Procedure, with a view to improving the treatment of own-initiative reports.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) These amendments to the Rules of Procedure, promoted by the majority in this House – the holy alliance between the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament – do not make the institution more democratic. Quite the contrary. The amendment to Rule 48(2), for example, seeks to limit the political groups’ opportunities for involvement in tabling amendments, requests for split votes and roll-call votes on points in own-initiative reports, if these are only carried out under the short presentation procedure.

The aim of this is to assert the role of Parliament in interinstitutional disputes within the EU, seeking to make own-initiative reports look like a consensus, making it a feigned consensus. It is regrettable and reprehensible that they are trying to limit the political groups’ involvement and, in particular, that of the Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left, which indisputably offers an alternative to this EU: that of a social Europe, a Europe of the workers and peoples.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) With a view to improving the assessment of own-initiative reports, the Conference of Presidents decided that INI reports drawn up on the basis of annual activity and monitoring reports should be considered to be strategic reports in the sense of the last sentence of Rule 48(2) of the Rules of Procedure. The Conference of Presidents also decided to invite the Committee on Constitutional Affairs to examine the question of whether Rules 163 and 167 should apply to INI reports. As the recommendations adopted by the Conference of Presidents considers that ‘the decision on whether an INI report is strategic or not in the sense of the last sentence of Rule 48(2) of the Rules of Procedure shall be carried out by the Conference of Presidents at the authorisation stage by using a more political interpretation of the Decision of the Conference of Presidents of 12 December 2002 as amended (Annex XVIII to the Rules of Procedure)’, the last sentence of Rule 48(2) should be adapted accordingly. Regarding the question of whether Rules 163 and 167 should apply to INI reports, the report considers that a split vote should be allowed only for own-initiative reports referred to in the last sentence of Rule 48(2). Requests for a roll-call vote should only be allowed for the final vote, with the exception of the reports referred to in the last sentence of Rule 48(2).

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) This report aims to improve how own-initiative reports, which are non-legislative reports, are dealt with, particularly in plenary. The idea is to avoid overloading the agenda of part sessions with these reports while preserving the right of Members to draft own-initiative reports, established under Parliament’s Rules of Procedures. I voted in favour of this report in plenary.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report in order to make the Parliament’s voting sessions more efficient.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour. I agree with the explanation put forward by Mr Ilchev and with the proposal to amend the text of Article 48. The text needs to be adapted taking into due consideration the Conference of Presidents’ interpretation of the authorisation phase.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) This report refuses to expand the possibilities of calling for roll-call voting and split voting for each own-initiative report. These instruments allow Members to account for the positions they take on important issues. There is no need to prevent this for own-initiative reports which, along with resolutions and other explanatory texts, form the main part of what is voted on in this Chamber. If this Parliament has no power of legislative initiative, no spontaneous speech, no real right of amendment, then is it not merely a machine to say ‘yes’ to every liberal extravagance?

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the amendment to Rule 48(2) of the Rules of Procedure concerning own-initiative reports, as it clarifies the voting procedure for motions for resolutions by the Commission and related amendments, and also sets out what should be considered a strategic report.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (ES) Own-initiative reports are an important tool enabling the European Parliament to express its opinion to the other European institutions when the ordinary legislative procedure is not applied. I have voted against Mr Ilchev’s report in this case, as the rapporteur proposed some changes that restricted the possibility for Members to use these reports on equal terms. I am specifically referring to the restrictions concerning split votes and roll-call votes on these types of reports, and the necessary condition for tabling amendments as required by the report, that is, that amendments have to be signed by at least one tenth of the Members.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – In April 2011, the Conference of Presidents approved a series of recommendations concerning the treatment of own-initiative reports. With a view to improving the treatment of own-initiative reports, in particular at the plenary stage, the report following the recommendations by the COP decided that own-initiative reports drawn up on the basis of annual activity and monitoring reports should be handled as strategic reports within the meaning of the last sentence of Rule 48(2) of the Rules of Procedure.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) While agreeing that own-initiative reports should be of greater strategic importance, particularly on those matters to which the European Parliament is drawing the Commission’s attention, along with especially important matters, I would like to highlight another aspect. It is often the case that the European Parliament drafts own-initiative reports one after another and on the same issues. Unfortunately, although we are expressing our position on important issues (such as the demographic situation or biodiversity conservation), such reports often only repeat one another and we do not say anything new in them, nor do we get any closer to solving the problem. I would therefore like to draw the European Parliament President’s attention to the need, when approving the topics of draft reports, to focus more on the relevance and originality of the topics of own-initiative reports rather than the importance of the subject.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) It should be noted that the European Parliament is an institution representing the citizens of the Member States. Elected MEPs work in accordance with the free mandate principle, which is a fundamental law of parliamentary democracy. Consequently, the right to own-initiative reports should not be restricted. Furthermore, I do not believe that it is appropriate to only apply the split vote and the roll-call vote to motions for resolutions and amendments thereto, and roll-call votes just once during the final vote on alternative motions for resolutions.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report, which is aimed at adapting the Rules of Procedure following the decision by the Conference of Presidents to improve the handling of own-initiative reports, especially at the plenary stage. Indeed, the Conference of Presidents decided that own-initiative reports drawn up on the basis of annual activity and monitoring reports, as listed in items 1 and 2 to Annex XVIII to the Rules of Procedure, should be handled as strategic reports in the sense of the last sentence of Rule 48(2) of the Rules of Procedure, and asked the Committee on Constitutional Affairs to ensure the adequate monitoring of that decision. I agree with the rapporteur, who believes that the last sentence of Rule 48(2) of the Rules of Procedure should be adapted, pursuant to the amendment tabled by the Conference of Presidents.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) In the decision adopted today, Parliament ‘takes note of the Conference of Presidents’ decision of 7 April 2011 stating that own-initiative reports drawn up on the basis of annual activity and monitoring reports listed in items 1 and 2 of the Conference of Presidents’ decision of 12 December 2002, as contained in Annex XVIII to its Rules of Procedure (‘the 2002 Decision’), are to be considered as strategic reports within the meaning of the last sentence of Rule 48(2), and instructs its Secretary-General to incorporate the decision into Annex XVIII’. Parliament also ‘takes the view that Article 2(4) of the 2002 Decision has become obsolete as a result of the decision of 13 November 2007 on the amendment of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure in light of the Statute for Members, and instructs its Secretary-General to adapt Annex XVIII accordingly’. I have voted in favour of the amendment of said article in order to improve the treatment of own-initiative reports.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) On 7 April, the Conference of Presidents adopted a decision on own-initiative reports. This decision aims to incorporate some amendments on own-initiative reports into the Rules of Procedures, stating that roll-call and split votes may be applied in these cases.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. Own-initiative reports that are not subject of a key debate are currently not considered strategic or to have been drawn up pursuant to EP’s right of initiative and may only be amended in Plenary by the rapporteur to take account of new, objective information or by one tenth of the Members of the EP (74). Groups may only table alternative resolutions. Whether groups may or may not table split, separate and roll-call votes has been a contentious issue and is the reason why this question has been referred to the Committee on Constitutional Affairs. Our group has taken the line that it believes that the tabling of split, separate and roll-call votes should remain possible for groups. We wanted to maintain the possibility for split, separate and roll-call votes for all own-initiative reports, and we got this.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Given that the Conference of Presidents has decided that own-initiative reports drawn up on the basis of annual activity and monitoring reports, as listed in items 1 and 2 of Annex XVIII to the Rules of Procedure, should be handled as strategic reports in the sense of the last sentence of Rule 48(2) of the Rules of Procedure, and that, in line with the recommendations of the Conference of Presidents, the decision on whether an own-initiative report is strategic or not in the sense of the last sentence of Rule 48(2) of the Rules of Procedure will be made by the Conference of Presidents at the authorisation stage, I voted for the amendments tabled in the document.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the report on the amendment of Rule 48(2) of Parliament's Rules of Procedure on own-initiative reports, as I believe it is necessary for the regime applicable to such reports to be improved, particularly at the plenary stage. Motions for a resolution contained in own-initiative reports shall be examined by Parliament under the short presentation procedure. Amendments to such motions for resolutions shall only be admissible for consideration in plenary if tabled by the rapporteur to take account of new information, or by at least one-tenth of the Members of Parliament. At the same time, political groups may table alternative motions for resolutions in accordance with Rule 157(4) concerning admissibility of amendments. Thus, a political group or at least 40 Members of Parliament may table a motion for a resolution to replace a non-legislative proposal for resolution contained in a report of a committee, but without exceeding the length of the competent committee’s resolution. The proposal is subject to approval by Parliament without amendments, by single vote. These provisions shall not apply in cases where the subject of the report qualifies for a key debate in plenary, where the report is drawn up pursuant to the right of initiative, or where the report has been authorised as a strategic report.

  Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR), in writing. – At the last Brussels plenary, I was prevented by the President of the European Parliament from voting on individual clauses in a report ‘in the interests of efficiency’. I voted against this report because it also proposes to sacrifice democracy in the name of efficiency. We must be able to table split votes and roll-call votes on all items in all reports. Our constituents have the right to know how their elected representatives are voting and Members deserve the right to express their approval or disapproval of individual clauses in a report. The fact that this report was passed with a large majority is another testament to the ‘stitch-up’ between the largest groups in the European Parliament. Sunshine is the best disinfectant; the larger political groups should not fear transparency. They should end the stranglehold they have on this Parliament and open it up to true democratic principles.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) Amendments to the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament promoted by the majority in this House – the holy alliance between the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament – come and go, but they do not make the institution more democratic. Proof of this is the amendment to Rule 48(2), which limits the political groups’ opportunities for involvement in tabling amendments, requests for split votes and roll-call votes on points in own-initiative reports, if these are only carried out under the short presentation procedure. The aim is to assert the role of Parliament in interinstitutional disputes within the EU, with the majority seeking to ensure that own-initiative reports feign a consensus, limiting the involvement of some political groups by conveying the idea that Parliament is united around common goals. This is aimed at the most significant political group in Parliament, the Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left, and its actions in advocating an alternative to the EU of big business and the major powers, which continues to support peace and oppose the militarisation of the EU.

Motion for a resolution: B7-0016/2012

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) Given the unique situation of the euro area at present, with the Member States sharing a single currency without a common fiscal policy or a single bond market, and with major concern over the continuous strains on the bond markets from the sovereign debt crisis, reflected in widening spreads and enormous volatility, I am voting for this report, as I believe that the prospect of stability bonds can foster stability in the euro area in the medium term, and that the ratification of the European Stability Mechanism treaty and/or euro bills is vital, as is joint management of sovereign debt issuance.

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I supported the motion for a resolution on the feasibility of introducing stability bonds in the European Union. At such a time of crisis, the creation of a ‘euro bills’ market and the creation of stability bonds in particular could offer a viable alternative to the US dollar bond market. However, Member States must be made more responsible and must ensure the long-term stability of the euro. Rigorous budget discipline and universal respect for the rules must be guaranteed. Furthermore, I feel I must highlight the fact that a sustainable fiscal framework is essential for joint bond issuance and must be aimed at both enhanced economic governance and economic growth in the euro area. I therefore welcome the Green Paper on the issue, which I think could provide a useful starting point for further reflection and developments on this solution, which is deserving of careful scrutiny from the Commission in terms of its impact, feasibility and effectiveness.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) My colleagues in the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and I voted in favour of the introduction of stability bonds, which can foster stability in the euro area in the medium term. Our decision is based on the European Commission’s Green Paper. This resolution calls for the pooling of sovereign debt by the countries of the euro area, in accordance with a proposal by a group of German economists. However, the text calls for other financial instruments to be put in place quickly in order to respond to short-term needs and that we should not think that these stability bonds will solve our problems. I voted in favour of a resolution which, for the moment, is aimed at making us consider the possible conditions for implementing such bonds. In short, I am in favour of increased coordination of budgetary policy across Europe, which would be brought about by the introduction of stability bonds.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution expressing the European Parliament’s position on the Green Paper and a more detailed resolution or reports on this matter will be drawn up at a later date. The euro area and its Member States must ensure the long-term stability of the currency used by more than 330 million people and many companies and investors because it indirectly affects the rest of the world. I agree that stability bonds could be an additional means of incentivising compliance with the Stability and Growth Pact. However, we must continue to tackle such important issues as budgetary discipline and increasing competitiveness, the criteria for the allocation of loans to Member States and the capacity to service the debt, as well as measurable and enforceable debt programmes, etc. The prospect of stability bonds may foster stability in the euro area in the medium term, but the Commission must come forward rapidly with proposals to address decisively the current sovereign debt crisis.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Considering the particular situation in which the euro area finds itself, and the sovereign debt crisis and high interest rates being experienced by the weakest economies, there is consensus on the importance of stability bonds as elements for stability and increased confidence, convergence and growth for the euro area. Stability bonds will enable sovereign debt risk to be shared, will reduce market volatility, and will set the euro area on a path of greater integration, which will lay the foundation for relaunching economic growth. They will have other benefits, specifically with regard to reducing the cost of debt, to reasserting the euro as a reserve currency at global level, to market efficiency and to reducing speculative attacks. This resolution, for which I voted, emphasises the need for swift measures to resolve the sovereign debt crisis, calling for concrete actions from the European Commission.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution because I agree that we have to consider in detail the proposed idea of euro-denominated bonds when seeking means of ensuring stability in the euro area, in order to ensure that the euro once again becomes a strong currency and contributes towards guaranteeing the stability of the international monetary system. We are forced to consider the idea of a common issuance of bonds because the continuous strains on the euro area sovereign bond markets, reflected in widening differences in purchase and selling prices over the last two years, leads to high volatility and vulnerability to speculative attacks. However, the European Parliament is once again reiterating to the Commission and the Member States that the creation of a sustainable fiscal framework, aimed at both enhancing economic governance and boosting economic growth in the euro area, is a necessary precondition for a common issuance of bonds, and sequencing is a key issue, involving a binding road map.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – I voted against this report as it is an economically illiterate attempt to introduce Eurobonds by the back door, prioritising collective euro area debt over the restructuring and recovery of national debts. National debt should remain one of the most important aspects of national economies and is the burden of the domestic government involved. At a time of economic hardship, the UK cannot afford the introduction of so-called stability bonds, which are supposed to foster stability in the euro area in the medium term and would be achieved by the use of Member State contributions, including a sizeable British contribution to the budget. I cannot agree to the use of Welsh taxpayers’ money to support the failing single currency when constituents are suffering economic hardships of their own. It is not right that the UK should be contributing towards paying off the debts of bankrupt euro area economies in order to resuscitate the EU’s single currency ambitions.

  Antonio Cancian (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted enthusiastically in favour of the motion for a resolution on the feasibility of introducing stability bonds, since I am well aware that the extraordinary period of crisis that we are going through requires the courage to bring in innovative measures and financial instruments. Fiscal austerity and budgetary discipline are, of course, necessary and essential: indeed, one of the most destabilising factors is the fragmentation of the equity market, which is currently subject to 27 different sets of rules and regulations. Yet if we stop here, there is a very real risk of recession.

At the same time, we need to support growth, development and jobs in order to revive the European economy. I think that opening the debate, as we have done today, on the possibility of issuing joint European bonds is a step that we cannot fail to take if our goal is to achieve a market with greater liquidity and lower interest rates. We absolutely must put paid to the concerns of some quarters over the debt that would be created being used to fund European infrastructure; this infrastructure is the key for reviving Europe’s economy and competitiveness in today’s globalised world, which will not allow us to fall behind.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this motion for a resolution, as it contributes to the current debate on stability bonds, and in view of its relevance as an important element in resolving the crisis in the euro area. It comments on the importance of implementing stability bonds, and makes observations about the Commission’s green paper on the issue. In view of the unique situation in which the euro area finds itself, and of the sovereign debt crisis and high interest rates being experienced by the weakest economies, there is consensus on the importance of stability bonds as stabilising elements that foster increased confidence, convergence and growth for the euro area.

  Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I support this report because stability bonds can be an additional incentive for compliance with the Stability and Growth Pact, especially in the context of new rules for the effective enforcement of budgetary surveillance in the euro area. As the issuer of the second international currency, the euro area has an essential role in maintaining the stability of the international monetary system, and also a strategic interest in capitalising on its full potential, so that the euro can become a global reserve currency. However, stability bonds can only play an important role in national implementation and global affirmation of euro area monetary policy provided that there is a sustainable budget framework in place based on economic growth, and not in the fragile context of the last two years, marked by speculative attacks, instability and faulty economic governance.

  George Sabin Cutaş (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of the resolution on the feasibility of introducing stability bonds as I believe that launching a system of euro bonds is absolutely necessary to ensure stability of the single currency, increase liquidity and reduce the borrowing costs that are currently facing the EU Member States. Therefore, I appreciate the step taken by the EU executive in releasing the Green Paper on this issue and I expect a road map for the next steps to be taken to launch the new bonds.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this resolution, as it argues that introducing stability bonds will contribute to the efficiency of the bond market and of the broader euro area financial system. ‘Euro bills’ are not a panacea, but they are an important element of the medium-term solutions. Greater fiscal coordination will also be necessary for the joint issuance of bonds, with a view to better economic governance.

  Göran Färm, Anna Hedh, Olle Ludvigsson, Jens Nilsson, Marita Ulvskog and Åsa Westlund (S&D), in writing. – (SV) We Swedish Social Democrats are somewhat doubtful about the wording in paragraph 12 calling on the Commission to quickly submit a proposal with regard to a redemption pact and/or a euro bills system. These are plans that, as things stand, are merely at the idea stage and that need to be worked through very carefully before they could potentially be put into practice.

At the same time, as representatives of an electorate in a non-euro area country, we have no interest in preventing the euro area countries from moving ahead quickly in these areas if they consider it to be necessary. Provided there is no negative effect on the internal market and EU cooperation in general, it has to be up to the euro countries themselves to decide on the solutions that they consider suitable for dealing with government debt and for rescuing the common currency.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This motion for a resolution, tabled following the oral question submitted by Ms Bowles and Ms Goulard, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, pursuant to Rule 115(5) of the Rules of Procedure, concerns the feasibility of introducing stability bonds. The possibility of introducing stability bonds has led to several studies, in particular the Commission’s Green Paper of 23 November 2011, and President Van Rompuy’s interim report of 6 December 2011, entitled Towards a Stronger Economic Union. The euro area issues the world’s second most important international currency, and its Member States should enjoy all the potential benefits of issuing the euro, as it has the potential to become a global reserve currency. Given that these bonds may contribute towards the stability of the euro area and the efficiency of its financial system, which is currently vulnerable to speculative attacks, I voted for this motion for a resolution, as it will also contribute towards European economic recovery.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The name that the Commission has now given to what were long called ‘Eurobonds’ – stability bonds – demonstrates the requirement inherent to them: the deepening of economic and fiscal governance, in the way advocated and put into practice by the directorate that runs the EU. This has been done by placing unacceptable limits on the sovereignty of countries and peoples in areas vital in enabling them to determine their collective obligations. The strategic objective adopted here is not economic growth, job creation and combating social inequality, but asserting the euro as a global reserve currency, which goes against the interests of the people of the outlying countries. This mechanism does not guarantee an end to speculative attacks and maintains differentiation in the interest rates each country pays for finance.

What is needed is not measures that, years ago, could have served to absorb some of the speculative shock, within the framework of a debate on profound change to European Union economic policy. What is needed presently is to reverse the path taken, and to repeal economic governance, the Euro Plus Pact and the new European Treaty.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) Parliament has requested that the Commission present a report on the possibility of introducing euro-securities, which is an integral part of the agreement between Parliament and the Council on the package of six legislative proposals on economic governance. The euro area is in a unique situation, with the euro area Member States sharing a single currency without a common fiscal policy and a single bond market. The issuance of bonds with joint and several liability would, however, require a process of deeper integration. The euro area, as the issuer of the world’s second international currency, is co-responsible for the stability of the international monetary system. It is in its strategic long-term interest to draw all the possible benefits of issuing the euro, which has the potential to become a global reserve currency. The euro area and its Member States are responsible for ensuring the long-term stability of the currency used by more than 330 million people and many companies and investors, which indirectly affects the rest of the world. Stability bonds would facilitate the transmission of euro area monetary policy and would promote efficiency in the bond market and in the broader euro area financial system. At the same time, I am of the opinion that the introduction of a sustainable fiscal framework, aimed at both enhanced economic governance and economic growth, is a necessary precondition for a common issuance of bonds. I also believe that the prospect of stability bonds can foster stability in the euro area.

  Louis Grech (S&D), in writing. – I support Parliament’s resolution on the feasibility of stability bonds. Recent attempts by Member States to address the economic crisis have been almost universally short-sighted and half-baked. We must do better – Europe needs a credible, long-term route out of the crisis, involving a series of interlocking measures. One such initiative could be stability bonds, or Eurobonds. In my view, stability bonds deserve serious consideration because, if properly implemented, they could help to insulate the euro area’s 330 million citizens from the type of instability that has dogged us in recent years, costing us jobs and reducing people’s quality of life. A well-designed stability bond system would address these problems in the following way: firstly, by creating a single market for euro area bonds, stability bonds would be a formidable tool in our arsenal against the ongoing crisis. Stability bonds would improve liquidity in the bond markets, reduce volatility and prevent speculative attacks on euro area Member States. Secondly, stability bonds could support sustainable and responsible budgetary practices by including requirements for budgetary discipline. Such a solid economic framework could result in improved economic governance and, crucially, could spur economic growth, which has been hampered by the atmosphere of uncertainty on financial markets.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) The adoption of a road map to establish the conditions enabling the common issuance of part of the sovereign debt in the form of Eurobonds is a long-standing demand of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament.

That is why I supported the adoption of this resolution, because Eurobonds establish not only a system of responsibility and solidarity between Member States, by coming to the aid of the most indebted countries giving them access to loans at a reduced price, but also because they encourage a deepening of the economic and monetary union. What is more, they are a means of increasing the long-term stability and strength of the euro area. Eurobonds therefore represent a viable alternative to the drastic austerity measures imposed on citizens and provide a common European response to the sovereign debt crisis affecting the States and their people.

  Carl Haglund (ALDE), in writing. – I, Carl Haglund, decided to abstain from supporting the resolution on the feasibility of introducing stability bonds following my firm conviction that a system of permanent joint liabilities for sovereign debt is no solution for the eurozone. In addition to this, there are a number of issues concerning moral hazard, wrong incentives, impacts on the interest rates and legal constraints that, as yet, have not been appropriately tackled in my view. The rapporteur has made a great effort in tackling these and other inherent issues, which is the reason for my not voting against the resolution, even though the fundamental question on joint liabilities led me to abstain from supporting the resolution.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed this resolution because I believe that stability bonds could be an additional means of incentivising compliance with the Stability and Growth Pact, provided that they address the issue of moral hazard and joint liability. This is one of the possible measures that could help resolve the present situation. I welcome the provision that the Commission should come forward as soon as possible with proposals to address decisively the current sovereign debt crisis. The euro area and its Member States must ensure the long-term stability of the currency used by more than 330 million people and many companies and investors because it has an impact not just on the EU, but the rest of the world. We must be open to discuss all issues – both strengths and weaknesses – relating to the feasibility of introducing stability bonds under different options, so that we find the right response to the current sovereign debt crisis.

  Anne E. Jensen (ALDE), in writing. – (DA) I voted in favour of the resolution on stability bonds. I believe that we should reject the Commission’s first proposal for stability bonds, as these bonds would mean that countries whose economies are in order will pay a higher rate of interest. That being said, I agree with the resolution’s support for the proposal from the German experts for common bonds that would entail each country being liable for its own debt and receiving a cash incentive to pursue a disciplined policy. The resolution recommends that the Commission carry out further work on this proposal, and that is something that I can support wholeheartedly.

  Kent Johansson, Marit Paulsen, Olle Schmidt and Cecilia Wikström (ALDE), in writing. – It is our conviction that a system of permanent joint liability for sovereign debt is no short-term solution for the euro area. There are a number of issues concerning moral hazard, incentives, impacts on interest rates and legal constraints that, to date, have not been investigated properly by the Commission. When the debt crisis has been resolved in the euro area and the Member States have reduced their budget deficits, such a system could be evaluated. There are, however, necessary strict preconditions that have to be met for a common issuance of bonds; for example, a culture of stability must have been credibly established in the euro area and a sustainable fiscal framework needs to be in place, aimed at ensuring both enhanced economic governance and economic growth in the euro area.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Parliament has requested that the Commission present a report on the possibility of introducing euro-securities, a report which forms an integral part of the agreement between the Parliament and the Council on the economic governance package, the ‘six-pack’. This resolution constitutes a preliminary response to the Commission Green Paper dated 23 November 2011 on the feasibility of introducing stability bonds. It will be followed by an own-initiative report. I voted in favour of this resolution, which shows that stability bonds could be an additional measure which would encourage compliance with the stability pact and growth, and foster stability in the euro area in the medium term.

  Krišjānis Kariņš (PPE), in writing. – (LV) I supported the resolution on the feasibility of introducing stability bonds because this resolution sets out reasons for the need to introduce euro-securities and explains the measures required for them to be introduced. It is clear that changes are taking place in Europe, but this is particularly true in the European monetary union, namely, in the countries that have introduced the euro. Each of these countries has a different economic situation, debt level, growth prospects and so on. However, the European Central Bank, which oversees European monetary union, does not have the authority to issue euro-securities with the highest credit rating. Stability bonds or euro-securities would mean accountability on the part of all the euro states for the joint debt. Certainly, the introduction of such securities in the current situation is not possible, because more stringent fiscal conditions are necessary for the euro area states, in order to reduce the risk should any Member State be unable to pay back its debt. After it has joined the euro area, it will be advantageous for Latvia to introduce European stability bonds or euro-securities, because they will have the highest credit rating; that is to say, countries in the euro area would be able to borrow extremely cheaply because of the low interest rates.

  Alexander Graf Lambsdorff (ALDE), in writing. – The FDP Delegation has abstained in today’s vote on the motion for a resolution on the feasibility of introducing stability bonds. We believe that the introduction of Eurobonds would set the wrong incentives. Since the introduction of the euro, low interest rates have led to a substantial increase in debt levels in many eurozone countries. Eurobonds would take the pressure off highly indebted eurozone Member States to consolidate their budgets and introduce much needed structural reforms. Therefore, we believe that Eurobonds would aggravate, rather than alleviate, the current crisis. However, we did not vote against the resolution as many of our concerns have been taken on board by the rapporteur.

  Constance Le Grip (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the European Parliament’s resolution on the feasibility of introducing stability bonds, following on from the Green Paper launched by the Commission on this subject.

These famous ‘Eurobonds’ are one of the options to foster stability in the euro area in the medium term, but they are not a single solution to the problems we are now faced with and, in particular, the sovereign debt crisis in Europe. Of course, the necessary prerequisite is to implement enhanced economic governance, to continue the consolidation of public finances through common budgetary discipline, and to step up convergence of our economic and budgetary policies.

Once these principles are established and the implementation of the financial stability treaty has been completed, it will be possible to jointly issue bonds, which will be useful and viewed as such by the countries of the European Union. Furthermore, technical issues, primarily regarding the issue of debt segmentation, remain to be resolved.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I believe that the prospect of stability bonds can foster stability in the euro area in the medium term. This report calls on the Commission, however, to come forward rapidly with proposals to address decisively the current sovereign debt crisis, such as the European redemption pact proposed by the German Council of Economic Experts and/or the finalisation and ratification of an ESM treaty and/or euro bills, as well as joint management of sovereign debt issuance.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I am voting in favour of the resolution. Following the introduction of the euro, the time is definitely right for Europe to put in place a common budget policy and a single bond market. This would make it possible to pursue more ardently the goal of stabilising the sovereign debt market and bring about reduced borrowing costs for Member States. Germany’s reservations were initially understandable, but there are sound reasons for them to be overcome, since it is now possible to conceive of Eurobonds that will allow some countries to cut their cost of their debt, without increasing it for others.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) This resolution claims that stability bonds can foster stability in the euro area. However, these bonds promote dependence on free financial markets, which are precisely the cause of the instability. They also serve to justify forcing Member States to gradually move towards a policy of permanent restraint. In so doing, they hide the solutions that are needed as a matter of urgency. What we need to do is to cancel the illegitimate portion of sovereign debt, make the European Central Bank buy back another portion, set up a coordinated European policy to boost activity and jobs and organise a coordinated raising of tax on capital and income. I voted against this text.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The continuous strains on the euro area bond markets for sovereign debt are worrying, and have been reflected in widening spreads, high volatility, vulnerability and speculative attacks over the last two years. The euro area, as the issuer of the world’s second largest international currency, is jointly responsible for the stability of the international monetary system. It is therefore in the long-term strategic interests of the euro area and its Member States to take maximum advantage of issuing the euro, which has the potential to become a global reserve currency. It is worth noting that the US treasury market and the total euro area sovereign bond market are comparable in size but not in terms of liquidity, diversity and pricing. However, it may be in the interests of the euro area to develop a common, liquid and diversified bond market, and once a stability culture has been credibly established in the euro area, a stability bond market could offer a viable alternative to the US dollar bond market and establish the euro as a ‘safe haven’ currency. That is why I voted in favour.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (ES) I share the European Commission’s worries about the continued stress in the sovereign bond markets in the euro area. It is characterised by rising differentials, high volatility and a vulnerability to the speculative attacks of the last two years. I could even support the view that it might be helpful to issue Eurobonds for the euro area. Under no circumstances, however, can I accept their issue being subject to a budgetary framework aimed at economic governance, a binding scheme similar to the Maastricht criteria, and subject also to budgetary discipline and an increase in competitiveness, as stated in the report, nor do I understand Eurobonds as an additional means of incentivising compliance with the Stability Pact. That is why I have voted against.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The resolution is an answer by the European Parliament to the Commission’s Green Paper of 23 November 2011, in which the Commission offered three options for stability bonds for euro area countries. In the resolution, the European Parliament points to the necessity of conducting additional work regarding all three options.

  Vital Moreira (S&D), in writing. – (PT) Since I agree that they form part of a genuine ‘fiscal union’, I voted for the resolution on stability bonds; that is, on the issuance of public debt by EU Member States, mutually guaranteed by the other Member States. As the resolution states, we have had a single currency without a common fiscal policy or a single bond market. When fiscal integration is consolidated, there will be no reason not to have a mutually assured issue of public debt. This will, however, require Treaty change. Despite the hasty demands of some, what we could not have is Eurobonds without first establishing fiscal union. A country cannot be asked to be held responsible for the debt of another country if there is no mutual control of their respective budgets. The recent ‘fiscal compact’ is an important step in the right direction.

  Sławomir Witold Nitras (PPE), in writing. – (PL) The current financial crisis has laid bare the imperfections of the institutional architecture of the euro area and its economic governance. Mention should be made, here, not only of the protractedness of the decision-making process and the ineffective enforcement of fiscal discipline in the Stability and Growth Pact, but also of the susceptibility to speculative attacks and the changeability of the prices of assets in sovereign bond markets, which reduce the effectiveness of the common monetary policy.

The initial proposal for the introduction of what are called stability bonds, in other words, a form similar to the common sovereign bonds issued on behalf of all the euro area Member States, is certainly worthy of attention. The potential benefits of introducing this remedy are the principal reasons which ought to persuade us to carry out an in-depth analysis of this question. The use of a form of mutualisation of debt can help increase the effectiveness, stability and resistance to sudden disruptions of the European market in government bonds. In periods of increased aversion to risk, a common bond market will make it easier for the Member States which participate in the mechanism to enjoy access to the market, and will also increase the effectiveness of the monetary transmission mechanism in the euro area.

It should also be added that the effect of scale will reduce the transaction costs and strengthen the role of the euro as an international reserve currency in the global financial market. Putting this proposal into effect entails important consequences for the global financial market and the future efficiency of operation of the euro area, but in order to evaluate it objectively, it is necessary to make a comprehensive examination of all possible variations and draw up a careful benefit-risk balance.

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE), in writing. – (ET) I abstained from this vote because I am not convinced that bonds will achieve the intended objective. I support the principles of solidarity, but only if it applies to every issue and every Member State. In issuing bonds, we wish to help our countries that have behaved irresponsibly in financial matters, while at the same time, we have unfortunately abandoned solidarity in the allocation of both present and future agricultural subsidies.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcome this resolution because we need to establish a sustainable fiscal framework, which, through effective measures, would enhance economic governance and boost economic growth in the euro area. Above all, the euro area should have a common liquid and diversified bond market, which would create an alternative to the US dollar bond market and would increase the role of the euro in the global financial system. The euro will therefore acquire the status of a global ‘safe haven’. Furthermore, bonds that are intended to ensure stability will help prevent a repeat of the debt crisis, will boost growth in the medium term, and will increase the efficiency of the market. However, in order to introduce stability bonds, we must not make hasty decisions. There is therefore a need for improved policy coordination, which would ensure high credit quality and that all Member States benefit from stability bonds.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of the motion for a resolution. In this resolution, the European Parliament officially takes the view that the issuance of bonds with joint and several liability is a process of greater economic integration. At the same time, it reminds us of the need to enhance economic governance and economic growth in the euro area. Within this framework, the Commission is called on to come forward rapidly with proposals to address decisively the current sovereign debt crisis, such as the European redemption pact, the finalisation and ratification of an ESM treaty and joint management of sovereign debt issuance.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This resolution is a preliminary response to the Commission Green Paper and will be followed by a more comprehensive resolution, in the form of an own-initiative report. The resolution represents a contribution to the current debate on stability bonds and their relevance as an important element in resolving the crisis in the euro area, with comments on the importance of implementing stability bonds. In view of the unique situation in which the euro area finds itself, of the sovereign debt crisis and of the high interest rates experienced by the weakest economies, stability bonds are becoming inevitable and should be combined with effective measures for promoting growth and making the European economy more competitive.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Following a request made by Parliament, the Commission has published a Green Paper on introducing stability bonds. Lengthier analysis at a later date notwithstanding, this document should be applauded now, as it may serve as a basis for work that will be important later. While it is true that the euro is a currency central to the international monetary system, and which has the potential to become a global reserve currency, it is also certain that it can only achieve this if EU monetary governance is equipped with instruments enabling it to guarantee the stability of the currency. As noted by the rapporteurs, stability bonds may be one of the best ways to ensure the stability of the euro area in the medium term. In light of this analysis, I voted for the resolution.

  Britta Reimers (ALDE), in writing. – (DE) I have voted against the motion for a resolution on the feasibility of introducing stability bonds because I am of the opinion that the creation of Eurobonds would send out the wrong signal. Since the introduction of the euro, low interest rates have led to higher debt levels in many euro area countries. Eurobonds would take the pressure off these countries to consolidate their national budgets and implement the necessary reforms. Therefore, I believe that the introduction of Eurobonds would make the current crisis worse.

  Mitro Repo (S&D), in writing. – (FI) Lying at the heart of the debate on Eurobonds, I believe, is the notion that every country must be liable for its own debts. We need practical tools to beat the current crisis in the European economy. We also need sustainable solutions to prevent similar crises in the future.

Eurobonds cause fear in countries that have managed their budgets well. This fear is based on the imagined threat that Eurobonds will result in the cost of borrowing rising in countries with the highest credit ratings. Finland, for example, has not adopted the proposal on Eurobonds.

The Commission estimates that there may be many benefits from jointly issued Eurobonds. The euro area countries that are grappling with financial problems would be able to obtain loans more easily and more cheaply. A more sustainable, more stable euro area is in the interests of the whole of Europe. How the crisis in the European economy is managed should be decided within the European Union. That is why there needs to be discussions between the Council of Ministers, the Commission and Parliament on the European crisis and its management.

I call for financial discipline and monitoring as a condition of common Eurobonds. Member States that have managed their economies and budgets well should not have to foot the bill.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Like many of my fellow Members, I agree with the responses to the public consultation received thus far and am pleased with the Commission for having presented the Green Paper on Eurobonds. Indeed, Parliament had been asking for some time for the Commission to put forward an analysis on the feasibility of introducing stability bonds under different options. It seems to me that what we have ended up with could be a useful starting point for further reflection.

According to the text of the resolution, Eurobonds could become a source of stability for the euro area in the medium term while, as already discussed, we will need other tools to solve the short-term issues. In the text, we call on the Commission to come forward rapidly with possible tools to deal with the current crisis such as the European redemption pact, as well as joint management of sovereign debt issuance.

In my opinion, introducing Eurobonds remains contingent upon reducing the risk of moral hazard and making the European economy more attractive, both in terms of higher-rated and more indebted countries, boosting competitiveness and introducing mandatory debt reduction mechanisms alongside greater fiscal consolidation.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Over recent months, the European institutions have been discussing the possibility of introducing stability bonds, with a view to solving the problems of the several Member States facing high interest rates when seeking finance on the international markets. In November 2011, the Commission published its Green Paper on ‘stability bonds’, with the aim of assessing the feasibility of introducing euro bills between the various countries of the euro area. I am voting for this motion for a resolution of the European Parliament, as I believe this is the right way to strengthen economic governance, to promote the efficiency of the bond market and the euro area financial system, and to ensure a more stable international monetary system. However, I consider it particularly important to make the public finances more sustainable, as this is the only way in which it will be possible to establish better conditions for introducing stability bonds. Finally, I believe that these bonds could contribute to greater stability in the euro area in the medium term, and that the Commission now needs to table concrete proposals to address the current sovereign debt crisis.

  Alexandra Thein (ALDE), in writing. – The FDP Delegation abstained in today’s vote on the motion for a resolution on the feasibility of introducing stability bonds. We believe that the introduction of Eurobonds would set the wrong incentives. Since the introduction of the euro, low interest rates have led to a substantial increase in debt levels in many euro area countries. Eurobonds would take the pressure off highly indebted euro area Member States to consolidate their budgets and introduce much needed structural reforms. Therefore, we believe that Eurobonds would aggravate, rather than alleviate the current crisis. However, we did not vote against the resolution as many of our concerns have been taken on board by the rapporteur.

  Thomas Ulmer (PPE), in writing. – (DE) I was not able to vote in favour of this resolution today, even though it is just one resolution and a large variety of joint bonds are to be set up. I am, on principle and without exception, opposed to Eurobonds of any kind, just as the Maastricht Treaty very clearly rules this option out. The absolutely essential prerequisites for these ideas are the prior formation of a common fiscal union with all of the relevant mechanisms, such as a debt brake, and a legal basis in the Treaties. Any other sequence of events or measures will lead to complete ruin or to a socialist planned economy.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The euphemistic term by which Eurobonds are now described – stability bonds – is based on a requirement that we reject: namely, the deepening of economic and fiscal governance, which will mean a significant transfer of sovereignty to the major powers. The strategic objective adopted here is not economic growth, job creation and combating social inequality, but asserting the euro as a global reserve currency, which goes against the interests of the people of the outlying countries.

This mechanism does not guarantee an end to speculative attacks and maintains differentiation in the interest rates each country pays for finance. What is needed is not measures that, years ago, could have served to absorb some of the speculative shock, within the framework of a debate on profound change to European Union economic policy. What is needed presently is to reverse the path taken, and to repeal economic governance, the Euro Plus Pact and the new European Treaty. There will be no break with the process of extortion, colonisation and exploitation under way as part of capitalist integration in the EU within a framework of deepening federalism.

Report: Marije Cornelissen (A7-0021/2012)

  Damien Abad (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Faced with the crisis and the adoption of austerity measures, certain sections of the population have been more harshly affected than others. Young people were the first victims. Though they represent 20% of the total population of the Union, one young person in five is unemployed. Youth employment must therefore be a priority. That is why I voted in favour of the Cornelissen Report.

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report, as I believe that guidance on fiscal consolidation should be based on social justice in order not to increase the risk of poverty, and should take account of the additional efforts that families are making in order to combat unemployment and mitigate the social consequences of the crisis. The main aim should be to promote growth in the short term, as well as in the medium and long term.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. – I voted in favour of this resolution on the Annual Growth Survey, which sets out what the Commission believes have to be the main priorities for the coming year in terms of budgetary, economic, employment and social policies and reforms. I agree that the key message should be that more efforts are needed to put Europe back on track and sustain growth and jobs. Member States should focus on five priorities: pursuing differentiated, growth-friendly fiscal consolidation; restoring normal lending to the economy; promoting growth and competitiveness; tackling unemployment and the social consequences of the crisis; and modernising public administration. Together with other Members of this Parliament, I express a general concern that fiscal consolidation was set as a general priority and that fiscal consolidation measures are a threat to people at risk of poverty and social exclusion. The crisis has had particularly dramatic consequences for the situation of young people trying to seek stable employment but who are now facing an unemployment rate of over 20%, and of more than 40% in certain Member States.

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The level of unemployment has reached 23 million people, corresponding to 10% of the working age population, without even counting the fact that 22.1% of young people are unemployed. Europe needs a plan made up of concrete and immediate measures to fight back against these shocking figures. Following on also from the conclusions of the European Council on 30 January, I think that combating unemployment – especially among young people – should be a priority for the Union. It should be dealt with through immediate and profound structural reforms, targeted strategies on employment policy and measures designed to ensure the transition from education to work and promote workers’ flexibility. Equally, in order to boost the EU’s competitiveness, we need to increase labour efficiency and productivity, as well as provide suitable support for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Europe’s economy needs decisive and immediate action. Europe’s future rests on the ability to invert current trends, boost competitiveness and reaffirm confidence in the Union’s potential for growth. I voted in favour of Ms Cornelissen’s report for all these reasons.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) In the Annual Growth Survey, which will be adopted by the European Council between 1 and 2 March, the resolution by the rapporteur, Marije Cornelissen, looks more specifically at the social aspects and the importance of measuring the social impact of policies in each country. This resolution warns against the risk that new fiscal consolidation measures could hit those threatened by poverty or social exclusion. As you will no doubt be aware, the fight against insecurity and poverty in Europe is one of my pet topics. I agree with the vision set out in the resolution of a European Union that focuses more on decent work and efforts to support the reconciliation of work, family and private life. As a mother, these are my worries. In addition, the text insists on the need to create comprehensive strategies for young people who are not in employment and stresses the importance of reducing precarious forms of employment among young people. I therefore remain convinced that there is no contradiction between the current fiscal consolidation measures and the long-term growth aims of the European Union.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report. Approximately 10% of working age people are unemployed in the EU Member States and this tendency has been increasing since the Member States began to apply austerity measures, which are halting the economic recovery of both the Member States and the EU as a whole. The social consequences of the financial and economic crisis are affecting an increasing number of EU citizens and in-work poverty is on the rise throughout the EU. I welcome the report’s call for the Member States not to allow austerity measures to compromise the promotion of growth and employment, and to prioritise growth-friendly expenditure such as education, lifelong learning, research and innovation, while also ensuring the efficiency of this expenditure.

  Heinz K. Becker (PPE), in writing. – (DE) I see the growth and employment report 2012 as a positive demonstration of the role of the European Union in creating incentives for the Member States. It puts the focus on managing the consequences of the crisis and generating new structural competitiveness by means of budget consolidation with an emphasis on both austerity and growth, restoring the necessary lending power, in particular, for innovative investments by small and medium-sized enterprises, and increasing Europe’s competitiveness by creating new ‘white’ jobs, for example, in health care, and ‘green’ jobs. It also recommends combating unemployment, in particular, among young and older people, for example, by means of educational initiatives, lifelong learning and age-related working conditions, and introducing administrative reforms in the shape of more modern digital organisations. We have identified other key issues in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs which I believe represent a joint obligation on the part of the Member States. These include complying with budget consolidation requirements such as those in the European Semester, which are now accompanied by the threat of penalty payments, a specific focus on the dual education model, which is a successful means of introducing reforms, and company health care provision as the starting point for an active life which will also provide support for older workers through to retirement. There is no alternative to Europe as a provider of incentives. I am calling on the national governments to inform all their citizens about this in order to help to eliminate euroscepticism and to convey the image to everyone of a common Europe which is ready for the future.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Strengthened economic governance, reduced public deficits, modernised public administration and so on. Will this be enough to allow 75% of the population to have a job or to reduce the number of people affected by or at risk of poverty or social exclusion by at least 20 million by 2020? I suspect not. The issues of employment and social policy are becoming increasingly rare in today’s political debates. Ensuring that austere budget policies do not hinder social justice, do not have the effect of increasing poverty or exacerbating unemployment … in short, it is essential that we ensure that the social effects of austerity are not added to the social effects of the crisis. It is not acceptable to have austerity as the sole policy direction. The strategy set out in the Cornelissen report involves refocusing budgets on employment and social policy to support the creation of quality jobs, to combat youth unemployment effectively, and also to tackle poverty and social exclusion. Ignoring the pernicious effects of austerity policies is not an option. The road to achieving the social Europe that the citizens have been awaiting for so long still appears to be a long one, but the ideas are there.

  Sergio Berlato (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Last November, the Commission presented the Annual Growth Survey (AGS) 2012, which sets out the EU’s priorities for the coming 12 months in terms of budgetary, economic, employment and social policies and reforms. The recent economic and financial crisis, which was followed by the deterioration of sovereign debt in the European Union, made it clear that the EU needs stronger European economic governance to prevent large budgetary deficits and macro-economic imbalances from threatening the euro and the European economy. While fiscal consolidation is necessary in many Member States, I think that policy guidance aimed at a general stepping-up of austerity measures is not compatible with a job-rich recovery, which is what the EU desperately needs. The crisis has had particularly dramatic consequences for the situation of young people trying to seek stable employment. While the AGS makes employment of young people a priority, I am concerned about the quality of the jobs, traineeships and apprenticeships that are suggested in the policy guidance. I take this opportunity to call the Commission’s attention to the need to take action to make the fight against precarious work among young people a key part of youth employment policy guidance.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) The essence of this report, whereby austerity measures are a bitter medicine that have to be imposed on countries in major budgetary strife, is worthy of support. The problem is the recipe being put forward for solving the current crisis. Indeed, there is talk of greater coordination on fiscal policy and deeper EU-wide action on taxation. Furthermore, there is an insistence on protecting the categories deemed to be most vulnerable and, according to Ms Cornelissen, most exposed to the effects of the crisis, such as immigrants from outside the EU and the Roma. I do not agree on these points, since in order to emerge from economic stagnation, we need business vitality and freedom for our small and medium-sized enterprises, not centralist actions on tax and revenues. Nor, much less, can we concentrate on categories like immigrants, when, in reality, it is our young people that are losing their jobs or not finding them in the first place. We should be looking after them instead, so that our economy can offer them work and opportunities to earn that do not currently exist. I therefore voted against the report.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report on the assessment of the Annual Growth Survey 2012 and agree that there really is much to be concerned about because the current national targets are not sufficient to achieve the Europe 2020 headline targets for employment, education and poverty reduction. However, policy guidelines on tackling unemployment are not dovetailed with guidelines on increasing employment, improving the quality of jobs and putting in place the necessary conditions for increasing labour market participation. Many Member States are failing to offer measures to ensure that work is decently paid and workers have decent working conditions. It is also important to stress that, if imposed, austerity measures should not compromise social protection and health and safety standards. The crisis has had a very negative impact on youth employment – on average, a fifth of all young people in Europe are unemployed. For many countries this has become a serious labour market problem, which people often try to solve by looking for work elsewhere. The phenomenon also devalues the investment countries make in people’s qualifications, which cannot be used. Young people are trying to escape by continuing their studies, but this only delays finding a solution to the problem and reduces the motivation to work. The worst thing is when the finest dreams and plans in life are shattered by long-term unemployment. Currently, there are as many as 7.5 million people in the EU who are neither working nor studying. It is unfortunate that these people are living in poverty, although their work is really needed by an ageing Europe, which aims to ensure solidarity among the generations based on prosperity for all.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Member States bear primary responsibility for employment and social policies. In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, European institutions deal with those aspects for which EU solutions provide policy harmonisation. Thus, of common interest to all Member States are matters relating to funding, unemployment and social problems. So far, the EU has set only minimum standards and rights, on which basis the Member States adopt laws and regulations that go beyond the requirements of the European social policy.

The crisis has had dramatic consequences, particularly for young people looking for a stable job. They are faced with an unemployment rate above 20% and, for some Member States, even with a rate above 40%. Between 2008 and 2010, the number of young unemployed in the EU increased by 1 million. The number of young people aged 15 to 24 who are not employed and who do not attend any education or training programme increased by 2% during the same period. For these reasons, I believe that identifying solutions must be a priority for the European Union; otherwise, these youths will be a lost generation.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) As a matter of urgency, the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy must be an absolute priority for the European Commission and for the Member States. In the national action plan for employment that each Member State is going to publish in April, training must be adapted to company requirements; continuous training and retraining must be offered to staff; loan facilities must be provided for new young entrepreneurs via micro-credit. Our social policy as a whole must be more suitable, we need more crèches, social incentives that are more valuable than those linked to unemployment, and active support for all socially valuable enterprises. We must offer all young people without qualifications an apprenticeship or paid courses. There are 23 million SMEs in Europe, we have 23 million unemployed and European funds set aside for jobs go unused. Let us wait no longer: we should encourage the initiatives and implement those that will have a positive effect on jobs quickly. It is our duty to demand that the same energy that is expended on taking robust economic measures is also spent on ambitious, effective social measures.

  Antonio Cancian (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Today, we have debated and voted on the three reports by Ms Cornelissen, Mr Gauzès and Ms Berès, which were drafted in relation to the Annual Growth Survey 2012 proposed by the Commission last November.

I supported the report by Ms Cornelissen since I agree on its approach calling for a greater European effort at all levels to achieve the dual goals of economic growth and social protection. I also agree with the hope that these goals can be pursued with coherent fiscal and budgetary policies, on the one hand, and coherent social and employment policies, on the other.

Furthermore, even though I do not believe in miracle cures, I think that the five ‘priority actions’ for 2012 set out in the Commission’s study and returned to in the report – namely, fiscal consolidation, restoring normal lending to the economy, growth and competitiveness, combating unemployment and the social effects of the crisis, and modernising the public administration – are the key to the European Union’s economic and social development and are goals that cannot be put off.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report, as I believe that people approaching retirement age, the long-term unemployed, non-EU workers and low-skilled workers are among those hardest hit by the crisis. Given that the labour market situation is particularly critical for all young people, regardless of their level of education, who often end up with precarious employment contracts and in unpaid traineeships, and that the difficult situation of young people is partly because of mismatches between acquired skills and labour market demand, I voted for this report.

  Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) I voted against the report because it is governed by a central contradiction in its analysis of the economic and social situation in Europe. On the one hand, it rightly recognises that the austerity policies being imposed are increasing poverty, undermining the social state and increasing unemployment, especially among young people and women. On the other hand, it proposes the adoption of policies, such as the EU 2020 strategy, which contain neoliberal positions similar to those currently being implemented. The administrative-type proposals to reduce unemployment and protect labour contained in the text only operate as a framework for rescuing workers and the unemployed from complete impoverishment. If the EU really wants to improve the standard of living of the economically weaker, it needs to take action to safeguard citizens’ right to permanent and stable employment, make bold pay rises, extend the social state, tax large enterprises, exercise full control over the stock markets and create an education system predicated on the needs of society, not the needs of the market. Unfortunately, the report moves in no such direction. The deep economic recession cannot be addressed with a ‘stick and carrot’ policy.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The financial crisis, which has subsequently expanded into a social and sovereign debt crisis, requires new measures to support growth, which, until recently, were not in line with the main Europe 2020 strategy objectives. Moreover, the latest statistics indicate that levels of unemployment and inequality are worsening in the EU. I am voting for this report because, as the rapporteur argues, it is necessary to implement measures for job creation through encouragement for investment and tax reforms. As such, this needs to include budgetary leeway, so that priorities are balanced, in particular, between the necessary austerity and the need to increase levels of employment. It is also important to step up and improve investment in education and training.

I acknowledge the need to make an effort to adapt skills and profiles, not only to the current situation, but also in the medium and long term, through regular monitoring and evaluation of trends in the needs of businesses, training institutions and youth organisations, in order to combat structural unemployment and prepare workers for the transition to a smart, sustainable and inclusive economy.

  Anna Ibrisagic (PPE), in writing. – (SV) Today, we voted in favour of the resolution on employment and social aspects in the Annual Growth Survey 2012. We would like to point out, however, that although higher tax revenue is a good thing, as is working actively to combat discrimination, these are matters that are subject to the principle of subsidiarity. We are also opposed to the call for a financial transaction tax.

  Emer Costello (S&D), in writing. – I welcome the emphasis in this report on the idea of a European Youth Guarantee, ensuring that within four months of leaving education or becoming unemployed, every young person is offered a job, an apprenticeship, additional training or combined work and training. The preliminary results of a recent study by the European Foundation in Dublin indicated that 13% of all 15-24 year olds (7.5 million people) were not in employment, education or training (NEETS) in 2010. This costs all our societies EUR 100 billion annually in lost earnings and social transfers – 1% of our combined GDP (and 2.1% of Irish GDP). Getting just 10% of these 7.5 million young people into the labour market would save more than EUR 10 billion annually. The social democratic parties of Austria and Finland have led the way by introducing a Youth Guarantee. Their measures are producing results. The forthcoming March European summit should now make progress towards a European Youth Guarantee, using ESF funding. If we are to make our way out of the economic crisis, job creation, particularly for young people, has to be our first priority, and a European Youth Guarantee clearly has a role to play here.

  Andrea Cozzolino (S&D), in writing. – (IT) I should like to point out the most positive aspects of this report, which offer a good rendering of Parliament’s position on the growth and employment survey. It is very important that the Commission, the Council and the Member States take all necessary steps to ensure that the headline targets of the Europe 2020 strategy are met on employment, education and poverty reduction. In particular, the level of youth unemployment in Europe means that specific measures need to be taken as a matter of urgency and the report puts forward a helpful method to support young people, ensuring that every young person in the EU is offered a job, an apprenticeship or additional training after a maximum period of four months’ unemployment. In terms of instruments capable of providing for financial cover, the report also calls for the introduction of a tax on financial transactions, which the report claims is one issue where the EU cannot remain inactive and to which Parliament must offer robust support. Lastly, it is important to strengthen Parliament’s role in identifying instruments for growth, which is the reason for the clear request to the Commission to transform the Annual Growth Survey into Annual Sustainable Growth Guidelines in future years, thereby allowing us to propose amendments.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The economic and financial crisis affecting Europe for some time, and especially the austerity measures taken by some Member States, should not compromise social protection and health and safety standards. These measures do not justify, in any case, the existence of precarious forms of youth employment, such as temporary contracts, part-time jobs and unpaid internships. I believe that such practices should be reduced because young people, especially those who have not completed a full cycle of professional training, should be encouraged to participate in training programmes corresponding to their skills, in programmes promoting entrepreneurship, by which the transition from education to working life can be ensured. By such measures, Europe can avoid the phenomenon of losing the potential of the younger generation and can reduce skills mismatches in the labour market.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D), in writing. – I voted in favour of this report because it is essential, now more than ever, that the European Parliament gives itself an instrument to make its voice heard on the issue of Europe 2020 strategy implementation, in particular, given the imminent Spring European Council on 1-2 March. Despite the fact that the economic and sovereign debt crisis has clearly showed that austerity measures are not sufficient to overcome such a dramatic situation – even creating the conditions for a recession of the weaker euro area countries (the Greek case is more than emblematic) – the Commission’s approach, as expressed in the Annual Growth Survey, again identifies priorities that are not contributing to achieving the EU 2020 goals in a balanced way. The motion we have adopted is a comprehensive and well-elaborated document that will clearly define the role of Parliament in the future negotiations with the Council and the Commission. I think the time has come to break down the dogmatic approach, defining job creation and social inclusion policies as opposed to fiscal stability. The economic crisis will lead to a deeper and more dangerous social crisis if Europe does not take action in the fields of growth, job creation and social inclusion.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report, as it advocates that, as well as establishing economic and fiscal priorities, it is vital to invest in an Annual Growth Survey which sets out measures aimed at promoting employment and social policy, in line with the Stability and Growth Pact established with the Europe 2020 strategy. We need greater consistency between fiscal and austerity policies, and social and employment policies. If the EU does not make this its priority, the Europe 2020 strategy may be doomed to failure.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The current economic and financial crisis in Europe has forced it to adopt austerity measures that have led to a significant increase in the number of people unemployed in almost all of the Member States. This has jeopardised the achievement of the objectives enshrined in the Europe 2020 strategy. The report drafted by Ms Cornelissen focuses on employment and social aspects in the Annual Growth Survey 2012. At a time when we are seeing increased asymmetry within the EU, economic policy needs to be reviewed and made compatible with social policy. To this end, we should promote a green economy and support small and medium-sized enterprises through smarter legislation. I voted for this report and I hope that the good decisions already taken in order to escape the crisis, such as promoting economic growth, restoring confidence in financial markets, reviving business competitiveness, resolving the problem of unemployment, particularly among young people, and modernising public administration will be implemented as swiftly as possible, so that we can quickly overcome this crisis.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report makes no serious criticism of the Annual Growth Survey, the European Semester, the IMF-EU programmes or the policies implemented in various Member States. We cannot therefore expect it to address fully the causes of the unemployment, poverty, and social and economic recession in numerous countries. This report is not redeemed by the ‘social’ gloss which the rapporteur seeks to give it, especially when it advocates maintaining the so-called austerity measures and the succession of attacks on workers through the implementation of ‘national reform programmes’, arguing that ‘national and regional parliaments, social partners, public authorities and civil society are deeply involved in the implementation and monitoring of policy guidance under the Europe 2020 strategy and economic governance process’. Moreover, it also advocates labour flexibility and forced mobility for workers, as well as the delusion that those receiving benefits should have to contribute to the labour market in order to have the right to receive those benefits. Obviously, we voted against.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The social consequences of the crisis are far-reaching and are now exacerbated by the impact of austerity measures taken in certain countries in response to the sovereign debt crisis, cutting jobs, both in the private and the public sector, social benefits and public services. This situation is exacerbating poverty across the EU. The labour market situation is particularly critical for young people, regardless of their level of education, and is partly caused by mismatches between acquired abilities and skills and labour market requirements. In addition to them, however, people approaching pension age, the long-term unemployed, non-EU workers and low-skilled workers are also among those worst hit by the crisis. The crisis has created new categories of people at risk of poverty, and if the fiscal consolidation measures are wrongly targeted and regressive, they will have a negative impact on social protection systems and the numbers of people at risk of income poverty, child poverty, severe material deprivation and social exclusion will rise. I am therefore of the opinion that the implementation of integrated active inclusion strategies should be a central element of the social policy agenda at EU and national levels. Against the background of the worst economic crisis the EU has ever known, the necessary national reform programmes must be implemented without delay.

  Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Austerity plans have been proliferating in Europe over the last few months. Greece is the most striking example. Despite these necessary efforts to combat the debt crisis, growth remains extremely low. Now, there will be no way out of the crisis if growth does not pick up. Austerity alone produces nothing. That is what I wished to reaffirm by voting for this text. Budget discipline must be accompanied by strong measures in favour of investment and jobs. Above all, in this difficult economic social period that we are experiencing, the restoration of our public finances must not hinder measures to combat unemployment, especially youth unemployment.

  Małgorzata Handzlik (PPE), in writing. – (PL) The problem of unemployment is growing, and this means that achieving the objective set in the Europe 2020 strategy which refers to reducing unemployment is becoming increasingly difficult. As a consequence, we need a new social policy, particularly for young people. In many of the Member States, unemployment is so high that young people are having serious difficulties in finding work, and this state of affairs cannot continue. Let us remember that young people are our future, and we should make a point of investing in them as a matter of precedence. It is important that in the Annual Growth Survey, the employment of young people is identified as a priority. We must develop strategies which help to make things easier for young people to find work. I welcome the fact that the report speaks about the necessity of training and underscores the importance of mobility for resolving these problems. It is important, too, to remember that attention must also be given to the quality of jobs, traineeships and apprenticeships.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. – This report rightly highlights the issue of youth unemployment and calls on Member States to make real efforts to address the problem. In my own country, Scotland, the government has taken real action in this area and the recent appointment of a dedicated Minister for Youth Employment is to be welcomed.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed the document because the social consequences of the crisis are far-reaching and now exacerbated by the impact of austerity measures taken in certain countries in response to the sovereign debt crisis, cutting jobs, both in private and public sectors, social benefits and public services, and thus increasing poverty and unemployment across the EU. The labour market situation at present is particularly critical for young people, regardless of their level of education, who often end up with precarious employment contracts and in unpaid traineeships. The difficult situation faced by young people is also partly down to mismatches between acquired skills and labour market demands. People approaching pension age, the long-term unemployed and low-skilled workers are also among those worst hit by the crisis. An increasing number of people are at risk of income poverty, child poverty, severe material deprivation and social exclusion. Therefore, measures need to be taken to ensure coherent, smart, sustainable and inclusive growth and sustainable job creation through investment and tax reform, to improve the quality of employment and conditions for increased labour participation, tackle youth unemployment, poverty and social exclusion, and enhance democratic legitimacy, accountability and ownership.

  Cătălin Sorin Ivan (S&D), in writing. – (RO) Since unemployment has currently reached alarming levels in the EU, a European approach is necessary in order to define a strategy on employment. I voted in favour of a package of three reports that help define a coherent position on the part of Parliament on this structural problem faced by Member States. Emphasis was placed on fiscal consolidation based on social non-discrimination and combating poverty. Job creation was another issue referred to in our requests, an action that can only be realised if investments and tax reform are addressed thoroughly and responsibly. Concrete solutions and implementation will be the responsibility of the European Commission and Member States, who are forced by current circumstances to take coordinated action.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported this report which, with a view to the Spring European Council, urges the Council to ensure coherence and demonstrate increased ambition to achieve the Europe 2020 objectives. Moreover, in this report, Parliament calls on the Council to support sustainable job creation with investment and tax reform, to improve the quality of employment, to increase labour market participation and improve the conditions for such participation, and to tackle youth unemployment, poverty and social exclusion. I voted in favour of this report.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I would like to focus attention on employment problems, especially youth unemployment. The main consequence of the economic and financial crisis of 2008 was the closure of many businesses and many European citizens losing their jobs. Accordingly, recovery from the crisis and European growth cannot be achieved without launching a major stimulus on employment. Consequently, I think it is essential to identify some really effective tools that can get results from European investments such as jobs and business incentives and major support for the training and education sector, which must be twinned with a new system for managing public sector employment. I think that work is an essential priority for our young people above all, both in terms of our children’s future and in order to ensure that inclusion and cohesion become the guidelines for an economic policy that drags the Member States out of the crisis.

  Agnès Le Brun (PPE), in writing. – (FR) This report on employment and social aspects of the Annual Growth Survey 2012 underlines the fact that, for the European Commission, the budget priorities for the coming year must be the economy, employment, social policy and reforms. The central message of this survey, presented at the end of 2011, is a call for efforts to focus on support for employment and growth. I voted in favour of this report because it stresses the importance of finding a middle way between supporting growth and balancing public finances.

  Bogusław Liberadzki (S&D), in writing. – (PL) Employment and decent social conditions are rights which should be enjoyed by every citizen and guaranteed by every government. Employment is the source of human prosperity and social development. Decision makers must be sensitive to these matters, and they must also make every effort, using all available institutional, legal, economic and financial means, to achieve these objectives. During a crisis, employment is a particularly important objective of economic and social policy.

We are currently going through a crisis, and this is sometimes even proving a painful experience, as is happening, for example, in Greece. Investments which create new jobs, stimulation of internal demand – it is these methods which are effective, and not a programme consisting only of cuts and sacrifices. In difficult times, a somewhat different role can also be played by taxes – the burden needs to be spread fairly across different social groups, and those who are more affluent should give greater help to those who are less well off. More solidarity is needed in society. It is to be welcomed that Parliament has taken up this matter, and the resolution’s recommendations should be put into effect as soon as possible.

  Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE), in writing. – (PL) The deepening economic crisis and the growing level of youth unemployment are a sign that decisive action needs to be taken both at European level and in every Member State. Only specific and resolute measures can mitigate the problem of unemployment among those who are looking for their first job. It is particularly important to tackle the ruthless forms of abuse seen in what are called ‘junk contracts’, which are contributing to the gradual rise in social exclusion. The need to improve the conditions and quality of employment among young people is the reason why I support this initiative and why I endorsed the report on employment and social aspects in the Annual Growth Survey 2012.

  Ramona Nicole Mănescu (ALDE), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of the report on employment and social aspects in the Annual Growth Survey 2012, which shows how strong the impact of the economic crisis is at EU level and in terms of employment. The economic crisis aggravated social problems and had dramatic consequences, especially among young people, who are the ones worst affected by unemployment. In order to reduce economic imbalances and ensure sustainable economic growth, it is vital for Member States to encourage investment aimed at job creation. Thus, Member States must focus their policies on implementing appropriate fiscal measures to support SMEs as generators of economic growth.

With regard to Structural Funds, it is beneficial and necessary to make use of them in order to support SMEs and effectively fight unemployment. Thus, Member States should intensify their efforts to use Structural Funds, giving priority to fighting poverty and unemployment. Austerity measures are necessary, but they must be supported by compensatory measures, stimulating investments and job creation.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – The crisis has had particularly dramatic consequences for the situation of young people trying to find stable employment. Young people face an unemployment rate of over 20% and more than 40% in some Member States. Between 2008 and 2010, the total number of young unemployed people in the EU increased by one million. The share of 15 to 24-year-olds neither in employment, education, or training (NEET) rose by 2 percentage points during the same period. While the AGS rightly makes the employment of young people a priority, your rapporteur is concerned about the quality of jobs, traineeships and apprenticeships that are suggested in the policy guidance of the Commission. I am pleased that the rapporteur wishes to make the fight against precarious work among young people a key part of youth employment policy guidance. Also, she suggests recalling the Commission’s ‘Youth on The Move’ flagship, in which it promised to propose a quality framework for traineeships.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. – Since 2008, unemployment has increased significantly in the European Union, with 23 million people unemployed across the Member States, corresponding to 10% of the working age population. This report places particular emphasis on the effects of austerity measures on the labour market and youth unemployment in particular, which across the EU stands at more than 5.5 million young people, or about 22.3% of the entire youth workforce, according to the latest statistics. I support this report.

  Anthea McIntyre (ECR), in writing. – UK Conservative MEPs voted against this report. While the Annual Growth Survey is an integral part of EU 2020, which Member States have already signed up to, we believe the majority of this report adds little to help Member States achieve their targets. In 2012, we should focus on Member States’ implementation of EU 2020. We do not consider it productive or useful for the European Parliament to pre-empt Member States’ progress or to make presumptions of failure at this early stage. We believe in respecting the principle of subsidiarity and therefore cannot agree to calls for a European financial transaction tax, or any calls for greater EU funding in areas where Member States have already made cuts – it is not the role of the EU to intervene where some Member States have failed. We firmly support the report’s call for the promotion of SMEs, to improve the functioning of the Single Market and for the reduction of red tape. Here, the EU can add real value to the current work of Member States. It is crucial that we find pragmatic solutions at European level, such as those to create jobs, increase growth and ensure Europe regains its competitiveness.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) Without mentioning her by name, this text calls on Ms Merkel to increase internal demand in Germany. It advocates ‘fair, progressive, redistributive, effective and efficient’ taxation. It is concerned not to place state-run pensions systems in danger. On these points, I am in agreement with it. However, I am totally unable to accept the report’s recommendations for an increased retirement age, a flexible labour market, the condemnation of early retirement and the removal of the ‘tax burden of non-wage costs’. I therefore voted against it.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Given the high unemployment rate, the higher average duration of unemployment, and increased in-work poverty and precariousness, and given the fact that, despite the urgency of the situation, the progress made by the Member States in achieving the Europe 2020 strategy objectives is below expectations, I voted for this text because its guidance on fiscal consolidation is also based on social justice and does not hamper efforts to tackle unemployment.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (ES) This report is complementary to the reports drafted by Mr Gauzès and Ms Berès. I have voted against along the same lines. The report details the effects and consequences of the crises and makes a list of demands for good intentions, such as decent jobs and salaries, the reconciliation of personal and professional life, redistribution of wealth through progressive taxes, the fight against tax evasion, and gender equality. The proposed recipe for achieving all this, however, is ‘more of the same’, emphasising the neoliberal policies that have led us to the current situation, namely extending liberalisation and the structural reforms of the labour market, with more flexible jobs and working hours to improve an environment that is conducive for business. All that is to be brought about through national reforms in terms of the objectives set under the 2020 strategy and the process of economic governance. At the end of the day, this will be a disaster, as it amounts to changing everything for everything to remain the same. I will not support the EU’s neoliberal direction and policies with my vote under any circumstances.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – Guidance on fiscal consolidation must be based on social justice and not increase poverty or hamper efforts to tackle unemployment and mitigate the social consequences of the crisis. I am in favour.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) As a result of the economic crisis and the euro area sovereign debt crisis, the Member States are being forced to take special austerity and national budgetary discipline measures. Those measures are essential to manage the crisis, but some of them also have other effects. They may, for instance, increase social exclusion. Even countries that are managing to control the consequences of the crisis more successfully will remain restricted in a fiscal sense and we should not therefore expect an increase in spending in the social field. Member States must therefore take well considered systematic and targeted measures in order to reduce the negative consequences cuts have on the economy and people, and boost economic growth and job creation. These measures must be supported at EU level because the failure of one country may become a loss for all. Approximately 23 million people are unemployed across the EU, which is equivalent to around 10% of the working age population. This includes a high proportion of young people. In Spain, for instance, youth unemployment is as high as 48%. The link between business and education systems needs to be strengthened to ensure a better match between the expectations of employers and young jobseekers and the opportunities available. More attention should be paid to developing youth entrepreneurship and young people’s abilities to create their own jobs. By allocating limited resources in a targeted and considered manner, it is not only possible to boost job creation but also achieve wider goals such as ‘greening’ the economy and establishing a competitive low-carbon economy.

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE), in writing. – (ET) I supported this report, as I consider it important that for the very first time, the annual analysis of economic growth contains guidelines for combating poverty and social exclusion. The consequences of the economic crisis have been particularly serious for young people, who are experiencing a very high unemployment rate, varying from 20-40% in some Member States. In order to reduce the high rate of youth unemployment, it is crucial to reduce the disharmony between acquired education and skills and the requirements of the labour market. In order to help create jobs and find the necessary funds for investment, I voted in favour of the proposal in paragraph 29, i.e. in favour of the establishment of a financial transaction tax. We are in a crisis that arose because banks took unreasonable risks, and it is therefore unjust that taxpayers should be saddled with the full burden of the economic crisis; banks should also assume some responsibility towards society.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution. Above all, we need to strengthen job creation capacity and the promotion of self-employment, including social entrepreneurship, and increase participation in the labour market. I believe that we need to implement active labour market policy measures, with a particular focus on work incentive initiatives. The EU must be given budgetary leeway and investment in sustainable and decent job creation must be encouraged. In addition, increasing the flexibility of labour relations would help young people access the labour market. I welcome the proposal that the Council should, as a matter of urgency, adopt guidelines, which would enable companies that guarantee decent wages to shift the tax burden as part of non-wage costs away from labour. Furthermore, the European Council must make continuous efforts to improve the single market and reduce the bureaucratic burden.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) In line with plans for growth focused on employment, competitiveness and finding a solution on fiscal and financial policy, I voted in favour of the report by Ms Cornelissen. The jobs market must be at the core of Europe’s new policies, since there is a major risk of a move away from the European economic union conceived a dozen years ago. Combating unemployment, creating jobs, fighting precarious working conditions and favouring employment for young people are the central objectives of the Annual Growth Survey 2012. All of these topics go hand in hand with financial policies and the economic crisis, but risk being left to one side since they are contingent on them.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing.– (EL) The Annual Growth Survey on EU priorities for the next twelve months focuses on tax policy, stabilisation of the financial sector, growth and competitiveness, employment and the social impact of the crisis, and public administration. However, it should be noted that the decisions being taken in this critical economic environment – with spiralling unemployment of close to 50% among young people in certain Member States, with the recession affecting a large part of the euro area, and with the objectives which Europe itself set in the EU 2020 strategy appearing unfeasible – need stronger democratic legitimisation. This being so, I voted in favour of the report, which proposes strengthening the involvement of the European Parliament and notes the minor role played by it in the European Semester process in which, under the Treaty, it only has the right to deliver an opinion.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This crisis has particularly tragic consequences for the situation of young people seeking stable employment. Young people are facing an unemployment rate of over 20%, exceeding 40% in some Member States. Between 2008 and 2010, the total number of young people unemployed in the EU rose by one million. The share of 15 to 24 years old not in employment, education or training rose by 2% during the same period. I voted for this report because I believe that it is right for the Annual Growth Survey 2012 to make jobs for young people a priority. In any case, I share the concerns of the rapporteur with regard to combating precarious work among young people. This concern should be a key part of youth employment policy guidance.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Unemployment has increased significantly since 2008 and reached the level of 23 million unemployed people in the EU. Moreover, the labour market situation is particularly critical for young people. In light of this, I voted in favour of including the following matters in the policy guidance for the European Semester 2012: sustainable job creation with investment and tax reform; improving the quality of employment and conditions for increased labour participation; tackling youth unemployment; and tackling poverty and social exclusion with an emphasis on groups with no or limited links to the labour market.

  Rovana Plumb (S&D), in writing. – I would first like to congratulate the Cornelissen report for its focus on growth-enhancing measures as a long-term solution to address the current economic challenges. I welcome the promotion of active inclusion policies which create sustainable job creation and job quality, and the need to coordinate budgetary growth with employment measures so as to generate long-term economic recovery. I also want to emphasise the importance of investment in effective education and training as a way to tackle skills mismatches, alongside further integration of young people, women, migrants and older people into the labour market. Lastly, I believe that, through the reinforced social dimension in this report, the new Annual Growth Survey can maximise the Europe 2020 goals and add value to the European Semester.

  Miguel Portas (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The report in question tackles employment trends in the EU and the prospects for 2012. In this regard, the report highlights that austerity packages and the widespread application of extremely pro-cyclical fiscal consolidation policies are recessive and create unemployment. It therefore stresses the need to create room for manoeuvre for implementing policies that could reverse the economic cycle, enabling a response to the social crisis and ultimately ensuring truly sustainable fiscal consolidation. I will vote in favour for these reasons.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) With the Annual Growth Survey 2012 coming out at a particularly difficult time, when the enormous financial pressure on the fiscal institutions of the various Member States is making it necessary to adopt fiscal consolidation measures, the protection of jobs and of social equality is emerging as one of the main policy concerns of the EU public. As the rapporteur says, given that these are aspects – fiscal consolidation and promotion of employment – that can easily come into conflict, it should be borne in mind that the need to ensure social balance in the various Member States means we cannot neglect policies promoting employability in the medium and long term, notwithstanding that fiscal consolidation is the current priority. I voted in favour, with particular emphasis on this point.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. On 23 November 2011, the Commission presented its 2012 Annual Growth Survey (AGS) (COM(2011) 815), which marked the opening of the second European Semester of economic governance. The AGS sets out what the Commission believes must be the EU’s priorities for the coming 12 months in terms of budgetary, economic, employment and social policies and reforms. In this framework, the AGS calls for national and EU efforts to be concentrated on five priorities in the areas of fiscal policy, financial sector stabilisation, growth and competitiveness, employment and social consequences of the crisis, and public administration. The AGS’s analysis and main messages are underpinned by four annexes: (1) a progress report on Europe 2020, (2) a macro-economic report, (3) an employment report and (4) a report on tax policies.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. – (IT) The welcome goal of this measure is to stem the social effects of austerity measures. In order to restore economic growth, the report proposes to increase employment levels, with particular focus on supporting young people and women. It also underlines the need to deal with precarious forms of employment, which are increasingly widespread.

It would be a good idea to push for the rediscovery of traditional trades. This would result in a more balanced redistribution of the labour force, thereby reducing imports of manual labour from outside the EU and lowering the unemployment rate. While it ought to be concerned with the rights of EU citizens, this prolix text instead emphasises the need to protect the rights of immigrants and calls for the social inclusion of the Roma. That is why I voted against the report.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The ongoing international economic crisis has had serious repercussions in many Member States. Just think of the job cuts in the private and public sectors, the reduced spending on social and public services, and worsening poverty in the European Union. This vote will give us a kick-start on issues that are crucial to the future of Europe.

We need to ensure coherence and greater ambition to achieve the Europe 2020 objectives, support sustainable job creation with investment and tax reform, and improve the quality of employment and conditions for increased labour participation. In parallel, we must support and assist the younger generations that make up the future of Europe by trying to reduce youth unemployment and invest greater resources in education and training.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Following the Lisbon strategy, the Commission set out its new policy guidance for the next 10 years, called the Europe 2020 strategy, one of the seven pillars of which is the Agenda for New Skills and Jobs. I am voting for this report, as I believe it is necessary to support the creation of sustainable and lasting employment through investment, fiscal reform, improved quality of jobs and increased employability, with particular emphasis on the younger generations, who already have an average unemployment rate of 20.4% in the EU. In view of this, I believe that it is vital that the Member States invest increasingly more in the areas of education and training, the promotion of entrepreneurial skills and lifelong learning for all age groups. In addition, I believe the European institutions should pay particular attention to combating poverty and social exclusion, by promoting public access to jobs, resources and services. Only consistent, sustained and prolonged investment in the area of new skills and the promotion of employment will make it possible to ensure that the Europe 2020 strategy’s objectives are achieved.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the resolution on employment and social aspects in the Annual Growth Survey 2012. During the current financial and economic crisis, the EU has lost 6 million jobs and economic recovery measures in the last two years have led to the creation of only 1.5 million jobs by mid-2011. Unemployment rates range from 4.1% in Austria to 22.8% in Spain, while the share of long-term unemployment is over 40%. Youth unemployment is particularly alarming, as more than 5 million young Europeans (representing 20% of the young workforce) do not have a job.

I voted for supporting sustainable job creation with investments and tax reform, improving the quality of employment and conditions for increased labour participation, tackling youth unemployment, tackling poverty and social exclusion, and enhancing democratic legitimacy, accountability and ownership. I emphasise the importance of safeguarding the European social model. EU economic and social development and competitiveness require a skilled workforce. Therefore, the Union and Member States must invest in education and health systems.

  Thomas Ulmer (PPE), in writing. – (DE) I have not voted in favour of this report because the rapporteur in her oral statement once again attempted to ensure, in a way which goes against common sense, that we should also take a tough line with the countries which have a surplus. This is the usual economic nonsense spouted by those on the left. It means killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. This approach is so radical that I cannot go along with it.

  Frank Vanhecke (EFD), in writing. – (NL) The report by Ms Cornelissen contains several sensible recommendations that were rightly supported by a large majority in this House. True to form, however, it also contains some politically correct passages and uses a lot of euro jargon, but we would be prepared to cover that with the cloak of charity.

However, it is totally incomprehensible to me that such a report should not contain even a single mention of the intolerable burden that non-European immigration has placed on our jobs markets, on our social security, and on our societies in general. That taboo surrounding a problem that will probably turn out to be the problem of the 21st century should be intolerable to all right-thinking people. In this report, we have not moved beyond the usual claptrap about fighting discrimination of all kinds, despite the fact that, at this very moment, the immigration problem is reaching barely manageable proportions and has been further deepened by the rise of a particularly hateful brand of Islamist fanaticism, which is finding a fertile breeding ground here. That is not the only reason why I eventually decided to refuse to support this report, but it is the main one.

  Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. – The employment guidelines in this resolution call for Member States’ focus on EU 2020 goals and the Stability and Growth Pact to be in equal measure. I share the resolution’s concern that, at the moment, national governments are more concerned with the Stability and Growth Pact, with less importance placed on growth and investment. The resolution also calls on the European Council to guarantee that fiscal consolidation does not get in the way of efforts currently in place to tackle unemployment and, in particular, youth unemployment. I fully support the resolution’s proposal for a Youth Guarantee Scheme, which is especially important at a time when tough economic conditions make finding employment very difficult for young people.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) I abstained from voting on this report. It contains a number of positive features, such as increased investment in education and training, tackling youth unemployment, increased female employment and a guarantee of involvement for the social partners. It is to be hoped that these are not just fine words, but doubts arise, especially upon reading that fiscal consolidation must be based on social justice, that austerity measures should not compromise social protection, and even that state-run pension systems should not be placed in danger.

We are, unfortunately, aware of how these guidelines are implemented currently, especially when it comes to assisting companies by removing the tax burden of non-wage costs, introducing benefits systems adapted to the new requirements of the labour market in order to maintain employability, or even forcing Member States, burdened by the current crisis, to implement supposedly necessary reform programmes. We know, above all, of the disastrous consequences of these reforms. To curb the system, we shall need more than pious wishes.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) Although some aspects of the Annual Growth Survey submitted by the Commission in November 2011 are to be welcomed, it should give a higher priority to social and employment policy issues. With regard to the Europe 2020 strategy objective of significantly increasing European employment levels, it is important to ensure that, despite taking the necessary austerity measures, we also invest in high-quality jobs. In particular, we must combat youth unemployment and the precarious jobs which many young people have.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the text voted on today in this House, which sets out what ought to be the Union’s priorities for tackling the crisis over the coming 12 months.

The efforts of the Member States and the EU institutions must focus on profound reforms in the areas of fiscal policy, financial sector stabilisation, growth and competitiveness, employment and social consequences of the crisis, and public administration.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) Not a single aspect of this report directs serious criticism towards the Annual Growth Survey, the European Semester, the EU-IMF programmes or the so-called ‘austerity policies’ implemented in various Member States, which have been the main cause of increased unemployment, poverty, and social and economic recession. While the rapporteur advocates the need for the Commission and the Council to take account of social aspects and the promotion of employment, she supports maintaining the so-called ‘austerity policies’ – which are, in fact, policies of aggression against the workers – through the implementation of national reform programmes, arguing that ‘national and regional parliaments, social partners, public authorities and civil society are deeply involved in the implementation and monitoring of policy guidance under the Europe 2020 strategy and economic governance process’. This, therefore, is utter nonsense. Moreover, the rapporteur proposes the creation of more flexible employment models and the mobility of workers as a way of increasing employment among women, young and old, and also that those receiving benefits should have to contribute to the labour market in order to have the right to receive those benefits. Obviously, we voted against.

  Milan Zver (PPE), in writing. – (SL) I welcome the efforts of the European Commission in preparing the Annual Growth Survey 2012 and I am pleased that the European Parliament decided to draft a report focusing on unemployment and social aspects in this growth survey. As a member of the Committee on Culture and Education, the part of the report about reducing youth unemployment particularly attracted my attention. As a rapporteur myself, I also consider it extremely important that we stop the current trend and do not lose the potential of an entire generation of young people in Europe. I myself have researched solutions to the problem of youth unemployment during the preparation of the Youth on the Move report, and while working on the report on the contribution of the European institutions to the Bologna Process. Various commercial and economic factors have led to a considerable increase in unemployment amongst young people in recent years. These factors revealed some of the weaknesses of European higher education systems. We have seen just how significant it is whether or not a graduate can find a job after their studies finish. Those universities which take an interest in the fate of their graduates once they finish their studies are taking a very important step towards reducing youth unemployment.

Report: Jean-Paul Gauzès (A7-0018/2012)

  Damien Abad (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of Jean-Paul Gauzès’ report on the contribution to the Annual Growth Survey 2012. This survey is used to set the European Commission’s economic and budget priorities for the coming year. This year’s survey focuses on strengthening economic governance, reducing public deficits and restoring growth. These priorities will be taken into consideration when the European Council meets in March.

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report, and would highlight that the related negotiations achieved a compromise between calling for growth, employment, social cohesion and investment, whilst also demanding greater democratic legitimacy for the European Semester, through increased involvement for the European Parliament and the national parliaments, which should be subject to codecision in the future.

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The presentation of the Annual Growth Survey 2012 by the Commission lays some excellent foundations for the European Semester. We need to give priority to fighting unemployment, fiscal consolidation, promoting sustainable growth by increasing competitiveness and investment, and modernising the EU’s public administrations. Immediate action is needed to support businesses and employment over the medium term: at least 17.6 million people will need to find a job if we are to achieve the EU 2020 objectives. The Member States must do their best to correct their deficits within the deadlines set by the Council, bringing them to sustainable levels. Many sectors need deep structural reforms, including labour, pensions, welfare and combating tax evasion. These reforms will have to be implemented through a coordinated approach that also adapts to the specific needs of the Member States. Lastly, I really must point out that Parliament has to be given a leading role in defining the Broad Economic Policy Guidelines and the Annual Growth Survey, which must be achieved through a codecision procedure and not merely a consultative role.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Jean-Paul Gauzès, my colleague on the Parliamentary Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, provides several clarifications in relation to the Annual Growth Survey. Like him, I support the five themes chosen by the European Commission: pursuing the fiscal consolidation strategy, resuming the normal activities of financing for the economy, promoting growth and competitiveness, tackling unemployment and the social consequences of the crisis and modernising public administration. However, are these measures enough to restore the confidence of households, European companies and the financial markets? It suggests that an assessment of the social impact of economic policy instruments should be included in the European Semester mechanism and calls for efficient, socially just and sustainable reform of pension and social security systems, along with growth-friendly tax policies. Lastly, the resolution calls on the European Commission to transform the Annual Growth Survey into ‘Annual Sustainable Growth Guidelines’ in 2013 and to present these in a form that allows the European Parliament to table amendments. We must be able to express our views on the European Commission’s annual proposals.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) The Annual Growth Survey 2012 presented by the Commission really does include many good proposals, which would contribute to solving the problems of the current sovereign debt and financial crisis. Significant efforts must be made to regulate the stabilisation of the economies of the EU Member States and restore confidence in the market for investors. Measures must be taken as a matter of urgency to create a stable environment that is attractive to investors, in particular, by creating project bonds, which would help finance key infrastructure projects and would contribute to boosting sustainable growth and employment in the long term. I believe that economic stabilisation will only be achieved if we take into account medium and long-term growth and employment targets. The current situation is far from satisfactory. Unemployment among people of working age is rising, while the situation as regards youth unemployment is dire. The 2012 edition of the European Semester is the first under the agreed enhanced economic governance legal framework (the ‘six-pack’), but I believe that in future, it must be more geared towards strengthening the social dimension, which, in turn, would contribute towards the sustainable economic recovery and growth of the Member States.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of Mr Gauzès’s report as the EU needs viable solutions to ensure the sustainable success of the European economy. • The Annual Growth Survey 2012 marks the beginning of this year’s European Semester. • The main priority must be the implementation of the already agreed measures. • It is necessary to ensure the coherence of the economic policy measures. • I support the creation of bonds with a view to funding infrastructure projects. • They will promote sustainable economic growth and the creation of new jobs. • I wish to point out that there are currently 23 million unemployed people registered in the EU, of whom 22.7% are young individuals. • I consider the use of European funds to be essential in supporting the creation of SMEs, in particular, by young people. • In Romania, the state must spend approximately 0.9% of its GDP in order to support the young unemployed.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In general, this report supports the Annual Growth Survey 2012, presented by the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, emphasising the solutions aimed at resolving the financial and sovereign debt crisis, measures for economic growth in the medium and long term, and the monitoring of the broader economic framework, with the aim of making the European economy more sustainable and competitive. It also commends the fact that the Annual Growth Survey strongly emphasises the need to implement measures that enhance growth, as the guidelines agreed at EU level have not been implemented by the Member States, which has often prevented the measures adopted from fulfilling their full potential in achieving the Europe 2020 strategy objectives. Parliament regrets that its participation in drawing up the Annual Growth Survey is not formally set out in the Treaty, but it recalls that this should be redrafted using the codecision process; this should come into force the next time there is a Treaty change. However, the timely publication of this Annual Growth Survey is to be welcomed, as it allows Parliament to express its view in an opportune and timely manner. I voted for this report for those reasons.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) It was not a foregone conclusion, but the idea is gaining ground: no, budget austerity is not enough to restore growth. Greater coordination of economic policies requires deep structural reforms and more transparent decision making. That is the spirit of the Gauzès report. It is up to the Commission to highlight the measures taken by the Member States to implement their national reform programmes. It must remind them of the commitments that they have made. Furthermore, economic recovery depends on our banks who, with their freeze on investment, are paralysing the growth and activity of our SMEs. They must undertake to lend more to the real economy. Finally, as regards the drafting of the European Semester, I deplore the fact that Parliament has been excluded from the drafting of the main economic policy guidelines, which has been done on the sly by the governments. That is why the Commission has been asked to transform the Annual Growth Survey into Annual Sustainable Growth Guidelines in 2013, in a form that allows Parliament to play its role.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) The report in question is, from my point of view, a collection of things that have already been said and extensively discussed in other reports. Indeed, it points out the need for general or specific measures to jump-start growth in Europe, including some which are definitely to be welcomed and others which may or may not be useful or effective. The problem is that the crisis is not being addressed from a perspective that is different or new compared with what Europe has already done, where the belief is that greater centralisation – or ‘more Europe’ – can solve the problems we are currently facing. The report does not address slimming down the EU’s powers, which I think would be a good idea, in order to give more freedom and room to breathe to industry and to small and medium-sized enterprises, which are the real driving force behind the continent. As far as I can see, the report’s concerns hardly seem to be centred on business. Accordingly, I abstained in the vote on this report.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report on the contribution to the Annual Growth Survey 2012. Unfortunately, it falls short of what is necessary to restore confidence among European households and enterprises as well as financial markets, since it overlooks the need to take urgent action to support short-term activity and employment, which is important for achieving the EU 2020 objectives. It should be recognised that the lack of, or unevenness in, the implementation in the Member States of guidelines agreed at EU level, bearing in mind the necessary margin of discretion which the Member States enjoy to pursue their own policies, prevents the agreed guidelines from unleashing their full potential to achieve the EU 2020 objectives. The European Parliament urges the Commission to provide a detailed assessment of the implementation by Member States of the country-specific recommendations that it will make public before the June 2012 European Council. In addition, the Commission should work in close cooperation with the Council in order to develop a genuine and common budget and accounting nomenclature. Furthermore, in the current economic context, EU-funded programmes play an even more crucial role and the Commission is encouraged to put forward a proposal to fund EU 2020 strategy actions through the transfer of unused payment appropriations.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the report presented by Mr Gauzès. Each year, the Annual Growth Survey enables us to define the European Union’s budgetary priorities. In light of this, Member States must rigorously implement the economic policies they have committed to, which must aim to reduce debt and regain a competitive and sustainable economy that can generate jobs.

Furthermore, we need to use long-term financing of the real economy to promote sustainable growth marked by greater competitiveness and more investment, while fighting hard against the high levels of unemployment that we have seen in recent years. Further, it would be a good idea for investment to be concentrated on research, education, innovation and supporting small and medium-sized enterprises, which are the true pillars of long-term sustainable growth. Lastly, I think enhanced coordination among individual Member States in macro-economic policies and structural reforms would also be beneficial.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I agree completely with the opinion of Jean-Paul Gauzès, the rapporteur for the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on the contribution of the Annual Growth Survey 2012. The own-initiative report clearly indicates what the priorities are for a return to long-term growth. I share the Parliamentary Committee’s view on the need to develop a strategy focused on employment, the competitiveness of our economies and budgetary discipline. This responsible approach is the only one capable of saving our economies and thus ensuring the welfare of our fellow citizens. The defence of structural growth – that should be the role of the European institutions.

  Antonio Cancian (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Today, we have debated and voted on the three reports by Ms Cornelissen, Mr Gauzès and Ms Berès, which were drafted in relation to the Annual Growth Survey 2012 proposed by the Commission last November.

I supported the report by Mr Gauzès because I think that the salient points of the work of the report by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs are very much agreeable. To be explicit, I am referring to the attention paid to the need to: respond to economic challenges through joined-up macro-economic strategies; pursue growth-friendly fiscal consolidation that is differentiated from Member State to Member State according to each of their needs and characteristics; ensuring long-term financing of the real economy and small and medium-sized enterprises; promoting sustainable growth, education, research and innovation through more competitive financing and greater investments; tackling unemployment and the social consequences of the crisis; and modernising EU public administration and services of general interest.

We have got to take real action by creating jobs through an infrastructure investment programme that will benefit Europe and be paid for by issuing EU debt.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In general, this report supports the Annual Growth Survey 2012, presented by the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, emphasising the solutions aimed at resolving the financial and sovereign debt crisis, measures for economic growth in the medium and long term, and the monitoring of the broader economic framework, with the aim of making the European economy more sustainable and competitive. It also commends the fact that the Annual Growth Survey strongly emphasises the need to implement measures that enhance growth, as the guidelines agreed at EU level have not been implemented by the Member States, which has often prevented the measures adopted from fulfilling their full potential in achieving the Europe 2020 strategy objectives. However, there are some areas in which it falls short of what is needed in promoting activities which encourage short-term growth and employment, in line with the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy.

  Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) Once again, the guidelines used as a basis by the Commission via the Annual Growth Survey for 2012 do not prioritise the interests of Union citizens. On the contrary, they promote the same failed neoliberal policies that caused the crisis and, on the pretext of fiscal restructuring, imposed harsh austerity measures. Recovery and viable growth do not go hand in hand with austerity or with recession or with unemployment and poverty, which are basically being institutionalised. The European Parliament report is fully in keeping with those guidelines. It confines itself to calling for the European Parliament to be involved in the Annual Growth Survey if the Treaty is revised. Unfortunately, however, the problem with the Annual Growth Survey is not just a problem of democratic legitimisation which can simply be resolved by involving the European Parliament in the procedure; it is a highly political problem to do with the neoliberal policies which it imposes and the overriding economic and development model which it promotes.

The only solution for recovery from the crisis is to overturn these policies and to apply alternative policies with the objective of economic efficacy, social and environmental justice and viable growth. It is for all these reasons that I voted against the report.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The financial crisis, which has subsequently expanded into a social and sovereign debt crisis, requires new measures to support growth, which, until recently, were not in line with the main Europe 2020 strategy objectives. Moreover, the latest statistics indicate that levels of unemployment and inequality are worsening in the EU.

I am voting for this report because, as the rapporteur argues, measures for economic growth need to be stepped up in the medium and long term, as well as closely monitoring the current economic environment, in order to call for the smooth adaptation of the respective growth strategies. In order to make the European economy more sustainable and competitive, the efforts of the Member States and the EU should be based on the pursuit of differentiated fiscal consolidation that encourages growth and ensures economic recovery and job creation, as well as addressing the issue of unemployment and the social impact of the crisis. In particular, the Member States should prioritise policies that boost growth, for example, through education, research, innovation, infrastructure and energy, and ensure that both income and outgoings are managed in an effective, socially just and sustainable way.

  Andrea Cozzolino (S&D), in writing. – (IT) By adopting this report and the corresponding report by the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (EMPL), Parliament has taken up very clear positions vis-à-vis the Commission and the Council with regard to the policies that must be in place as soon as possible in order to boost growth and employment. Too many Member States have lost sight of the headline targets of the Europe 2020 objectives on employment, education and reducing poverty. They have focused solely on the sovereign debt crisis and remained blind to the fact that only medium- and long-term measures capable of fuelling growth – namely, education, research, innovation and energy – can provide the answers to the tough period that the Union has been going through for too long. The call for the introduction of project bonds to finance key infrastructure projects, as well as the call in EMPL’s report for the introduction of a tax on financial transactions are useful proposals that can no longer be delayed, and Parliament is ready to get behind them. Lastly, the proposal on making the Annual Growth Survey subject to a codecision procedure does justice to the fundamental role that Parliament could have in the debate on the future of European growth and identifying development policies.

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In general, this own-initiative report supports the Annual Growth Survey (AGS) 2012 by the Commission, in the first stage of the European Semester, which represents veritable words of ‘comfort and encouragement’ by Parliament for the Commission’s efforts in this area. The report emphasises solutions geared towards resolving the financial and sovereign debt crisis, particularly in terms of increasing finance for the economy, as well as measures for economic growth, for monitoring the general economic environment, and for enhanced coordination of economic policies and structural reforms. The aim is to improve productivity, and thus the sustainability and competitiveness of the European economy, in order to achieve the Europe 2020 strategy objectives, in particular, as regards employment. In terms of the procedure, and as highlighted by the rapporteur, I regret that the involvement of Parliament in drafting the Broad Economic Policy Guidelines/AGS is not formally provided for by the Treaty. This should be revised at the next Treaty change. On a positive note, however, I would highlight the timely publication of this AGS, giving Parliament enough time to express its views before annual guidelines are decided on by the European Council in spring.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report which, beyond the pursuit of budgetary discipline, proposes new measures to escape the spiral of the crisis. It especially recommends an increased effort to promote growth and youth employment. The unemployment rate amongst young people, which has been severely affected by the crisis, reaching over 20% in the Union overall, must now be a priority for our Member States.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report as it advocates that the EU should strengthen economic governance and reduce deficits, while at the same time adopting measures that stimulate growth and job creation. The priority for these measures should be emerging from the sovereign debt crisis and promoting an economy with sustainable growth that will ensure an increase in employment.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report, drafted by Mr Gauzès, addresses the contribution to the Annual Growth Survey 2012. At a time when economic growth is almost negative, largely due to the austerity measures adopted by the Member States, a report on this issue could not be more timely. Having ensured fiscal consolidation and controlled growth of public expenditure, sustainable economic growth should be promoted as a matter of urgency. To this end, use needs to be made of the instruments adopted, such as the ’six-pack’ and the European Semester. Initiatives aimed at young people should be increased, and there should be significant investment in education and vocational training. Flexicurity policies in the labour market and support for small and medium-sized enterprises should not be overlooked either, with a view to promoting employment. Solidarity and subsidiarity are two principles that the Member States should bear in mind in building an EU that must not operate at two speeds. I voted for this report because it calls on the Member States to put their commitments into practice, so as to emerge from the crisis and promote economic growth and job creation.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The Annual Growth Survey (AGS) 2012 sets out what the Commission believes must be the EU’s priorities for the coming 12 months in terms of budgetary, economic, employment and social policy, and of reforms to drive growth and employment. The presentation of the AGS marks the start of the second European Semester of economic governance. This report contains the tedious mantras of the Eurocracy, tired neoliberal ideas and an endless succession of attacks on everything pertaining to the sovereignty of the peoples, to democracy and to the progress of civilisation. The solutions advocated here will deepen the crisis of capitalism with widespread recession in the EU. In addition, the report also proposes the implementation of specific joint programmes in areas such as defence, which would represent the deepening of the militaristic element of the EU. Obviously, we voted against.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The Annual Growth Survey 2012 presented by the Commission appears to be a good basis for this year’s European Semester. The solutions specifically targeting the current sovereign debt and financial crisis, on which all the institutions are working on a daily basis, should go hand in hand with a major focus on medium- and long-term growth-enhancing measures, as well as an overhaul of the general economic framework, in order to improve the sustainability and competitiveness of the European economy and ensure its long-lasting success. The Annual Growth Survey, however, falls short of what is necessary to restore confidence among European households and enterprises as well as financial markets, since it overlooks the need to take urgent action to support short-term activity and employment in investing in the objectives of the EU 2020 strategy. The lack of, or unevenness in, the implementation in the Member States of guidelines agreed at EU level, which prevents them from unleashing their full potential to achieve EU 2020 goals, is a cause for concern. It is therefore heartening that this year’s Annual Growth Survey emphasises the need for the implementation of the guidelines as well as growth-enhancing actions. There needs to be a substantial increase in democratic legitimacy and an assumption of responsibility for the changes by the Member States. Last but not least, the fight against social exclusion and poverty should remain a high priority of every policy.

  Elisabetta Gardini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) One good point of the report voted on today is that it brings back the debate in the EU about growth. As we well know, the last two years have been characterised by the economic and financial crisis, which has been the main theme of all policy discourse. The Member States’ aim for a long time was to stem the bleeding caused by the crisis and, through the agreement reached in late 2011, we finally arrived at a shared European response to correcting the public accounts. However, all this will not be sufficient to get the economy going again. In my opinion, we need to take measures that will allow small and medium-sized enterprises to access European funding, that redefine the labour market by increasing workers’ flexibility and mobility, and that incentivise businesses to retain their current levels of employment.

That is why the report voted on today represents a major step forward for the European Union. It prioritises growth-friendly policies, which will be achieved through measures in the education, research, innovation, infrastructure and energy sectors, where the EU can no longer let itself lag behind the rest of the world in terms of competitiveness.

  Louis Grech (S&D), in writing. – I welcome the Annual Growth Survey’s prioritisation of initiatives to restore normal lending to SMEs, promote growth and competitiveness, tackle unemployment and address the social consequences of the crisis. However, we must not only talk about theory and priorities. The scale of the challenges before us demands that we take concrete, measurable action on these issues. In this regard, this year’s Annual Growth Survey makes it clear that our efforts to address the crisis continue to be held back by the uneven implementation in the Member States of decisions made at EU level. This is evident in the Single Market, where spotty implementation of rules makes it difficult, for example, for citizens to shop online with companies based in another Member State. The Commission correctly identifies that this type of spotty implementation, or indeed ‘gold-plating’ by adding unnecessary administrative burdens, must be addressed to unlock fully Europe’s potential for economic growth.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed this document because the solutions specifically targeting the current sovereign debt and financial crisis, on which all the institutions are working on a daily basis, should go hand in hand with a major focus on medium- and long-term growth-enhancing measures, as well as an overhaul of the general economic framework, in order to improve the sustainability and competitiveness of the European economy and ensure its long-lasting success. The Annual Growth Survey falls short of what is necessary to restore confidence among European households and enterprises, as well as financial markets, because it overlooks the need to take urgent action to support short-term activity and employment, which is important for achieving the EU 2020 objectives. Efforts at national and EU level should concentrate on the following five priorities: pursuing differentiated growth-friendly fiscal consolidation while ensuring economic recovery and job creation; ensuring long-term financing of the real economy; promoting sustainable growth through more competitiveness and investments; tackling unemployment and the social consequences of the crisis; modernising EU public administration and services of general interest. On the expenditure and revenue sides of the budget, Member States should prioritise growth-friendly policies, such as education, research, innovation, infrastructure and energy, and ensure the efficiency of such expenditures and revenues. It is also essential to reduce the unnecessary administrative burden and red tape.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) In the wake of the Commission’s communication on the Annual Growth Survey 2012, the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has adopted the own-initiative report by Jean-Paul Gauzès.

Adopting the Commission’s analysis, MEPs stress the need to ensure differentiated growth-friendly fiscal consolidation that will promote growth, recovery and job creation, to ensure long-term financing of the real economy, to tackle unemployment and to take measures to respond to the social consequences of the crisis.

Finally, the Gauzès report calls for modernisation of the EU’s public administration and services of general interest. I supported this report in plenary.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I think a few factors that can make a genuine contribution to the Annual Growth Survey 2012 need to be emphasised. Indeed, this text looks at the coming year and sets out the guidelines of an economic, social, political and financial budget. Growth is the key word for the European Union’s policy action; it is the goal we must seek in order to revive our troubled economy. We are aware of the need to take determined, robust action on this and I am therefore very pleased with the recent statements from the Council and the Commission, which are totally in line with what we have been saying since the start of the year in preparing the guidelines for the 2013 budget. In view of this planning process, I think the Annual Growth Survey 2012, which we approved today, is important since examining it marks the starting point, to all intents and purposes, for this year’s work.

  Agnès Le Brun (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I welcome the adoption of this report, which discusses the conclusions of the Annual Growth Survey 2012. It approves the European Commission’s policy of reducing public spending and reaffirms that the return to growth must be based on measures that do not place a further burden on public finances.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Unfortunately, the annual growth analysis does not provide the necessary solutions to restore confidence in European economies and financial markets. We must take urgent measures to support employment and to achieve the EU 2020 objectives. Furthermore, we should also take into consideration the interdependence of the economies and budget policies of the Member States and the domino effects which may occur in certain cases. The Member States’ growth prospects are extremely dependent on the anti-crisis measures.

Therefore, I believe that all EU Member States must take urgent measures to correct excessive deficits and reduce sovereign debts to an acceptable level. In order to restore the confidence of investors, we need a reform of the regulatory and control framework of the financial sector. The banks must not restrict lending to the real economy unreasonably, and regulatory actions should lay the foundation for increasing their lending capacity.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I believe the AGS does not include enough measures to promote growth and quality jobs and that there is too much focus on austerity and budgetary consolidation. I do welcome reference to social inclusion and poverty, but believe it is contradictory to the overall message of austerity.

  Clemente Mastella (PPE), in writing. – (IT) We think that the solutions targeting the current sovereign debt and financial crisis set out in the Annual Growth Survey presented by the Commission should go hand in hand with a major focus on medium- and long-term growth enhancing measures, as well as an overhaul of the general economic framework, in order to improve the sustainability and competitiveness of the European economy and ensure its long-lasting success.

The democratic legitimacy and national ownership of the changes which have been decided in terms of future economic governance need to be substantially increased. Today, we have the opportunity to enhance the role of the European Parliament regarding the definition and implementation of economic policy surveillance procedures within the framework of the European Semester, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 121 and 136 of the Treaty. Lastly, we are in favour of the creation of project bonds designed to contribute to the financing of key infrastructure projects in order to promote sustainable growth and jobs.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) In my capacity as rapporteur, I, too, take a positive view of the Annual Growth Survey 2012 as presented by the Commission and think it forms a good basis for this year’s European Semester. It is quite right that the solutions targeting the current debt and financial crisis will go hand in hand with a major focus on medium- and long-term growth-enhancing measures, as well as an overhaul of the general economic framework, in order to improve the sustainability and competitiveness of the European economy and ensure its long-lasting success. I voted in favour.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. – This report cites ‘growth-friendly tax policies in the Member States, better tax coordination and, where appropriate, harmonisation in the EU’ as a means by which sustainable reform can be achieved across EU Member States. Since taxation is highlighted in this report and tax policy is a matter for Member State governments, I abstained from voting on this report.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) This report has the merit of deploring (without condemning) ‘the socialisation of private losses through injections of liquidity in the banking sector and any speculative behaviour by rating agencies and international financial centres’. Its merit is limited to this demonstration of lucidity. As for the rest, this report accepts the austerity plans. It approves the European Semester, which it merely wishes to see submitted to Parliament for amendments and, even then, only at its first stage. It is in favour of the policies of social destruction put forward by the Commission in the Annual Growth Survey. It encourages the recapitalisation of the banks without demanding the least constraint on the interest rates that they will subsequently impose. It really was not worth the bother of making such a contribution! I voted against and condemn this report and those who support it.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Annual Growth Survey (AGS) 2012, as presented by the Commission, forms a good basis for this year’s European Semester. The solutions specifically targeting the current sovereign debt and financial crises, on which all the institutions are working every day, should go hand in hand with a major focus on medium- and long-term growth-enhancing measures, as well as with monitoring the general economic situation, in order to make the European economy more sustainable and competitive, and to ensure its sustainable success. However, I believe that the AGS falls short of what is necessary to restore confidence among European households and businesses, as well as in the financial markets, since it overlooks the urgent need for short-term measures to support activity and employment by investing in the Europe 2020 strategy’s objectives. It is therefore important that we all make an effort to implement measures that combat the crisis in the short term, so that we can become more sustainable in the future.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (ES) The Annual Growth Survey 2012 sets out the Commission’s priorities for the next 12 months in economic and budgetary terms. Its presentation marks the opening of the second European Semester on economic governance. As with the Berès report, I have voted against, because of the proposed solutions. Instead of doing a full 180-degree turn and changing the direction of the EU’s neoliberal policies, it insists on them, without dealing with the fact that it was those types of policies that have led us into the crisis. The European Commission is, therefore, mortgaging the future of EU citizens and condemning them to more unemployment, greater poverty, inequality and social exclusion, whilst the reasons behind this crisis are left untouched, when they are not being strengthened.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – This own-initiative report is the EP’s contribution to the Annual Growth Survey 2012 to be submitted by the Commission to the European Council on 1-2 March. The Annual Growth Survey (AGS), as proposed by the Commission, is the first stage of the European Semester which organises, on an annual basis, the coordination of economic policies at EU and national level. I am in favour.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) In principle, comparing statistical data on unemployment across the Member States will only produce meaningful results if the different statistical returns are taken into consideration. The current financial and debt crisis is, of course, accompanied by rising unemployment. However, now it is also becoming clear that each new job created which is only a part-time post or involves marginal activities is not a proper new job. Unfortunately, many of the new jobs created over recent years have been in this area or have been temporary positions. The solutions which we need to put in place and the decision on how to manage unemployment statistics and measures to support the unemployed must be taken at a national level and, therefore, I have abstained.

  Tiziano Motti (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The Annual Growth Survey sets out priorities for action at national and EU level for the next 12 months, including for the achievement of the EU 2020 targets, which should feed into national economic and budgetary decisions, in line with the EU’s country-specific recommendations. Efforts at national and EU level should concentrate on the following five priorities: 1) pursuing differentiated growth-friendly fiscal consolidation while ensuring economic recovery and job creation; 2) ensuring long-term financing of the real economy; 3) promoting sustainable growth through more competitiveness and investments; 4) tackling unemployment and the social consequences of the crisis; 5) modernising EU public administration and services of general interest. The fight against social exclusion and poverty should remain a high priority of every policy, together with pursuing differentiated growth-friendly fiscal consolidation while ensuring economic recovery and job creation.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I believe that the Annual Growth Survey overlooks action to support short-term activity and employment. Furthermore, the Member States must increase their efforts to implement the objectives set out in the Europe 2020 strategy. Differentiated growth-friendly fiscal consolidation must therefore be continued at both national and EU level and normal conditions for lending to the economy restored. All Member States should prioritise growth-friendly policies. We must ensure that the EU financial system is more resilient in order to increase competitiveness and boost economic growth. It should be noted that the public services provided in many countries are of a poor standard. It is therefore necessary to modernise public administration, reducing the administrative and bureaucratic burden.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The most important issues to deal with in the EU Growth Survey are tax and financial policy, balancing budgets and resolving the main problems of the financial crisis. Competitiveness, employment, and research and development need to be stimulated by the European economy, which, without targeted investments in these sectors, will fail to achieve growth in 2012. The text in question is a good attempt at funding management, since it keeps spending on education and research and development as priorities, partly as a result of greater revenues from better tax systems. I therefore think that a more efficient public administration is essential to the existence of a competitive economy that is able to provide incentives for growth by exploiting the benefits of belonging to the single European market.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In general, this report supports the Annual Growth Survey 2012, presented by the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, by emphasising the solutions aimed at resolving the financial and sovereign debt crisis, measures for economic growth in the medium and long term and the monitoring of the broader economic framework, with the aim of making the European economy more sustainable and competitive. The most important of the measures listed in the report are growth-friendly fiscal consolidation and ensuring economic recovery and job creation, ensuring long-term finance for the real economy, and promoting sustainable growth through more competitiveness and investment. All of these factors are reasons why I voted in favour.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Since the latest statistical evidence highlights rising inequalities and unemployment in the European Union, and bearing in mind that most Member States have lost sight of the headline targets of the EU 2020 objectives, I would like to declare my vote in favour of the Commission’s analysis that efforts at national and EU level should concentrate on the following priorities: differentiated growth-friendly fiscal consolidation, while ensuring economic recovery and job creation; ensuring long-term financing of the real economy; promoting sustainable growth through more competitiveness and investments; tackling unemployment and the social consequences of the crisis; and modernising EU public administration and services of general interest.

  Miguel Portas (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) In its communication on the Annual Growth Survey 2012, the Commission sets out its priorities for economic and fiscal policy and the reforms intended to promote job creation and sustainable growth for the Member States over the coming 12 months. This presentation marks the start of the second European Semester. Parliament’s report on this matter simply confirms all of the proposals presented by the Commission, which insists on fiscal consolidation by reducing deficits and debt as one of the main means of emerging from the crisis and ensuring subsequent growth. However, this principle will jeopardise all of the other measures proposed for growth, as it will restrict the levels of investment required. I voted against for these reasons.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Annual Growth Survey 2012 comes at a time of particular difficulty, as the financial pressure on the fiscal structures of the various Member States may jeopardise the adoption or continuation of constructive economic growth policies. There is an urgent need for short-term measures in a context of deeper integration, so as to enable the economic recovery of the different Member States through growth. However, alongside these more immediate policy options, medium- and long-term growth that strengthens the structures for product manufacture and distribution, and which paves the way for robust growth in the EU, should not be neglected in any way. I voted for the resolution, as it takes that view.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. The outcome of the draft report was acceptable. The initial draft report contained some controversial elements which were mostly watered down and transformed into more consensual points. In addition, most key Green amendments survived the negotiation process, including the following good elements where the EP: - takes note of the new legislative proposals on economic governance; believes that such proposals should offer the opportunity to enhance the role of the European Parliament regarding the definition and implementation of economic policy surveillance procedures within the European Semester framework in conformity with the provisions of Articles 121 and 136 of the Treaty; recalls that, in the current context, where several Member States are confronted with stringent and difficult choices in terms of allocation of public resources, it is urgent to ensure the consistency of different economic policy instruments and, in particular, policies conducive to respect for EU 2020 objectives and headline targets on an equal basis; and recalls in that perspective the need to explicitly identify, assess and address spill-over effects of Member States’ economic policies as well as to carry out social impact assessments of economic policy instruments included in the EU Semester framework.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The solutions targeting the current sovereign debt and financial crisis should go hand in hand with a major focus on medium- and long-term growth-enhancing measures. This vote sees us lend our support to an overhaul of the general economic framework, in order to improve the sustainability and competitiveness of the European economy and ensure its long-lasting success.

Growth and jobs are important above all else. Indeed, the growth prospects of all Member States are highly dependent on how decisively the debt crisis is dealt with, together with the effectiveness with which coordinated economic policies can ensure a better focus on investment for sustainable growth and job creation.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The aim of the Annual Growth Survey is to provide a structured framework for measures intended to promote growth and employment, and it acts as the basis for the European Semester for Economic Policy Coordination. I am voting for this report as it is vital to pursue differentiated, growth-friendly fiscal consolidation, thus ensuring short-term economic recovery and job creation in the EU. As I have already said in plenary, I believe that it is time to move from a phase of austerity into a new phase of economic growth, wealth generation and job creation. As such, it is important that the European institutions give greater focus to boosting economic activity, particularly by giving effective support to the investment made by small and medium-sized enterprises, stepping up research and innovation, by stimulating internationalisation and by encouraging entrepreneurship Finally, I believe that the Member States should focus their priorities on the major objectives enshrined in the Europe 2020 strategy, as this is the only way in which it will be possible to enhance economic, social and territorial cohesion in the EU.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the resolution on the contribution to the Annual Growth Survey 2012. The Annual Growth Survey 2012, presented by the Commission, is an adequate basis for this year’s European Semester, but, as highlighted in the resolution, the solutions specifically targeting the current crisis of sovereign debts and the financial crisis must be accompanied by medium- and long-term growth promotion measures, and by a reconstruction of the overall economic framework in order to improve the competitiveness of the European economy. The uncertainty related to the prospects for the European economy and the concerns regarding the debt crisis in the euro area affected the confidence amongst households, European enterprises and financial markets. High energy prices and the persistent difficulties regarding access to funding have an adverse effect on the recovery process as well.

The efforts of the Member States and the EU must focus on the following priorities: pursuing differentiated growth-friendly fiscal consolidation, thus ensuring both economic recovery and creation of new jobs, ensuring long-term funding of the real economy, promoting sustainable growth by increasing competitiveness and investments, tackling unemployment and the social consequences of the crisis, and modernising European public administration and services of general interest.

  Viktor Uspaskich (ALDE), in writing. – (LT) The rapporteur is right to point out that the crisis has had a particular impact on the situation of young people trying to find permanent jobs. She notes that over the last two years, the number of unemployed young people in the EU has increased by 1 million. The situation in Lithuania is particularly bad. In three years, unemployment among young people has increased from 13% to 31%. That is significantly higher than the EU average (21%). By comparison, in 2008, approximately 142 000 young people were in employment, whereas now, only 93 000 have jobs. According to the latest reports, 49 000 young men are now unemployed in Lithuania and this represents a third of Lithuania’s workforce. It should not be this way. The Annual Growth Survey rightly prioritises youth employment, but we also should not forget the quality of the work and traineeships provided for in the Commission’s policy guidelines.

  Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. – This resolution, in reaction to the European Commission’s Annual Growth Survey, calls for Member States to execute the structural reform recommendations that they have committed to. The Commission’s AGS gives little regard to building confidence among investors, consumers and citizens, so I give my support to this resolution, which calls for national governments to address this issue. It also highlights that budget cuts at national level must be combined with other measures to encourage growth. The call by the resolution for democratic legitimacy and national ownership to be increased should bring about quicker economic reforms.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) I voted against the report by Jean-Paul Gauzès, from the Union for a Popular Movement (UMP), on the contribution of the Annual Growth Survey 2012. As is now customary, the Committee has once again brought out a worrying report.

The analysis of growth by these believers in a fanatical conservative liberalism remains the same: ensure fiscal consolidation, search for the chimera of growth based on competitiveness and private investment, restrict government and public services … always the same refrain of breaking up the State to benefit the markets. Always the same policy choices which lead Europe’s countries to economic recession and social regression, aggravate social inequalities, impoverish a growing number of people and lead to violation of the fundamental rights, including social and environmental rights.

This report forms part of this ideological line which, each day, is destroying the European project a little more, and which imposes authoritarian choices that are destroying the European social model without any democratic debate.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) The current financial and debt crisis can only be overcome by reforming the general economic conditions and introducing medium- and long-term measures to promote growth. The EU guidelines on the Europe 2020 strategy must be fully implemented and the banks’ capital positions must be strengthened in order to restore investors’ confidence. In addition, public administrative bodies must be made more transparent and efficient. We also need to guarantee legal certainty concerning services of general economic interest. Furthermore, we must take the social consequences of the crisis into consideration by introducing structural reforms of the labour market and investing in measures to promote growth, such as education and research.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The text presented by Mr Gauzès falls under the package of measures voted on today to try and tackle the crisis that has hurt the European Union and continues to do so. Regaining competitiveness and implementing new macro-economic strategies, together with modernising the public administration and promoting sustainable growth, are the foundations for reviving the economy, fighting widespread unemployment and helping to restore investment in European industry.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The Annual Growth Survey (AGS) 2012 sets out what the Commission believes must be the EU’s priorities for the coming 12 months in terms of budgetary, economic, employment and social policy, and of reforms to drive growth and employment. The presentation of the AGS marks the start of the second European Semester of economic governance. Parliament’s report on the AGS is in complete harmony with the spirit of the Commission and its neoliberal policies, which harm workers’ rights and the sovereignty of the Member States. The solutions that it promotes will not help to tackle the crisis of capitalism or to prevent widespread recession in the EU, but will only exacerbate its effects.

In addition, the report also proposes the implementation of specific joint programmes in areas such as defence, which would represent the deepening of the militaristic element of the EU. We propose that the existing macro-economic policies be altered, by revoking the Stability and Growth Pact, by bringing an end to privatisation and liberalisation processes, by prioritising quality jobs with rights and living wages, without discrimination against women, and by promoting the dignity of work.

10. Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes

  President. – That concludes the explanations of vote.

(The sitting was suspended at 14.10 and resumed at 15.05)

IN THE CHAIR: MARTIN SCHULZ
President

11. Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting: see Minutes

12. Economic crisis, growth and employment (debate)

  President. – The next item is the statement by Professor Monti, Prime Minister of the Italian Republic, on the economic crisis, growth and employment (2012/2538(RSP)).

Mr Monti, I would like to welcome you warmly to the European Parliament. It is a great honour for us to have you here today. I wish you a warm welcome on behalf of the whole House!

(Applause)

  Mario Monti, Prime Minister of Italy. – (IT) Mr President, it is a great honour for me and for the Italian Government to have been invited to the European Parliament to address this plenary session.

I would like to start by paying tribute to the European Parliament. It really is a moving experience for me to be here in this place. I remember the first meeting I had with the European Parliament in January 1995, for the hearings to confirm my appointment as a member of the European Commission. For the next ten years, Parliament was a decisive point of contact for me, and I watched the influence of democratic life in Europe grow in this Chamber, in the Brussels Chamber and in the Chambers of the Commission. I have always found that, for the Commission that I was a member of – and I greet the representatives of the Commission – Parliament was a key ally in driving forward the European project.

Now I find myself on a bench in Parliament which I never had the opportunity to sit on, here in the Council area, and it is a new experience for me to be responsible for the policy of a Member State. I can assure you that for me, the responsibility I feel towards my country and the responsibility I feel as an Italian towards the European Union are one and the same thing.

(Applause)

All too often, from Brussels, as a Commissioner, I saw national governments pointing the finger at European institutions after they had participated in decisions taken by European institutions. Well, I promised myself never to play such a dirty trick on the European Union …

(Applause)

… and I always explain to my fellow citizens, in Parliament and elsewhere, that the important sacrifices and difficult reforms which Italian citizens have been called upon to carry out at this time are not imposed by Europe: they are needed to improve Italian economic, social and civil life and, above all, in the interests of our children. It is also something that Europe has been asking us to do and has recommended, but it should not be blamed on the European Union.

I very much feel the responsibility of being at the helm of a country at the moment that has a raw material that is increasingly rare within the European Union, that is to say, public opinion in favour of European integration and construction. I feel the duty not to waste this, but rather to cultivate this raw material. Therefore, I feel I have to proceed with caution with the need to persuade citizens, but using substantive arguments, and not only – and not so much – on the basis of conditions imposed by Europe. Whenever I can, I call upon Heads of Government of other Member States to take the same careful approach to this key shared project of ours.

Italy at this juncture, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, is engaged in a complex exit strategy in order to emerge from the crisis. I think we are gradually managing to get our country out of the shadow zone into which it fell for a short time, a potential source of problems, of contagion, a breeding ground of disease for the euro area. We are making every effort in terms of budgetary consolidation and in terms of structural reforms. I want to remind you of the commitment made last summer by my predecessor, Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, to balance the Italian state budget as early as 2013, in other words, a couple of years before other EU Member States – a commitment that was made in the midst of an emergency – has been maintained by my government, which has not asked to change it, even though it is extremely tough: it is a commitment that will require a primary surplus of about five per cent of gross domestic product, net of interest payments.

We are determined to achieve this budgetary consolidation quickly, as we are determined, with the unusual arrangement that we have in government and in relations with Parliament right now in Italy, to undertake very quickly the structural reforms required.

Of course Italy, as it gradually shores up its position – and the road ahead is still long but I am very encouraged by what is happening – is a country that will not limit itself to passively transposing the policy guidelines of the European Union, but a country that will contribute increasingly to establishing these guidelines and playing the role that is naturally incumbent on one of the great founding nations of the European Union and one of the biggest economies in the euro area.

(Applause)

It is in this spirit that I was pleased to accept the invitation sent to Italy by the German Chancellor and the President of the French Republic to work closely together and I have always made it clear to them, ever since our first triangular meeting, that the contribution that Italy intends to bring to the table is a contribution focusing on EU methods, which recognises the precedence of the European institutions and which intends to make the most of every opportunity to build bridges instead of walls with those countries that are not yet in the euro and with those that have indicated that they wish never to be part of the euro area. I believe it is important for the EU to be inclusive, rather than to exclude.

Mr President, given this session’s specific topic ‘Economic crisis, growth and employment’, allow me to dedicate a few moments to what I consider the primary risk at this stage of European life. The euro has so far been the boldest move in building the community: we simply cannot allow it to become a factor for disintegration and separation among Europeans. This risk exists, and the solution to the euro area crisis is also close at hand – I believe it is so and we are committed to it. I believe, however, that we need to focus just as much effort on regaining a united spirit, a sense of belonging to a single project. The euro area crisis has given rise to too much resentment, has recreated too many stereotypes, has split Europeans on the basis of latitude, has split Europeans into core states and peripheral states. All these classifications should be rejected decisively.

(Applause)

I am the representative of a State considered to be geographically peripheral and I have nothing to object to this geographical connotation; at the same time, I have to point out that the core States – in which Italy was included from the standpoint of responsibility, if you will – starting with the two largest euro area economies, Germany and France, were at the origin of the Stability and Growth Pact crisis and its limited credibility in 2003 when, with the complicity of Italy which presided over the ECOFIN Council at the time, these two countries preferred to bring their political influence to bear over the other Member States to essentially break the mechanism for enforcement and for the application of rules.

This is a fact that is now recognised both by the leaders of Germany and of France, so I am not slighting my colleagues, the German Chancellor and the President of the French Republic. However, it is a fact that budgetary credibility was seriously undermined from within the core of the euro area, which, from a historical perspective, had the great merit of setting up and encouraging that budgetary discipline. We cannot therefore forget that there are responsibilities both in the core, and in the peripheral areas, because it is true that several states in the periphery, at some point – including the one which I am representing here –

(Applause)

have let things slide too far along the road towards budgetary indiscipline. However, there is no such thing in the European Union, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as heroes and villains. We all need to feel jointly responsible both for the things that were done in the past and, most importantly, in building the future.

(Applause)

In essence, it has taken us eight long hard years, in which the Member States, the Commission – primarily the Commission, I am pleased to recognise that and emphasise that great institution that is the driving force behind European integration – and Parliament – which has played an ever greater role in recent years – these institutions have spent eight tough years rebuilding credibility in the Stability and Growth Pact; and I want to pay tribute to the role that Parliament has had, in particular with the ‘six–pack’, a construct which has introduced even greater credibility in discipline than the Council had originally put in place. Therefore, when we think that Parliaments are, in reality at this historical juncture, factors of indiscipline vis-à-vis the Executives – which is true sometimes at national level, but I am pleased today to acknowledge that it is not true at European level – well, this Parliament, thanks to its work, has become a factor of discipline.

(Applause)

Now I do not think this is the time to put aside budgetary discipline, just because we are pleased to have the fiscal compact and want to turn to another page on the European agenda, the one marked growth. I believe we have to reconcile both these aspects. This holds true even in daily life within our countries. Yesterday, for example, with my colleagues in the Cabinet in Rome, I had to take the difficult and unpopular decision to refuse a financial guarantee from the Italian State for a magnificent project to bring the 2020 Olympics to Rome. There was much disappointment in Italy over this decision, in Rome first and foremost. However, we argued – and I have the impression that the Italian public has understood – that the imperative for Italy today lies elsewhere, in our own interest and in that of Europe – and, by the way, last week in the United States, in Washington, I was able to witness with my own eyes just how much euro area stability is considered to be an essential component for the world economy. Therefore, at this juncture, any gesture we make which might defer sums which we cannot currently quantify to any degree of certainty would not appear to be in line with the responsibility that we as a government must take – even though, all too often, this has been avoided in the past in all countries – which is to avoid passing on debts to the future and to future generations.

I therefore hope that there will be other opportunities for great events in Italy, as has happened many times before, when Italy was able to make a contribution to culture, sports and European events. I believe, however, that this is the type of evidence we have to offer to show that budgetary discipline is not a recent acquisition that we want to set aside as soon as we can, but that it is a new way of experiencing public life.

(Applause)

In the European Council, Mr President, Italy is focusing increasingly on growth, particularly because we have a clear conscience given that within our borders, we are doing everything that is needed for budgetary discipline. In any case, the European Council meeting of 30 January, which will be followed by one on 1 March, has a lot to say and even more to do with regard to growth. I know how much this Parliament interprets the growth imperative in its daily work, in its great motions, and in its detailed decisions on individual projects.

Italy has successfully sought, for example, within the European Council, to give greater priority than in the recent past to growth as one of the objectives of economic policy. This is perfectly feasible without casting doubt over budgetary discipline: we simply need to leave certain clichés behind us. For example, the single market – the first brick in European integration – still has much to say and much to contribute to European economic growth. Commissioner Barnier has been the driving force in the Commission’s latest initiative, the Single Market Act, which, in itself, contains immense growth potential. In the European Council, Italy is fighting to ensure that words are followed by deeds, stepping up the pace and in such a way that Member State leaders put themselves personally on the line and give this the highest political importance, to prevent the single market from looking like a grey mass of unending directives and regulations. The single market is the body and, in some ways, the soul of European integration, and we have asked for considerable backing to be given to its development.

Another example – and here I repeat something I said in the European Council: the fiscal compact is great, it is great that the armoury at our disposal for budgetary discipline has been strengthened for the fourth or fifth time, but should we not be doing the same job, at least in part, to discipline the economic integration of the single market?

(Applause)

Why should we have, as it is right that we have, serious and incisive mechanisms with penalties for fiscal discipline, while a Member State that breaches the rules of the single market may persist in the breach for four to five years, until the Commission gets through all of the stages of the procedure and finally gets to the Court of Justice? These limitations on European integration are responsible for, among other things, the malfunctioning of the euro area itself as an optimal currency area. It is great to have focused so much on monetary union and the budgetary discipline that must accompany it; it is terrible not to have focused so much on economic union, which is the pillar on which monetary union stands. Now is the time for all of us to get together to focus more on this.

As regards growth – and, Mr President, I am going to conclude because I know that in this Parliament, time is rightly rationed much more than in any other place of public discussion in Europe, another contribution that you make to discipline, Mr President – stability bonds, on which this Parliament voted by an overwhelming majority, are a tool that I have encouraged elsewhere without ever seeing them as a possible source of fiscal indiscipline. They are a tool to ensure greater integration of financial markets which, if properly constructed along the lines of the Commission’s Green Paper and the report adopted today by the European Parliament, may in fact help to make the actions of the financial markets into a disciplining factor for public budgets. It is just one example of tools that can be implemented, while respecting the various sensitivities: if a major country believes that stability bonds should come a little bit later rather than earlier, again, this sensitivity should be respected, as long as no one claims that exploring them is dangerous. I believe that one day, the time will come – but not for a while – to reconsider whether the way we currently treat the act of private investment, but also of public investment, is today as appropriate as it could be.

I am happy that in our constitutions now, following the fiscal compact, we are introducing the rule of a structurally correct balanced budget; I am a little less happy that we have called it the ‘golden rule’. This is an important discipline but once, even in the German economic culture, the golden rule stated that there could be state debt but only to the limit of public investment; so we can finance with debt what is essentially the formation of capital.

(Applause)

One day, once we have completed the great transformation which – thanks especially to Germany – we have made in recent years towards a culture of discipline, Europe will be able to afford, without avoiding the issue or watering it down, to look more coolly and calmly even at tools for growth such as these.

The final point, Mr President, which I have little time to develop: I beg to refer to an article published this morning in the French, Italian and German press, and which bears my signature along with that of Ms Sylvie Goulard. We need to reconcile – and for now we are not managing to do this so well – integration, which we need in ever increasing doses, and democracy, which we certainly do not wish to give up. How do you reconcile democracy and integration? Well ...

(Murmurs of dissent)

I think it is certainly possible to reconcile democracy and integration.

(Applause)

Of course, only a deeply superficial, insular culture...

(Applause)

... might naively believe that integration means a super-state.

(Call of ‘Who elected you?’)

A vast majority in the Italian Parliament.

(IT) Mr President, please forgive me if I am overtaken by my passion for European integration, which does not mean a superstate at all, but rather a continuous operation of the principle of subsidiarity and needs to be reconciled with democracy. It is clearly evident in the last few days what might happen if citizens, in certain Member States, get the impression that integration occurs to the detriment of democracy.

Instead of trying to re-invent the wheel, as we say in Italian, I believe that we need to work on the existing institutions. There is in Europe – I believe you have heard of it – an institution directly elected through universal suffrage by citizens, known as the European Parliament. This institution has a major impact on EU life: I was a member of a European Commission that this Parliament sent packing a number of years ago. I can assure you that scrutiny is alive and well in the European Parliament!

In any case, I think that, by continuing to develop the functions of the European Parliament, and with the full backing of the Commission, we can better reconcile the efficacy of a body such as the Council – which, while being fully EU-based, is also a direct expression of governments – with that of the other organs invented by the mind of that extraordinary Frenchman, Jean Monnet, so that, as they should, integration and democracy may be increasingly in tune with each other.

(Applause)

  Joseph Daul, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (FR) Mr President, Prime Minister, ladies and gentlemen, in this Assembly, we are convinced that Europe must both restore its public finances and find the road to growth. That is what you have just said to us.

I would like to say to you, Mr Monti, that the economic reforms that you have undertaken in your country serve as an example of this twin approach. On the one hand, you have continued with many reforms initiated by the previous government, and this too you have told us about. On the other hand, you have made major changes, especially by liberalising some professions. That is the right approach as it will create jobs and stimulate competition.

Thanks to your proposal to introduce a type of flexible security, you will strengthen the social market economy, and you will make the labour market more dynamic and more protective too. Your fight against fraud and in favour of a more transparent tax system is equally appropriate and will allow a reduction of the tax burden borne by Italians. My group supports this package of measures which, I will repeat, serves as an example for Europe.

I hope that many countries will follow suit, since a return to growth requires us to re-establish a favourable economic and political climate. We also have to give hope back to our fellow citizens, not a false hope that would soon be dashed as it foundered on the realities, but a hope based on the development of a more competitive economy and on the indispensable reforms of our collective lifestyle. Now, like most European countries, the Italian economy is strong, as it is built on a real economy, on competitive sectors that are full of potential. Mr Monti, you have begun to optimise this potential, to free the economy from burdens that were overwhelming it. We must do likewise in all of our countries and take our example from those who do it best.

We must promote under-used resources via, as you said, both national and European policies. In particular, we must allow our SMEs, our researchers and millions of Europeans, especially the young unemployed, to develop their potential. This policy requires a spirit of responsibility, the very one that you, my dear Mr Monti, are displaying at the head of your government.

For some, there is a great temptation to confuse public spending and investment, as you have said, but it is only through investment that we shall achieve sustainable growth. Former President of the Commission, Jacques Delors, used to say that one cannot fall in love with the internal market. On the day after Saint Valentine’s Day, neither can one fall in love with European competitiveness.

However, Mr Monti, in the report that you have published on the re-launch of the single market, you laid out some good pointers on how to restore growth and employment. I would like to speak about greater fiscal coordination between the Member States. I would like to speak about a new impulse for political and social support for the integration of the European market. I would like to speak about the internal market which, almost 20 years after its launch in 1993, remains unfinished. You reminded us of this.

Mr President, although everyone knows how much I favour the Franco-German engine, to the same extent I wish that, like Italy, other countries would make their opinions, their proposals or even their counter-proposals heard.

I would also like to take this opportunity to welcome your determined commitment to the Community method and to European integration. Like the European Parliament, you know, Mr Monti, that the return of the intergovernmental method would be a serious mistake, a retrograde step for the 500 million Europeans. I am grateful to you for having punched to your full weight. Carry on opposing this intergovernmental method. You have the majority of this Parliament with you.

This Parliament wishes to make another voice heard, that of a united, responsible Europe, that of an integrated, political Europe. We know that we can count on you as an ally in this.

  Hannes Swoboda, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, I should like to welcome the Prime Minister to this Parliament, not only on behalf of the colleghi democratici, but also on behalf of all the Social Democratic Group. It is good to have you here, Prime Minister. By a slip of the tongue, you said that you had been elected by the European Parliament. Well, that is not yet true, but we would have elected you after the speech you gave today; so come back to the European scene when you finish your prime ministership, so that we can have a strong European in our Parliament.

Prime Minister, expectations are very high, not only in Italy, but also in Europe. Not with those people over there, but with the public in general. You spoke about growth, and the necessity of combining growth with fiscal discipline. I would go one step further and say that, perhaps, fiscal discipline can be achieved more easily if we have growth and employment. Prime Minister, we have had many declarations, including those made by Italy and other countries, but the actions are still missing.

I need only quote, for example, from the Final Declaration of the Cannes Summit, where President Sarkozy was so proud to hold the G20 meeting. One sentence of that declaration reads: ‘We firmly believe that employment must be at the heart of the actions and policies to restore growth and confidence that we undertake under the Framework for strong, sustainable and balanced growth’. A good declaration, but where is the action? The action is still missing.

You spoke about some instruments such as stability bonds. We are still discussing growth policies, but we do not have enough action. Secondly, for us – as you know, Prime Minister – a social Europe is something concrete. Here again, to quote from the declaration of the Cannes Summit of the G20: ‘We recognise the importance of investing in nationally determined social protection floors in each of our countries ... We are convinced of the essential role of social dialogue’.

This morning, we discussed how the social dialogue has been destroyed, for example in Greece; how the Troika says there must be no social dialogue, no social partners, just legislation – and we can return to democracy later. For us, growth, employment and social policies have to go hand in hand.

My next point relates to tax. For a social Europe, the tax system must also be social and fair, and we have to fight against tax evasion. Again, the G20 said: ‘We are committed to protect our public finances and the global financial system from the risks posed by tax havens and non-cooperative jurisdictions’. Yet there has been no reaction, not a single action against tax havens; not a single action to deal with non-cooperative jurisdictions. What should Greek citizens think when the money of the rich is going to Switzerland and other countries, untaxed, and they have to pay tax on their reduced salaries? This is an impossible situation.

You also know, Prime Minister, that the financial transaction tax is very important for us. It is often said that, well, we have to fear tax evasion. A study by our Group showed that, if the financial tax is applied right, tax evasion need not be a very big problem. We accept tax evasion involving the Bahamas, Switzerland and many other countries, but in the case of the financial transaction tax, all of a sudden we are very restrictive. So this is another point which our Group regards as very important.

I agree with you and, as I said, I would even go a step further. In a growing Europe, in a Europe with more jobs and fewer unemployed people, in a social and fair Europe with a fair tax system, fiscal consolidation is much easier to achieve and can be accepted by the citizens.

My next point is to stress that we also have European institutions, such as the European Central Bank and the European Investment Bank, that can contribute to your – and our – concept of growth and development. Concerning the European Investment Bank, why not give it more credit possibilities, especially for the benefit of small and medium-sized industries? The European Investment Bank can also help to generate growth. As for the European Central Bank, another Italian – Mr Draghi, whom I met on Monday – is doing a good job there. I would like you to follow and support your colleague in the European Central Bank, so as to do the utmost to promote growth and create enough liquidity in Europe for growth generation.

I think with these two Italians, Draghi and Monti, Europe looks different, and I hope that this can be a success story for Europe now. Someone has just said ‘Super Mario’: we shall see. Let us hope for the ‘Super’.

My last point, Mr Prime Minister, is about a democratic Europe. You are absolutely right: democracy and integration are no contradiction. But democracy for us is not the Council as such, because some Members of the Council are trying to regain their power. Many citizens ask: ‘I thought Parliament emerged as the winner under the Lisbon Treaty, now what has happened to the role of the Parliament?’ I know that the Lisbon Treaty was not the favourite treaty of members of governments and prime ministers, but I hope that, with your conception of democracy, you will support Parliament’s request to be part of that democratic game. I hope it will not be as it was with the fiscal treaty, and that we will not have to force our way into the debate and the discussions in order to achieve some small changes. We should be involved in the discussion from the beginning.

The question of democracy does not only relate to the Commission. We discussed this morning how some of the Troika people go into countries like locusts, aggravating rather than improving the situation, as in Greece. The approach in Italy is quite different because it involves both fiscal responsibility and growth, and not only fiscal discipline and fiscal stability.

We have high hopes for you and so finally, Prime Minister, we are very happy that you are here. You are working for a strong Italy and a strong Europe, and that is also our wish. We need Italy, as a founding member of this European Union, to be strong, democratic and economically safe and sound, and to have full employment and social policies. That is your task: you will fulfil it, we are sure, with our support.

  Guy Verhofstadt, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (IT) Mr President, Mario, both my group and we in the Spinelli group are proud of the fact that you have become President of the Italian Council of Ministers. I feel he is doing an impressive job because, in the space of just a few weeks, he has guided Italy onto a virtuous path, by implementing profound structural reforms that are necessary not only for his country but also for Europe.

My friends, at last we have a true federalist in the European Council!

I will not continue in Italian. I am more qualified to talk about Italian wine than Italian politics.

Dear Prime Minister, dear Mario, naturally, I think what you need today is more than compliments. What you need now from our Parliament and from our colleagues in the European Council is more than just vocal or moral support. What you need today is concrete support from this Parliament and from the European Council – mainly, a plan and a proposal to reduce interest rates for everybody in Europe.

We should remember that Italy, even after all the reforms, is today paying exactly three times the interest rate of Germany – this morning it was 1.9% for Germany and 5.7% for Italy – and this cannot continue if we want to recover from this euro crisis. We can do two things. First of all, it is important to remember that we can establish the redemption fund. It is a German idea – so it is a good idea – to create a redemption fund, a fund of EUR 2.3 trillion that, as you know, would mutualise debt above 60 percent and that could really reduce interest rates, not only for Italy, but for all countries, including Germany.

You should realise, Mr Monti, that only two weeks ago, this Parliament called, in a resolution, for the establishment of this fund. The idea of a majority of Members, I believe, is to link it to the current ‘two-pack’ legislation that we are discussing. It is the best system because I do not think that the European Central Bank can continue forever to do what it is doing at the moment, namely, inject money every two or three months.

In the longer term, I think a common bond market is a very obvious idea – as you indicated, and I was very pleased with your intervention. As Mr Monti has said (and this is an important message), this instrument would create not only solidarity but also real discipline in our monetary system. It would, in any case, be a better and more structural solution than doing what we are doing now. We have already put EUR 1 trillion of taxpayers’ money into resolving the crisis; we have three Member States under assistance programmes; and we now have the downgrading of the ratings of the main economies in the world – France, Britain and perhaps tomorrow Germany. This is a crisis that is causing thousands of Europeans to live in hardship. So I think now is the time to have a structural solution and to let not only the taxpayers but also the financial institutions and the bondholders pay by means of a structural reform of the bond market in Europe.

My final remark is that Italy is not Greece – I should say, on the contrary. I think that today, Greece should look at what is happening in Italy. Greece also needs structural reforms and to reduce its enormous public sector. It also needs to reform its political system and maybe, as I have already said to Mr Monti, it would be a good idea to send him to Greece after he has finished his work in Italy. He could be an excellent roving Minister for the whole of Europe where there are difficulties in the euro area. Thank you Mario.

  Rebecca Harms, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Mr Monti, in your speech, and in the article which you published this morning together with Ms Goulard, you made two things clear.

Firstly, you are the person who is in a position to bring civilisation back to Italian politics, after it has been through a rather difficult period. Also, you have indicated to us that you may be one of those strong men who can help to do the same thing for European politics. On an entirely serious note, I believe that this is what it is all about. I listened very carefully to your speech. At some points I thought: ‘This is good, but could he not be even clearer? Could he not be more specific in some places about which difficulties he is referring to?’. Mr Verhofstadt has just mentioned the Italian figures. Italy, Spain, Portugal and Ireland are the countries where people feel most afraid when they hear the reports from Greece. We have constantly been saying that Italy is not Greece and that Portugal, Spain and Ireland are all different.

However, you know that the crisis is by no means under control and it could still spread. As I have long since been aware that you started your career in the financial industry, in the banking sector, I want to ask you some questions at this point to which I would like you to give even clearer answers.

Firstly, when you look at Greece and say that we need a more inclusive policy, we need to keep Europe together, do you believe that the crisis policy which is currently taking shape in Greece puts us on the right track? I do not think that I can definitely answer ‘yes’ to that question at the moment. Commissioner Kroes said yesterday that it would not be a disaster if Greece were to leave the euro area. I thought that the trite and trivial way in which she said this was extremely dangerous. What are the Greeks supposed to think at this point?

Secondly, you have spoken a great deal about budgetary discipline. As someone whose job it is to clear up the mess in Italy, do you think that it is clever in terms of budgetary discipline to focus solely on cuts? What is taking place in Greece at the moment only involves cuts. The Greeks are not putting their budget in order and ensuring that expenditure and income are in a sustainable balance with one another. Instead, they are simply cutting back and, despite all the austerity measures, the situation in the country is getting even worse for the majority of people and, in particular, for the poorer citizens. Is that a sustainable approach from the perspective of another crisis country? As your background is in the banking sector, can you explain to me why we have decided that the major banks are too big too fail and we need to provide them with permanent support, despite all the current weaknesses in the banking sector? We have far less confidence in the countries that are in crisis. We are imposing detailed requirements on these countries in the case of the much smaller sums of money that we are making available to them. We are telling them what their policies must be without really thinking carefully about it. I have never understood why the two approaches are so totally different.

I know that you have begun taking a detailed look at tax evasion in Italy. The investigations that you have organised and the tax audits that you have announced in Cortina d’Ampezzo are sending out a very strong signal. Would you be prepared to support the introduction of a Europe-wide agreement that would prevent tax evasion and money laundering on such a vast scale? Every year in Italy, you lose almost EUR 300 billion. If you were to keep hold of this money, Italy would be out of debt within 10 years.

Mr Monti, let me conclude by saying one thing. Among the prime ministers of the crisis countries, you are in a special position. You are unique in commanding respect throughout Europe. I believe that, with your experience of being a Commissioner, you have a special responsibility for the future of the relationship between the crisis countries and those countries in the European Union which are not yet in crisis.

  Martin Callanan, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, another famous Monty – I refer of course to the equally famous Monty Python – taught us to always look on the bright side of life. Although the economic news is gloomy, there are one or two reasons for Italy to be optimistic. On this point, I agree with Mr Verhofstadt because, of course, Italy – thankfully – is not Greece. Nevertheless, the national current account has been mismanaged, going from a healthy surplus to a nearly crippling deficit in merely a decade.

It appears so far that the markets respect your leadership, Prime Minister. 10-year bond yields are almost at a manageable position thanks partly to your proposed economic reforms, but mainly to the actions of the European Central Bank, which has – crucially – bought you some time. In Italy, fiscal consolidation and economic reform could possibly work, but in Greece, they are clearly not working. An orderly default and a Greek euro exit may be bad politics for Angela Merkel, but I believe it is the ‘least worst’ option now for the euro area and for the EU as a whole.

Fiscal consolidation will ease the current crisis, but in isolation, it is not the long-term solution to our economic weakness. The answer, as many people here have said, is growth, and we have no shortage of policy statements calling for growth and jobs. But let us be honest: so far, they have all failed, because they focus more on buzz-words and on gestures aimed at keeping everyone happy and are based on the premise that somehow, politicians can create jobs. This is the kind of bureaucratic, statist attitude that got us into this situation in the first place.

Of course, there is one recent economic policy paper that is being put into practice: I refer to the Mario Monti paper on the single market, which is being enthusiastically championed in the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection by my colleague, Malcolm Harbour. In my view, the greatest problem we face in Europe is that competition has been undermined by the focus on harmonisation instead of liberalisation – and you need only look at EU employment policy to see the devastating impact that it has had on many of our economies. The single market has the ability to deliver more liberal and flexible economies across the EU. The answer is not more harmonisation, rules or red tape – and it is certainly not more Europe. The answer, in my view, is a better Europe: a Europe of liberalisation and competition.

Professor Monti, as Prime Minister of Italy, talking about democracy (you were, of course, not elected by any citizens, although I accept that you were elected by the Italian Parliament), you have a great opportunity to articulate this vision and champion economic restructuring and liberalisation not just in Italy, but across the rest of Europe as well. If you succeed in this immensely difficult and challenging task, you will have the support of my Group in your efforts.

  Patrick Le Hyaric, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (FR) Mr President, Presidents, I fear once again with this debate that there is no desire to camouflage the absurd, detestable religion that is leading Europe into chaos: austerity for the people.

You have not actually said it, Mr Monti. You spoke to us of discipline, but discipline is always for the people, not for the financiers, as in Greece and in other countries. Now, austerity is proving to be a deadly poison. It allows neither a rebalancing of the public accounts nor economic recovery, because it sacrifices the workers, social protection, jobs and people’s welfare.

You spoke to us at length about democracy, but which democracy are we talking about when you yourself, Mr Monti, are destroying Italian employment law? Which democracy do you mean when, in the Euro Plus Pact, there is a demand that sectoral agreements should no longer be negotiated? Which democracy do you mean when an unelected Troika is running some countries? Which democracy do you mean when future treaties only speak of discipline, supervision, sanctions and cases before the European Court of Justice for those who do not meet the austerity standard? Which democracy do you mean?

The Treaties as they stand do not promote growth and jobs.

On behalf of the Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left, we put to you several proposals for growth and jobs: the introduction of a European minimum wage and a minimum income, as voted for by this Parliament; the defence of public social security through the development of a training-related social security system in Europe; an end to social and fiscal dumping; taxation on capital at the same rate as that on employment; a genuine tax on financial transactions; a European alliance against unequal free trade through the introduction of visas and border protections determined by social and environmental progress; a programme of major projects and the boost of a new industrial and agricultural policy; the development of research, innovation and education.

This would be possible with the creation of a European fund for human, social and ecological development, instead of the European Stability Mechanism, and connected to the European Central Bank, which must be able to buy all or part of the debts of States that are currently in difficulties and offer 1% loans directly to States.

Please do not answer, Mr Monti, that the Treaties prevent you from doing so, as you are in the process of changing them behind the people’s backs, against the people and, therefore, against democracy!

  Francesco Enrico Speroni, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (IT) Mr President, President Monti, you have undoubtedly built up great financial expertise from operations, in academic institutions, and in exclusive clubs such as Bilderberg and the Trilateral Commission. So, it is no coincidence that you recently travelled to Wall Street to meet the masters of that international finance sector whose actions led us into the state which all EU citizens, and particularly those in the euro area, well know, not least from their wallets.

I am still trying to work out whether you met your accomplices or your masters. Accomplices because, as European Commissioner for over a decade, you share responsibility for the economic and financial situation of the Union. Masters because, since you took over as head of government without going through democratic elections, you have been brilliantly managing to plunder taxpayers, taking on the role of official paymaster for international finance.

You have defended and supported here a conception of Europe that does not belong to us and which we do not share, and, just like your patron, Italian President Giorgio Napolitano, you have come up with hackneyed nonsense, such as ‘we cannot end the crisis on our own’. However, you do not see, you two, and those like you who continue to pour out lies, that there are countries in the Western and democratic tradition, such as Switzerland, Norway, New Zealand, Canada and Australia, whose citizens, without a Union and without the euro, are looking at an economy and a financial situation far better than that ...

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI). – (FR) Mr President, Mr Monti, there are many who welcome the speed of your action, an austerity plan that will satisfy every demand made by Mr Draghi, your compatriot and ex-colleague at Goldman Sachs and also current President of the European Central Bank; a liberalisation plan, in-depth reform of the labour market, re-christened as a plan for growth which, for the moment, is, above all, a plan for social regression.

You are congratulated for the courage that you have shown. Is it really courage, though, Mr Monti, when, being appointed to this post, you know that you will continue to carry out its responsibilities as in the past, without ever having to stand for election before the people whom you govern? It should not cause you personal offence if one were to say that your democratic credentials are somewhat limited.

You have, to date, been lauded by the Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberg Group, these somewhat shadowy, globalist bodies. You are a little lacking in democratic legitimacy, even though you enjoy a parliamentary majority.

You have painted a picture of an integrated Europe, but one that respects subsidiarity. However, Prime Minister, my colleagues have answered you: Mr Swoboda, who is Austrian, and Mr Verhofstadt, speaking on behalf of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, who is Flemish, answered you in English, even though we have interpreters here. Apart from a brief effort by Mr Verhofstadt, they shunned their national tongue. It was the language of Big Brother that they used, not the language of the British patriots here at my side.

  Maroš Šefčovič, Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, Italy entered the global financial crisis in a vulnerable position due to its high public debt and low economic growth. But from its first day in office, the government of Prime Minister Monti has shown its determination to address these two challenges and has already adopted several important measures.

On the one hand, in December, it passed a new austerity package which is helping to shore up Italy’s public finances. It should allow Italy to achieve a very sizeable primary surplus by 2013 and put the government debt on a downward path.

On the other hand, between last summer and recent weeks, a broad range of structural measures has been adopted on taxation, pensions, competition, the business environment and the efficiency of the public administration. The most recent measures on opening up closed sectors and administrative simplification can contribute to improving competitiveness and a business environment, removing long-standing bottlenecks to growth and ultimately increasing the adjustment capacity of the economy.

In conclusion, the Commission welcomes the decisive action being taken by the Italian Government and stands ready to assist and support that action as the government sees fit. A concrete example is the Commission’s support in fighting youth unemployment by setting up a dedicated action team for Italy and reprogramming Structural Funds until 2013.

Mr Prime Minister, as you have seen, you have strong support in the European Parliament, and I am sure that you know you have a lot of friends – I would even say fans – in the Commission. I would therefore like to tell you on behalf of the Commission that we wish Italy, your government and you personally all the best in your efforts.

  Mario Monti, Prime Minister of Italy. – (IT) Mr President, since I took up more time than I had envisaged in my opening speech – and I apologise – I will be very concise in these closing words, which I wish to devote first and foremost to thanking you again, Mr President, and those members of the House who expressed their support and esteem for my country, for the government it is my honour to lead, and for me personally.

These words, these feelings and these actions are of great comfort to us and encourage us to try to govern better in Italy, as we seek at the same time to get Italy to make an increasing contribution to a strong European policy, in particular, one geared towards growth. My heartfelt thanks also go to Commissioner Šefčovič for his comments to me.

I believe that I will answer only two points while, due to the complexity of the philosophical and systemic points inherent in his speech, I intend to examine the transcription of the words addressed to me by Mr Speroni and for which I thank him very much.

I want to give two answers, one very short and the other brief.

The very short one is about the observation made by Mr Gollnisch ...

(The speaker addresses the Member in question in French)

(FR) … to whom I would like to say that I am unable to trumpet my democratic legitimacy from being elected and I assure you that, unlike you, sir, and others, I did not stand to obtain such legitimacy. I was asked to do this job, a job which I find fascinating. It is not that I would have taken it on of my own accord. Now, I am sure that, had you been asked to act at a difficult moment as the Head of Government in your country, you would certainly have refused, saying that you would only do so if you had democratic legitimacy.

(Applause)

(IT) Mr President, I thank you for the welcome which you have given me.

I wish to address Ms Harms, picking up on her speech, in more general terms. Many significant comments have been made on the Greek question: we have all thought long and hard about Greece. As one of the elders among you, I would, however, like to call upon you to look at things from an historical perspective. Certainly we may feel that the tough approach being handed out to Greece today may be excessive, and it probably is, but I would suggest that we do not forget that Greek politics for many years – and I say it in all due modesty and as a simple external observer – was a perfect catalogue of the worst practices of politics in our countries. And when we say – and this topic is discussed briefly in the article I mentioned before – that democracy is now working in Europe at the national level, but unfortunately not yet at European level, that can be refuted on two scores. Firstly, here we are in the home of democracy at European level. Secondly, do we really want to use as examples of a well-functioning democracy what we saw for many years in Greece and other countries, based on corruption, nepotism, lack of competition, illicit public procurement, tax evasion and whatever else?

From this point of view, therefore – even though we might regard as excessive the rigour imposed by the euro with its budgetary discipline, and even though I criticise it myself – we should take note that the culture of stability invented in Germany, which we have all absorbed with the euro and the Treaty of Maastricht, has had the advantage of making it necessary to carry out politics in individual countries with greater sobriety, because in the past, it was all too easy for politicians to acquiesce to any demand, raising government spending and piling debt on the shoulders of future generations and thereby ruining their countries.

So I would therefore like to look at Europe as a pivot, whose pendulum has now perhaps swung too far in the direction of rigour, but as an Italian, I think the presence of that pendulum is positive, because a country like Italy, many years ago, in order to join the euro, benefited from having to bring in better discipline.

  President. – Thank you very much for your statement, Mr Monti.

The debate is closed.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE), in writing. – (HU) Let me first of all thank you for your report today, in which you, too, pointed out the regrettable fact that there is still not enough attention being paid to the growth-stimulating aspects of European policies. However, I must immediately point out that such proposals can only find practical use if they can be integrated into the commonly established system of European economic policy and are, at the same time, aligned to a well-constructed crisis management mechanism. I find that it gives reason for concern that the Commission always outlines ambitious plans, whereas their positive results are sometimes only slightly noticeable. An excellent example would be the set of measures taken to curb youth unemployment. There is no doubt that there is a need for a long-term reform of labour markets; however, these belated reforms are slow in producing the expected results. A pan-European crisis map is needed which assesses and delimits the most severely affected crisis areas based on their core characteristics. We must therefore take into account the availability of jobs, the rate of unemployment, the quality of public services, as well as other ambient conditions. If we fail to do so, Europe’s problems could give rise to even more concern, and we could once again be faced with a wave of dissatisfaction. It is therefore important, in addition to addressing the challenges arising from the current economic crisis, to step up our joint efforts towards ensuring sustainable growth which is conducive to employment.

IN THE CHAIR: ANNI PODIMATA
Vice-President

13. Situation in Syria (debate)

  President. – The next item is the statement by the Vice-President of the European Commission and High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on the situation in Syria.

I should like to ask Villy Søvndal to take the floor on behalf of the Vice-President of the European Commission and High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.

  Villy Søvndal, President-in-Office of the Council, on behalf of the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Madam President, I am grateful for the opportunity to present the EU position and latest activities on Syria on behalf of the High Representative, Baroness Ashton.

The EU condemns the totally unacceptable escalation of violence in Syria. The time has come to speak with one voice and demand an end to the bloodshed and a democratic future for Syria. The EU has been leading international calls for strong UN action. We are very disappointed, as you all are, by the recent failure of the United Nations Security Council to adopt a resolution due to Russia and China’s renewed veto. Last Saturday, following the vote, the High Representative once again stressed that the EU will continue to support all efforts by the League of Arab States and called once more on all members of the UN Security Council to assume their responsibilities.

The Syrian crisis is, and will remain, very high on the EU agenda. EU foreign ministers will discuss it again on 27 February. The EU has, throughout the conflict, stood by the Syrian people and the High Representative continues to increase pressure on the Syrian authorities through multiple levels. The urgent priority for now is to stop the regime’s repression and the escalating violence.

In accordance with the Arab League’s plan, it is also essential that the regime frees political detainees, removes troops, tanks and weapons from the cities and allows independent observers and the media to freely travel and report in Syria. To this end, the EU is intensively engaged with the League of Arab States and other players to find a peaceful solution. The High Representative has stressed the key role of regional involvement and Arab League leadership.

On the diplomatic front, Catherine Ashton has been speaking to Secretary-General El-Arabi to discuss the next steps and express our political support for the efforts that the Arab League is undertaking to solve the Syrian crisis. She has also spoken to the Secretary-General of the UN Ban Ki-moon, Turkey’s Foreign Minister Davutoğlu and several other leaders with the same objective.

The EU welcomes the League of Arab States’ efforts to increase international pressure on the Syrian regime. Leadership of the Arab League is key. Due to the escalation of violence against the Syrian population, the League decided on 12 February to end its observation mission. It asked the UN Security Council to issue a resolution to form a joint Arab-UN peacekeeping force to supervise the implementation of a ceasefire.

The Arab League has also decided to enforce the economic sanctions of previous resolutions of the Arab League and agreed on a meeting of Friends of Syria to take place in Tunisia on 24 February. We welcome this development. The Tunis meeting will provide a timely opportunity to build an international consensus on Syria and put forward urgent proposals to stop the killings and to seek a peaceful outcome to the current crisis.

There is no doubt that the EU and the High Representative will take an active part in this endeavour. The High Representative has also offered EU expertise in the area of sanctions and has stressed the need to coordinate closely in the dialogue with opposition groups.

The work on the UN front must go on. We continue to seek the support of partners so that the Security Council can come back to this issue in due course and agree on a strong resolution on Syria. The High Representative is making the case rapidly with members of the Security Council and regional partners to achieve this goal. The EU message to Russia and China is clear: they should not be on the wrong side of history.

The international community has a responsibility to stop the regime’s killing machine. Last Monday, during a debate at the United Nations General Assembly on the situation in Syria, a vast majority of UN Member States condemned the widespread violation of human rights by the regime. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, in her assessment, said that the Assad regime had ‘manifestly failed’ to fulfil its obligation to protect its population and had engaged in crimes against humanity.

The Human Rights Council at its upcoming session should also take appropriate action on Syria. The EU is ready to mobilise assistance to relieve the hardship of the Syrian population. The Commission is preparing a contingency plan in the area of humanitarian assistance. While bilateral cooperation with the Syrian regime is entirely suspended, the Commission and the External Action Service continue to support projects to the benefit of NGOs, Syrian civil society organisations and human rights defenders, as well as Palestinian refuges.

The situation in Syria requires that the EU must maintain a presence through its Member State missions and the EU delegation as the Syrian opposition is asking us to do. Not only to observe and report on the situation, but also to signal clearly that the regime cannot repress its population in total impunity and the Syrian people will not be left alone.

Close coordination among the EU missions in Damascus is taking place also with respect to contingency planning. Similarly, actions are being undertaken with respect to the neighbouring countries. Last but not least, the EU continues to engage with Syrian opposition groups. It is essential to encourage them to strengthen their coordination and develop a common vision on the way forward in order to convince the Syrian population of the value of their cause and to promote an orderly and peaceful transition in Syria.

The High Representative has offered the EU’s support to the Arab League in its efforts towards bringing together the Syrian opposition groups and their common vision for the transition. I would also like to thank you, honourable Members, for your support in the past months. The valued statements made in the European Parliament and the resolutions adopted by this House have helped the EU to shape its policy towards Syria.

It is important that we maintain pressure on the Syrian regime. The European Parliament has a key role in ensuring that the Syrian people are not left alone in their struggle. The High Representative is committed to continuing to work with you on joint efforts to support the Arab League and to stop the ongoing violence. Syria will be at the core of her meeting in Washington at the end of this week.

  José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (ES) Madam President, Minister, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there are three independent and developing factors affecting the Syrian crisis.

Firstly, a kind of cold war between Saudi Arabia and, currently, Iran, which is becoming apparent on several fronts, and specifically in Syria at the moment, then, what is clearly a domino effect from the so-called ‘Arab Spring’, and finally, a greater desire on the part of China and Russia and other players in the Middle East conflict to make their presence felt and to fill the vacuum left by the European Union and the United States.

We have followed the High Representative’s actions with a great deal of interest: suspension of development aid, humanitarian help, a contingency plan, the tightening of sanctions at the next Council of Ministers on 27 February, and support to the Arab League initiative. A more effective and coordinated diplomatic response from the Member States of the European Union was lacking, however.

Unfortunately, none of those decisions has led to a short-term reduction in the intolerable violence that is being suffered by the Syrian people, hence the frustration we all share. The French Foreign Minister expressed that view today during an appearance before the Committee on Foreign Affairs, in relation to the failure of the initiative and the Russian and Chinese vetoes in the United Nations Security Council.

An initiative from Qatar and Saudi Arabia is being debated in the General Assembly as we speak, with the specific aim of ratifying the agreement, even though we know that it does not have any binding effects.

What can we do about this situation? Increase the pressure on Russia and China, certainly. Two very appropriate occasions for doing so have arisen recently: one was the visit of the Deputy Prime Minister of the People’s Republic of China to the United States, where he was received with full honours, and, of course, the EU-China Summit that has just taken place.

It is also clear that we have to strengthen our relationship with the Syrian dissidents, and we have to see how this humanitarian corridor they have requested can be established and developed.

In addition, it is clear is that the questions the Foreign Ministers of the Arab League asked themselves the other day also apply to us. How long are we going to remain impassive towards the violence that the Syrian people are currently suffering? Also, what is our tolerance limit when deadline after deadline passes, initiatives come and go, and the regime continues butchering the Syrian people?

It is my belief, Madam President, President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, Secretary-General of the European External Action Service, that this is the key issue to be considered in today’s debate.

  Véronique De Keyser, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (FR) Madam President, this is the fourth Parliamentary resolution on Syria and I would say that the added value of this resolution which, of course, hardens the tone and supports the diplomatic efforts, one of the added values is just to say to the people of Syria, ‘No, even if nothing is happening, you are not forgotten. Even if the same thing is repeated all of the time, you are not forgotten!’ That, in itself, is of some worth.

The second thing I should like to say to you is that this resolution, as with the speeches that I have heard, does not address the essential questions: in other words, what are we doing; what strategy is being followed? Not a military strategy, I agree. I believe that would be the worst thing to have.

This morning, however, a member of the Syrian National Council, who had tears in his eyes as he showed me the videos of his country where dreadful torture is taking place, asked me: are you going to give us arms? Are you going to give us money? We are not asking you to intervene on our behalf, but are you going to help us? We want to fight our own fight. Are you capable of that?

I said that it is not even in the resolution, because I have been told that the Syrian opposition is not united enough, that we do not have the correct channels, and so on. However, if we fail to answer this key question, what credibility are we going to have? I am therefore asking you to draw up these answers. I am not asking to have them here, and I am not asking you, or you, to have them, but I would say to you that this is what is expected. The country is awaiting practical things from us too.

The third thing I wish to say concerns Bashar al-Assad. Although there are perhaps only a few of us, some of us have long felt that it would be possible to change the Syrian regime. We have met the Syrian President, some of us at length and sometimes in person, for an hour or an hour and a half; I recall having been in Bashar al-Assad’s apartment, where he told me how his country had to change: the state of emergency, multi-party politics and so on. We were duped. Today, when I hear promises of a new constitution, I say to myself that we believed all of those promises.

I am not asking for Bashar al-Assad’s head on a pike. I still feel ill for having seen Saddam Hussein hanged and for having seen the battered head of Gaddafi. I do say, however, that he will be held to account for his acts. We shall not let this pass. The International Criminal Court exists to try crimes against humanity. With that, I say to the Syrian people: ‘Wait, we are going to do something’. I am really asking here for the Council and the Commission to work on practical measures, and I would ask Parliament to support this position.

  Guy Verhofstadt, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, yesterday, Cathy Ashton sent me a letter to indicate that she will be acting on behalf of the European Union at the first contact group meeting on 24 February in Tunis. This is good – but let us be honest, colleagues: what is the strategy that we will defend there?

I have to tell you, Minister, I did not hear it. You have given here the strategy and the request of the Arab League, but what is the strategy of the European Union? What is the current strategy towards Syria? We are in the middle of this crisis; we have the problems around Homs, which is clearly a second Srebrenica. We are in the middle of a war at the moment in Syria. I am asking you here: what is the strategy? It is not enough to say: OK, we will be there on the 24th in Tunisia. But what will we say there? What is our position on the main issues? The main issues are whether we are in favour of humanitarian intervention in Syria, creating safe zones and no-fly zones on the border with Turkey and on the border with Jordan, and having corridors there. Are we in favour of that? Yes or no? I think they are absolutely necessary.

There is currently genocide in Syria. That is what is happening, and if we do not stop it with the international community, it can only continue. What we are seeing today is the second Hama.

The second question is whether we should give material and technical help to the Syrian opposition and to the Free Syrian Army. I think we have to give such help, and if it proves necessary at a particular time, weapon sales will be necessary – maybe not directly; we might arrange it through our colleagues in the Arab League. But what is the European Union’s answer? Do we give material help: yes or no? They need it desperately.

My third question to you is: what is happening with the sanction regime? We have known from the beginning that our list was too small and that at least 200 families in the regime of Bashar al-Assad have to be targeted. We started with 20, and then 30 and then 35 and then 40: that is the way we are going, targeting only the individuals and not the families. So my question is: are we now going to have a sanction regime which really targets the 200 big families?

My fourth issue was mentioned by Mr Salafranca: what shall we do about Russia and China? We have the opportunity possibly to say something to them about this matter. We had a mission to China, and we are currently promising them the status of a free market economy – this at a time when they are refusing to take their responsibility in the Security Council. Is it the right time to do that? I do not think so. We have to wait until they have said yes to an intervention in Syria – which is absolutely necessary.

I want to hear from you the position of the European Union, and I want you to tell me what you told us a few minutes ago. There will be a meeting of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs on 27th; that you have said. The 27th is three days after the 24th. I think you should have your meeting before Ms Ashton goes there. I think we are making exactly the same mistake we made in places like Libya, among others.

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

  Nirj Deva (ECR), Blue-card question. – Madam President, would my honourable friend agree with me that, in 2006 at the United Nations, we started this process on the responsibility to protect, which was done to great fanfare? I do not hear the words ‘responsibility to protect’ coming from the Council. What is our responsibility to protect using the United Nations instruments that we have created? Would my friend agree with me that we should take the route of using the concept of ‘responsibility to protect’ within the UN, as Tony Blair and others did to great effect in Sierra Leone and other places? Again, going to Syria to protect the innocent people through this UN mechanism, and to challenge ...

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Guy Verhofstadt (ALDE), Blue-card answer. – Madam President, for the moment, there is no agreement in the Security Council. If, however, we have an agreement in the Contact Group, that may change China’s and Russia’s position. If China and Russia see that the Contact Group, which will be established on 24 February, wants to move in any way to protect the people in Syria, then I am sure that this will exert more pressure than any of the discussions in the Security Council that have taken place in recent months. But we have to stick to that. We have to show that we are really defending them and that we want to go in if it is necessary.

  Hélène Flautre, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (FR) Madam President, I actually think that we are no longer talking here of repression or of an oppressed people, but of an intolerable terror, perpetrated by the regime of Bashar al-Assad.

We only need to see how public hospitals have now been transformed into centres of torture, execution and kidnapping. Given that, I will not list the considerable number of people injured, the number of people who have disappeared, the number of detainees or the number of deaths.

The UN Human Rights Council got it right when it said that we are dealing here with crimes against humanity. Ms De Keyser is right: Assad will have to account for his crimes before the International Criminal Court.

In the face of this terror, I sincerely wish to salute the courage, determination and the incredible capacity for resistance shown by organised civil society in Syria as, despite everything, the food arrives, despite everything, information is exchanged, despite everything, protection is provided for those who demonstrate. Despite everything, medical care is provided in living rooms that have been transformed into emergency hospitals. I believe that the channels that are in place are precarious and dangerous. We should discuss and work to see how we might now intensify the movement of goods, care, food and protection via these informal channels, how we can make it secure, stronger and broader, how we can protect those who are risking their lives to move these goods.

This, I feel, is the first way to give practical help, which is what we are calling for. Obviously, sanctions must be strengthened and it is necessary, above all, to ensure that they are implemented appropriately. I really do believe that the European Commission and the Council have to ask themselves how a boat laden with arms was able to sail to Syria from a Cypriot port to supply Bashar al-Assad with weapons that he is using against his own people.

There is the Arab League initiative. Of course, it has to be supported, but vigilance is required too. We are well aware that the Arab League represents a set of extremely diverse interests. We are well aware that the initiatives there are proliferating before the Presidency of the Arab League is taken over by Iraq. All this is well known but, given the situation, the European Union must very clearly define its strategy and be able to deliver it on the 24th in Tunis. It is right that this meeting should take place in Tunis, because it is important. It shows that this story is, first and foremost, the story of a people at the mercy of its oppressor.

We are looking at Syria as a piece on a complicated chessboard and, if we move that piece, we are wondering what the next moves might be. We have to come back to the base of the conflict, of this battle, to support the population. The story unfolding today in Syria is truly that of a society that is struggling for democracy and for rights. Without being naïve, we should see that as the main goal, towards which we should turn all of our efforts.

As a result, the meeting on 24 February must allow us to isolate or bring on board those countries that currently support the Syrian regime. Of course, there is China and Russia, but there is also Algeria. We must apply maximum pressure to isolate Assad. That is one way to give practical help. We must also recognise the National Council. It has its faults, but we must maintain a political dialogue with it to help it to become the political interlocutor for the future Syria.

  Charles Tannock, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Madam President, the shelling in the city of Homs by the Syrian regime is atrocious and must be condemned unequivocally by the international community. The decision of China and Russia to veto a UN resolution condemning this brutal crackdown and the killing of many unarmed women and children is also shameful.

The Syrian regime must be unanimously called upon by the international community to withdraw its forces from the cities of Syria, to allow human rights agencies access to the country, and to pave the way for eventual democratic elections.

The Turkish and Saudi condemnation of the regime and, in particular, Turkey’s role in accepting refugees, is commendable. The Arab League should also be congratulated for seeking to end the violence and for producing a new peace plan, which the Syrian regime must implement without delay.

Syria must be made to guarantee protection for peaceful protesters and uphold the fundamental human right to freedom of expression. This is not possible, in my view, with Assad still in power. He bears ultimate responsibility for any criminal actions of the army, in particular, the most active Alawite units, as many Sunni units are now defecting when deployed militarily. He must recognise the popular rejection of his dictatorship and step aside in the national interest.

Yesterday, Mr Verhofstadt called for arming the Free Syrian Army. This, in my view, is dangerous at this stage as we do not know who they all are and what role the Jihadis play in this and how this might cause a proxy war with Iran and Hezbollah on one side pouring in arms to the Ba’athist regime and Saudi Arabia and Qatar arming Islamist insurgents, with innocent unarmed Christians, Alawites not allied to the regime and other minorities – from Kurds to the Druze – being caught up in a bloody civil war with major reprisals against non-Sunni Muslims.

However, I – and my group – would support setting up a safe haven for refugees with a no-fly zone, if eventually militarily possible, near the Turkish border. But even that is not clearly achievable at this stage. However, every other economic sanction against Damascus must be put in place urgently.

  Willy Meyer, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (ES) Madam President, Members of the Council, Commissioner, my group are against, and radically oppose, any foreign military intervention to resolve this crisis. We adopted the same position in the case of Libya and we know what happened to the dictator Gaddafi. That was a crime supported by a foreign military operation, which was also a crime.

The drums of war cannot be answered with drums of war at the present time, or in that region. Absolutely not.

We are, therefore, radically opposed to any military intervention, and the Minister was correct in referring to the need to stop the repression brought about by President al-Assad. That repression must be stopped.

However, we were surprised that there was no mention of the arrival of the Jihadists. That is, there was no mention of the Libyans, Saudis, Lebanese, or of the call by Ayman al Zawahiri, the leader of al-Qaeda, assisting and cajoling the Syrian lions to respond, or of the Iraqi Interior Minister acknowledging that arms are going across the border, or of support by Saudi Arabia.

Should not these Jihadist elements be stopped as well?

  Bastiaan Belder, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (NL) Madam President, the spectre of an absolutely merciless civil war has become a reality in Syria, hence the cry for help from a member of the Christian minority: ‘We have nobody to protect us’. Is it not the case that the terrible day of ethnic and religious score-settling, or day of reckoning, as some are already calling it, is already looming? What is the wise course for the European Union to take in this Syrian snake pit?

That is why I would like to address a few questions to the High Representative, or her representative, this afternoon. Is there actually a serious alternative to the Assad regime at present? What I mean is, the Syrian opposition appears to be both politically and militarily fragmented. How does the High Representative view the prospect of the collapse of the Syrian state? Does she consider that to be a genuine risk, certainly now that, according to some insiders, the presence of al-Qaeda on Syrian territory can no longer be denied?

One last question, actually more of a call. Let the European Union, in the first instance, make every possible effort internationally to stop the bloodshed in Syria by forcing the warring factions to the negotiating table. The alternatives to the Assad regime are even now pushing the country further towards the abyss.

  Franz Obermayr (NI). – (DE) Madam President, I assume that, in the interests of fairness, I can also speak for a minute longer, as one of the previous speakers did.

The movement which began with a legitimate call for political self-determination and reform has become increasingly radicalised. The women who were initially at the front of the demonstrations are no longer to be seen. Unfortunately, extremists are putting the Syrian revolution at risk. I believe it is ominous that al-Qaeda is calling for a struggle against the Assad regime, as it did in its most recent video message, which demanded an attack on the anti-Islamic government in Damascus.

According to the Islamic extremists, it is a religious duty to oppose the Assad regime. We know what that can lead to: out with the Druze and the Alawites and in with Sharia law. If Islamic fundamentalists and fighters continue to take part in the Syrian uprising or even claim it as their own, it will be a disaster for the democratic, liberal opposition forces in the country.

In this situation, military intervention would be the worst possible solution. Only serious dialogue with Assad, who has his back against the wall, can defuse this explosive situation.

  Ioannis Kasoulides (PPE). – Madam President, the regrettable failure of the Security Council to condemn the Assad regime because of the Russian and Chinese veto was perceived on the ground as a licence to use heavy weapons indiscriminately, leaving many civilians, including women and children, dead or wounded.

The Russians wanted to put the oppressed and the oppressors on an equal footing, condemning both in order – as Mr Lavrov explained – to avoid civil war. The Russian veto is achieving just that. Desperate oppressed people take desperate measures to defend themselves and the country, due to deficiencies of the international community, is heading towards civil war.

Iran’s support of the Assad regime has an explanation. Through this regime, they can manipulate Hezbollah and Hamas in order to destabilise the region. But the Russian position is perplexing. Let us hope that this is a temporary stance in order to boost the Putin candidacy, using it as domestic bravado for domestic consumption.

The EU’s position is a position of principle. We remain faithful to the policy of support for democracy, human rights and to the humanitarian concern about indiscriminate lethal force aimed at unarmed civilians. Our position is the same as with all other Arab Spring countries: we have no hidden agenda, but we cannot remain idle in the face of a massacre of such scale which is tantamount to a crime against humanity.

The EU is correctly following and supporting the Arab League’s initiatives and its plan for a political and peaceful transition and for UN-Arab League cooperation on the ground.

We commend the High Representative’s statement for further sanctions and restrictive measures to be introduced and her intentions to get together with all the other international actors concerned for concerted action to end this intolerable repression. No regime which turns its military might against its own people has survived, and nor will this one.

  Ana Gomes (S&D). – (PT) Madam President, Parliament is expressing its heartfelt solidarity with the brave Syrian people who are, as much as they are able, resolutely resisting the barbaric regime of Bashar al-Assad, which is bombarding the people in villages and cities and does not hesitate to torture children. We will not stop using all available means to push, in the UN General Assembly, in Tunis, or in other fora, for unequivocal condemnations of the Syrian regime, and to pressure Bashar al-Assad to put a stop to the atrocities being committed against his people, to stand down and to allow a process of democratic transition in Syria, as its people clearly desire. We will not rest until we see Bashar al-Assad and his circle brought to justice before the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity committed against the Syrian people. We will not cease to encourage EU support for the Arab League and other regional players, whilst striving for the UN Security Council to declare a humanitarian ceasefire, and to assign a peacekeeping force to Syria to implement this humanitarian ceasefire, to help prevent civil war and to pave the way for the transition to democracy. This requires logistical, humanitarian and media support to be stepped up, along with other resources that the EU and its regional partners, such as Turkey, are giving to the forces organising the legitimate resistance of the Syrian people.

The EU must also shame China and Russia for opposing the 13 other members of the UN Security Council, thereby preventing the Security Council from exercising its responsibility to protect the Syrian people and, instead, giving the Assad regime licence to continue the massacre. They talk about peace and preventing civil war. However, nothing that they are doing is helping to end the violence. Russia is, in fact, continuing to sell weapons to Bashar al-Assad. This encourages the Syrian armed forces and their supporters in the region, including Wahabi fighters, who are more reactionary and extremist, and al-Qaeda, to take advantage of the Syrian conflict to further destabilise the whole region.

It is inevitable that Bashar al-Assad will fall. It is just a matter of time. The EU must immediately set out a post-Assad strategy for its action in the aftermath of the fall of the regime, and it must also call on the Syrian opposition to unite, to strive for national conciliation, and to commit to a process of democratic transition, which must include respect for the rights of Syrian minorities, including Alawites and Christians.

  Marietje Schaake (ALDE). – Madam President, it is easy to condemn the brutal murder, torture and rape of unarmed citizens and children in Syria, but it is far more difficult to find effective solutions: the EU needs a strategy, and while no one is suggesting it is easy, and the future is indeed uncertain, we cannot and will not stand by and watch Syrian citizens being slaughtered.

Tanks and fighter jets have been deployed; water, energy, food and medicine supplies have been cut off; a humanitarian crisis is looming. This is a man-made disaster for which Bashar al-Assad is responsible and we must make him stop.

Mr Verhofstadt has mentioned our group priorities and I want to emphasise some additional important and concrete steps that the EU can take to step up its own efforts, irrespective of how China and Russia seek to obstruct any UN measures.

Let it not be EU Member States who fail to enforce the arms embargo and sanctions. How did a ship with Russian arms leave Cypriot waters to reach Syria? Let it not be European technology companies that export systems used for mass surveillance, censorship tracking and tracing of dissidents. Let it not be the same oil that fuels our cars to drive to the grocery store fuelling the tanks roaming the streets of Homs.

Can the Council and Commission guarantee that EU sanctions and embargos are enforced? Aside from a government-led war on Syrian citizens, an information war is raging. Foreign journalists are expelled and brave citizen journalists risk their lives to share videos of their freedom cheers that are met with slaughter.

We do not have a way of establishing the precise scope of the man-made disaster in Syria, but 7 000 deaths and tens of thousands being detained in inhumane circumstances, as well as accounts of rape and hunger, tell us enough.

These are people like you and me. In an increasingly globalised and connected world, with half of the citizens in the Middle East being under 26 years of age, we must remain conscious of who the future generation will remember as defending their freedoms and rights as though they were their own.

  Malika Benarab-Attou (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Madam President, we cannot remain indifferent to or silent about the tragic situation suffered by the Syrian people as they face Bashar al-Assad’s bloody regime. We cannot abandon the Syrian people. First, let us firmly state our support for, and solidarity with, the Syrian people who are suffering.

What strategy shall we build? What can we do? First, condemn the veto exercised at the UN by the Chinese and Russian governments and demand that NGOs and journalists be allowed to operate on Syrian territory. Next, support the people by supplying the medicines and medical equipment that they are lacking, bearing in mind that even rural hospitals are being attacked. Medicine cannot be used as a weapon. It is also important to contribute to the setting up of a humanitarian corridor.

Finally, we must recognise and support the Syrian opposition around the Syrian National Council so that they can rebuild a state that matches the aspirations of the Syrian people. Furthermore, we must send Assad and those responsible for crimes against humanity to the International Criminal Court.

IN THE CHAIR: GEORGIOS PAPASTAMKOS
Vice-President

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, we have heard a call here, today, to enter into dialogue with President Assad. It seems to me that President Assad has crossed the red line, which means there can now be no dialogue with him. The blood of the innocent and the blood of the children being tortured in Syrian prisons preclude the possibility of talks with President Assad. This needs to be said clearly, so that from here, from the European Parliament – which is an important place for many Syrians because it is a symbol of freedom and democracy – we will send a clear message: Assad must go, Assad must be brought to account.

We need to say clearly and explicitly that the European Union faces an enormous challenge and a huge question as to whether we are just a discussion club or whether we can and are able to work actively in defence of the values around which the European Union was established. For this reason, too, it should be said clearly that it is vital we react to the position of our important partners in the global market and in global politics – Russia and China. There must be a very clear signal from the European Union that if China and Russia want to work with us – and we do, of course, want this – then both China and Russia must respect the values which we respect.

  Takis Hadjigeorgiou (GUE/NGL). – (EL) Mr President, numerous members have quite rightly asked themselves what the European Union can basically do. However, the question is directed at us. If some of our fellow Members were in the position of the Commissioners or the Council, they would face the same inability. The European Union is not doing what it should, because it has not managed to find a common intention, a truly common foreign policy and a fundamental ability to apply its common intention along the lines of international law and because, in this specific conflict of the major powers over Syria, the European Union simply appears to be taking the position of supporting one part of the major powers, even though it has its own position and potential, a position and potential in keeping with the law of the citizens, in this particular case, of Syria.

Besides, if we look honestly at what happened with the Arab Spring in the other countries in the area, I do not think that we would conclude that we managed to do the right thing. I shall close by saying that, if the European Union does not have its own credibility and ability to defend the law, then it will continue ad infinitum to stumble between the position of intervener and the position of impassive observer. Both are equally damaging to Syria.

  Elmar Brok (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, Minister, Commissioner, the description of the way in which this regime is attacking its own people is relatively clear and I do not need to repeat it. The justification is that a family or a clan wants to consolidate its position and to continue to treat the state as its private property.

We need to break down the solidarity between existing supporters of the regime and Assad. The followers of the regime in the inner circle must be made aware that they have no future with Assad and they must see to it that the regime implodes. This is always one of the correct approaches in this kind of situation. However, it is also necessary for us to make clear the joint position of the international community and to ensure that a United Nations resolution is put in place. It is not acceptable that Russia has so far refused to do this and, as a result of its own interest in a port, has given priority to its global political position as a player in the Middle East conflict, instead of doing what is needed for the sake of humanity.

The European Union must establish a special cooperation with the Arab League, which has tabled a resolution for the General Assembly of the United Nations next Thursday. It is important that this receives support from a broad majority of members, so that more pressure can be put on the Security Council, because this is the only body which can draw up a resolution that is binding under international law. I believe that this is extremely important and I think that cooperation with Turkey, as well as with the Arab League, is essential in this respect. This must not be a Western initiative. We need close cooperation under the leadership of the Arab League with the involvement of Turkey.

We already have experience of this in Egypt and Libya. Therefore, we must enter into dialogue with the opposition, which needs our support. Ms Gomes has already referred to this when she spoke about minority rights. We must ensure that minority rights and religious freedom are respected. The consequence of the country moving in an Islamist direction must not be the persecution of Christians. In this area, too, we need to enter into a dialogue with the opposition at a very early stage with all the necessary support and we need a commitment that the result will not be a state which introduces injustice on the other side. This is an important issue and will allow us to isolate Assad even further within his own country, as many minorities are still on Assad’s side because they are afraid of what will happen afterwards and because they are hoping for more stability. The religious and ethnic minorities must be given the clear prospect of equal rights and the opportunity to live their own lives. Therefore, we also need to look at the situation from this perspective.

  Saïd El Khadraoui (S&D). – (NL) Mr President, we all feel frustrated. Since Russia and China used their veto in the Security Council last week, the brutal violence has intensified even more. The situation appears to be hopeless and is threatening to drag on for a long time yet, with some very dramatic events undoubtedly still to come. The gradual tightening of the sanctions does not seem, for the time being, to have made much of an impression on the al-Assad regime. However, the pressure is increasing.

First of all, we can still count on the striking decisiveness shown by the Arab League and also on the outspoken commitment shown by Turkey in this dossier. Secondly, there is no doubt that the economic sanctions are weakening several of the regime’s pillars and thus also increasing the isolation of the regime. We therefore need to keep increasing that pressure, not just on Syria itself, but also on countries like Russia and China which continue to stand in the way of clear international condemnation. What I would advocate is, for example, very clearly drawing up a blacklist, or similar, of companies which continue to traffic weapons to Syria or support the regime in any other way.

Given the country’s complexity, its location in the region and its large number of minorities, it is imperative that we offer a clear and credible prospect for the future, as well as a blueprint for a new Syria, in which the minorities that are currently still unsure whether or not to abandon their support of the regime will also feel at home. In the short term, it is important that we, as the European Union, attend to the necessary humanitarian tasks: food aid, medicines and the idea of developing an aid corridor, and finally to joining forces with the Arab League and Turkey in order to further increase the pressure.

  Rui Tavares (Verts/ALE). – (PT) Mr President, like Iraq, Syria is an ethnic mosaic; like Egypt, it has a strong army; and, like in Libya, Bashar al-Assad will stop at nothing, including massacring his own people.

The EU strategy for this, the most difficult of the headaches to emerge from the Arab Spring, is to do everything to ensure that nothing that could go wrong does so. This is our first precondition. Secondly, we must have a strategy that is credible, responsible and humanitarian. The most important issue regarding credibility concerns Chancellor Merkel’s visit to China last week. How can we talk about China and Russia when we ask ourselves what, while there, she said and did to bring China over to our side in the United Nations regarding Syria? She did nothing.

How can we talk about credibility while European companies are aiding the Syrian regime with Internet censorship tools, and while they continue to receive EU subsidies? Moreover, in Syria, I saw Iraqi and Palestinian refugee camps; traces of our latest mistakes in that region of the world. How can we talk about a humanitarian strategy while we cannot manage to reach a consensus on opening humanitarian corridors in order to remove those refugees from there, along with the more recent Syrian refugees?

Credibility, responsibility and action are needed from the European Union if the problems in Syria are not to become even worse.

  Marisa Matias (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Mr President, the resolution tabled here in Parliament has some very important points, but there is one issue that was not accepted by the political groups that are signing it.

The political groups signing it refused to include a paragraph in which we would have declared clear opposition to any foreign military intervention. We therefore have no guarantees that what happened in Libya will not be repeated and that the EU will not once again play a role like the one it played in Libya.

Of course, there are significant differences between Syria and Libya, but it is those very differences that tell us that civil war in Syria would, or could, mean civil war throughout the region, as we know that Israel is sounding out a possible conflict with Iran. What is therefore at stake here is the possibility of exploiting a people’s perfectly justified aspirations of democracy and freedom to reshape a new Middle East; the same chimera, in fact, that was used to justify the invasion of Iraq.

I shall conclude by saying that it is precisely because I am absolutely on the side of the Syrian people and against repression that I cannot be on the side of war.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD). – (PL) Mr President, I hope it would be alright if, in addition to my own time, I used the minute allocated to Mr Provera, who is not here. Would it be possible for me to be given two minutes? Thank you.

Firstly, I will give a brief analysis, beginning with the situation inside Syria. The death toll currently stands at around 8 000, and about 1 000 of the dead are children under the age of 15. Around 20 000 people are missing, while 70 000 have been arrested. Syria is suffering from a shortage of water and electricity. No help of any kind is reaching the civilian population, because vehicles carrying humanitarian aid attract rocket fire. The homes of civilians are also being attacked by artillery. It is difficult to get to the wounded, and those who flee are shot at by snipers. As regards the international situation, on the one hand, we have Iranian mercenaries fighting in Syria; on the other, we have Russia, which continues to sell equipment to the Syrian regime, and there is also the stalemate at the UN, where a resolution on the matter has been vetoed.

What is the remedy to this? The High Representative, Catherine Ashton, has spoken about this, Mr Søvndal has spoken about this, and so have my fellow Members. What should be done? We need to help the opposition, increase sanctions against the Syrian regime, negotiate with Russia and China and possibly think about the International Criminal Court in The Hague for the President. These are, of course, the right measures, but they need time. However, we must do something immediately to put an end to the killing of civilians. I think we should force President Assad to make it possible for a humanitarian corridor to be opened and to allow civilians to leave besieged towns and stadiums. This doubtless will not protect all of them from losing their lives, but it certainly will reduce the losses caused by the fighting and, on the other hand, it will allow us to provide whatever humanitarian assistance might be needed.

  Mário David (PPE). – (PT) Mr President, I would like to think that this House of European democracy will unanimously condemn the behaviour of President al-Assad and the Syrian authorities for the massacre of their own people that we have watched, helpless.

Indeed, it is important that the EU be able to speak with one voice on the meaning of the values of respect for human life in the face of an indiscriminate and disgracefully orchestrated massacre. The whole international community must keep up the pressure on the Syrian regime by applying new restrictive measures. The murders need to stop, and this is non-negotiable. It is indisputably vital to insist on dialogue: a democratic Syria needs a period of transition and guarantees for all its minorities. However, it will not be possible to apply more restrictive measures to the Syrian regime if all countries are not pulling in the same direction. Unfortunately, it is clear that this has not happened.

Besides the thousands of dead, what has changed between the two resolutions disgracefully rejected in the UN Security Council? We will continue to criticise the position of China and Russia, which are becoming increasingly isolated, owing to their unbelievable support for the Syrian regime. Everything else is the same: a rotten, desperate and cornered regime is continuing to govern a country and we, the international community, remain helpless to stop the genocide of a people.

We are already behind in toughening up action by the EU and the international community. We need to give more concrete support to the Arab League in its interventions and attempts to send a peacekeeping force to Syria. We need to give our unreserved support to the work of the Red Crescent in its efforts to mitigate the suffering of the people.

The International Criminal Court must begin taking steps immediately to punish those responsible for the crimes against humanity that are being committed. In addition, as a form of pressure on countries that continue to support Bashar al-Assad, all EU trade with Russian or Chinese companies that have trade relations with Syria should be banned. This should already have begun.

  Marita Ulvskog (S&D). – (SV) Mr President, violence is now reigning in Syria, and we were aware of that right from an early stage, as we met many worried eye witnesses and relatives who came here to Strasbourg. They stood here outside the parliament building and some of them came in and spoke to us. Thus, we have known for a long time what is going on and we know that what Syria’s leader is doing is a crime against humanity.

So what can the EU do? One thing is clear: even though it is extremely important, humanitarian aid alone is not enough. We also know, in my opinion, that military action is not an option. The veto in the UN makes it particularly important for the EU, together with others, to form a broad political front using all the means that we have at our disposal in a world where dependence on the international community is so strong, even for a country like Syria. The images and the information are there as a public resource all over the world, not just for those within Syria.

We must show solidarity; we must put a great deal of pressure on Russia and China; we must cooperate with the Arab League and others; we must investigate all possibilities and we must keep arms trading under control. However, we must rule out going down the path of initiating military action.

  Krzysztof Lisek (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, Mr Søvndal, a great many truths have been heard here, today. Of course, we do probably all realise we are not in a position somehow to use this debate to bring about a diametric change in the situation, but I do think it is right that these words have been said. It is also right that appeals be made from the floor, here, although I do not think they should now be made to President Assad. I agree with Mr Kamiński, who said he thinks there is now no point in dialogue with President Assad. However, an appeal should be made from here, today, to his ministers, generals and officers, to soldiers and police officers, to those who, on the grounds of President Assad’s felonious orders, are murdering their own citizens. We need to appeal to these people and tell them openly: if you do not stop what you are doing, if you do not stop murdering your own citizens, you will one day find yourselves standing before the International Criminal Court in The Hague, because we will not forget this, and records will be kept of what has happened.

I think we should certainly appeal to Russia and China and say – at one time this was a popular saying in Poland – ‘do not go that way’, because it is the way of compromise and shame. It is a shameful route, it is a route which cannot be accepted in the 21st century, particularly in Europe, so this appeal should be directed particularly to the authorities in Russia. However, I think an appeal should also be made to the High Commissioner and the European Commission to intensify aid to what may be a weak and scattered Syrian opposition, but which is an opposition nonetheless. Perhaps we should be helping them; perhaps we should organise a meeting of these dispersed opposition groups so that they are conscious of our support. In our role as MEPs, it may be that we cannot do much, but perhaps we should consider – here I appeal to my fellow Members in the Chamber – if we should set up a European Parliament Syria Intergroup to express our support for those who are protesting against Assad’s criminal regime.

  María Muñiz De Urquiza (S&D). – (ES) Mr President, Mr Søvndal, Commissioner, the summit between the European Union and China took place only yesterday. The summit between the European Union and Russia was held on 15 December.

On 15 December, the al-Assad regime’s orgy of bloody repression of its people was already in full swing. However, it was not reported from either summit, which involved the same two countries that prevented the United Nations Security Council adopting a resolution condemning the Syrian regime, that the European Union had raised the issue of the stance on Syria adopted by those two countries, both of which are members of the Security Council.

The European Union has to demonstrate its relevance on the international stage through its ability to influence its counterparts. Otherwise, we will be condemned to irrelevance. Russia and China have to commit to an international order in which sovereignty is limited by human rights. International law cannot be taken as a guarantee of impunity for the states.

We rule out military intervention, but we call for the creation of a humanitarian corridor, for the case for repression in Syria to be raised at the International Criminal Court, for an end to arms sales, for the creation of a blacklist and for acknowledgment and political support of the opposition.

  Arnaud Danjean (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, the situation in Syria is currently the most serious and painful challenge facing the international community. Bombarding your own people with heavy artillery, imprisoning and torturing civilians, including children: these are things that we cannot tolerate and which bear witness to the blindness of a criminal regime.

It is easy to become indignant and to condemn; it is harder to act, and to act effectively. Once we exclude – properly I believe – the possibility of military intervention as in Libya, we should recognise that our scope for action is very limited. There are, however, ways to contribute to the further isolation of this regime, an isolation that is, as Mr Brok emphasised, without doubt, the most realistic way forward.

First of all, sanctions, on which the EU has taken the lead. These must be reinforced as much as possible, and they are a useful course of action. In the key area of diplomacy, we must first condemn the unchallengeable Russian and Chinese vetoes and we must, above all, make these countries realise that such vetoes are not only unacceptable, they are also incomprehensible and are a dead end for those countries themselves.

The Arab League is taking initiatives; it is playing a major role which is to be welcomed and which ought to be supported and strengthened, even if all of the options that it presents are unrealisable in the short term. These initiatives have the immense merit of being in existence and of being widely adopted by responsible countries.

Beyond the political need to apply maximum pressure on the Syrian regime and those who support it, like Iran and Russia, there is also a humanitarian emergency. The demand for unconditional, immediate access to the victims has no need of a UN resolution; it is an absolute moral duty. The EU and its Member States must bring all of their weight to bear to push forward the Arab League‘s initiatives and bring an end to the scandal of this repression from another age.

  Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler (S&D). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Assad regime has been leading the world around by the nose for 11 months now and obviously regards us all as fools. The Russian and Chinese veto has poured fuel on the fire and acted as an invitation to commit mass murder. The Assad regime is massacring its own people and the opposition. It seems to have launched a major offensive in order to create a fait accompli. There is little that we can do, but one thing is clear. We must apply tougher sanctions and they must remain in place, even if this regime believes that it can stay in power. They must only be lifted when the regime is removed or steps down. Those responsible must be brought before the International Criminal Court in The Hague. We must continue to make this very clear.

We also need to put more pressure on China and Russia. We had endless debates about a trade agreement with Morocco, but we are still doing business with China and no one asks what is happening there. We need to put this in perspective and to think carefully about it. We simply cannot sit by any longer and watch people being murdered.

  Michael Gahler (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, what joint action should we now take? Everyone with responsibility for foreign policy in the EU and its Member States must take every opportunity to call on Russia and China to lift their veto on a substantial resolution in the UN Security Council. We expect better than this from Russia. It is ultimately a member of the Council of Europe and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the values and principles of these institutions also apply to foreign policy. They cannot simply be ignored outside Europe. It is obscene that Russia is still supplying this regime with arms. We must call on Mr Putin and Mr Medvedev to stop this or they will join the long list of abominable figures in Russian history.

I would have liked to see the EU taking joint action to withdraw its ambassadors from Damascus. Why can we not even manage to do something like this? Which petty national vanities are being acted out here to prevent us from doing this?

We need to coordinate closely with Turkey. Wherever possible, we need to take joint public action, for example, in establishing refugee camps on the Turkish side of the border as a preventive measure. We must enhance the political status of the Syrian opposition by holding high-level talks and adopting joint declarations of intent for the post-Assad period.

These declarations should make it clear that there must be a future for all Syrians, including ethnic and religious minorities, and that the European Union will provide comprehensive support for this kind of Syria as it moves towards a new future. We must also prepare ourselves for changes in the neighbouring countries if the regime is toppled. We must expect the situation in Lebanon to deteriorate, for example, and therefore we should already be telling all the parties there not to believe that they can exploit a short-term vacuum in Syria by using violence.

  Boris Zala (S&D). – (SK) Mr President, we must cooperate in both matters: the removal of Assad and the democratisation of Syria. That requires a number of things. First, clear support for the plan drawn up by the Arab League countries. Second, close cooperation with Turkey. It is a key player in the region. Third, cooperation with Russia, not only at the UN, but also at the bilateral level between the EU and Russia. Fourth, cooperation with opposition forces, including with regard to the post-Assad democratisation plan for Syria. And fifth, and I consider this to be the most important, cooperation with the forces of the ruling Ba’ath Party that are willing to support Syria’s transition to a democratic regime. This is the key lesson from post-Saddam Iraq. Cooperation with them would also prevent the Islamists from seizing power in Syria. I think that this is what we all want.

  Andrzej Grzyb (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, the situation in Syria and the problems being encountered there by civil society are not something we have only found out about today. We have talked about this numerous times at sittings of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Subcommittee on Human Rights. We are unanimous in condemning what is currently going on in Syria, because sending tanks and aircraft against your own people and shooting at them is horrifying and can only be condemned, but, at the same time, it should be said that this is typical of despotic governments such as the Syrian regime. The veto exercised by Russia and China against the UN Security Council resolution has intensified the tragic nature of the situation. We must indeed put pressure here on these two countries to change their position and, above all, to stop exporting arms to Syria, because these weapons are, of course, being used against the protesters.

We should also support the proposal, put forward by the League of Arab States, to send peacekeeping forces under a mandate from the United Nations. The stance of the Arab League in supporting the Syrian opposition is an important step towards building a group of friends around Syria so that an end can be brought to the massacre of human lives. The numbers have already been talked about here. We must also put pressure on the regime to allow peaceful and democratic change in Syria. I think that among those who – as Mr Lisek said – are part of the Ba’ath Party there are also those who can see that a crime is being committed against their own citizens.

The tanks and soldiers should be taken off the streets, and a fundamental objective for all action should also be the release of persecuted oppositionists and demonstrators. Syrian society needs humanitarian aid, too. I think providing that aid at this juncture requires chiefly the opening of a humanitarian corridor, which the Arab League is talking about and which is possible in the direction of the border with Turkey. We are agreed that the humanitarian corridor should be used to rescue the people who are caught up in this tragic situation and to help those who need help – the wounded as well as other people in Syria.

  Corina Creţu (S&D). – (RO) Mr President, the situation in Syria is deteriorating with every passing day; there are real massacres taking place in the cities where the popular uprising against the Damascus regime has become radical. Women, children and innocent people are dying, with over 7 000 victims recorded in the last year… This situation, as stated here, can no longer continue and I hope that today, the UN General Assembly shall condemn the bloody retaliations in Syria, despite the fact that Russia and China have exercised their veto in the Security Council. The position of the Arab League and, as of yesterday, that of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, bode well for putting political pressure on the Assad regime to accept a peaceful solution to this conflict. The Syrian regime must make way to a democratic solution for the crisis and the European Union must find firm solutions, including implementing additional sanctions in order to stop the intolerable retaliations against the Syrian population.

  Peter Šťastný (PPE). – Mr President, we have been hearing of terrible atrocities taking place in Syria for eleven months now. According to the UN, over 5 000 Syrians have been killed in President Assad’s bloody attempts to suppress a popular revolution. The western world, together with the Arab League, condemns the actions of the current Syrian Government and urges President Assad to listen to the Syrian people, give up his political power and facilitate free elections, as he promised in the past.

However, such appeals were rejected by Russia and China, most recently in the UN Security Council vote on a Syria resolution that included sanctions against President Assad’s regime. I stress the need for further diplomatic action in order to change Russia’s opinion and support the Syrian public fighting for change. Baroness Ashton has already spoken in strong terms before this Parliament about the need for Russia to change its attitude towards its ally in the Middle East in the light of Syria’s bloody actions against its own citizens. I continue to support the Baroness in her efforts to influence the Russian Ambassador to the UN and make him realise that he is supporting a regime that commits acts bordering on genocide.

Recent events in Syria are intolerable, and we must continue to exert political pressure on the Syrian Government, as well as on Russia and China, to change their opinions and to protect the people of Syria from their own government.

  Paweł Zalewski (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, this is another extremely important debate on foreign policy which is taking place in the absence of Baroness Ashton. I greatly appreciate the presence of the representative of the Danish Presidency, and I welcome what he has said today, but a debate on a question so important as this southern neighbour of the European Union, a country with which we have very close relations, must not be held without a representative of European diplomacy.

I would like to raise two matters. The first is the Russian and Chinese veto. In the Security Council, these countries took upon themselves the responsibility for aggravating the conflict in Syria and, in fact, for the hundreds of human lives which were lost following the intensified attacks made by government forces on the civilian population, something which took place right after the Chinese and Russian veto. The situation here is as follows. Russia says the veto is related to the fact that it does not want a resolution which would be able to bring about the removal of a regime that it considers to be legitimate. Well, we think a regime which kills its own citizens – over 6 000 people – is not legitimate. In doing this, it undermines its legitimacy.

Secondly, I expect EU diplomacy to be as closely involved as possible in establishing a humanitarian corridor, in order to help those who are most at risk from government attacks, those who are wounded, and those who do not have access to hospital care. This is the most important thing today, and it is a test for European diplomacy.

  Jacek Protasiewicz (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, Mr Søvndal, we are watching the development of events in Syria with increasing frustration, a frustration – as is evident from what is being said in the House – which very many of us share. This is caused by a feeling of impotence in the face of the suffering and the deaths of thousands of ordinary Syrians. Can more, therefore, be done than has been done, could more have been done than impose diplomatic sanctions, partial, limited economic sanctions and an embargo on the supply of military equipment to Syria?

Frankly speaking, probably not much, but there are examples – from the very recent history of last year – which show that if the international community works together and in unison, then the action it takes, not just diplomatic action, but limited military action, does bring positive results. In view of this, can it be said that debates like today’s and the successive resolutions we adopt – this is now the fourth on Syria – are worth the effort? Yes, they are. Firstly, because they allow us to reiterate our solidarity with the abused and repressed people of Syria. Secondly, they mean we make the Syrian authorities aware that we are watching what is happening – we are closely watching the development of the situation in Syria, and those who commit criminal acts will not go unpunished.

Most importantly, however, they enable us finally to persuade European governments, European leaders and the European Foreign Affairs Council – and we appeal for this, too, in the resolution – firstly, to extend significantly the package of sanctions which have been imposed on Syria – diplomatic and economic sanctions; secondly, to increase the scale of humanitarian aid being provided to the needy and suffering; thirdly, to show determination in bilateral relations with Russia and with China and to persuade these countries to adopt a UN resolution which will make it possible to take effective action in defence of innocent people.

  Lena Kolarska-Bobińska (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, recently, a wave of protests swept across North Africa – the Arab Spring – but nowhere have we witnessed violence against civilians on such a scale as we are now seeing in Syria. Particularly disturbing is the information about the Syrian military and the way it is imprisoning, detaining and torturing children. This is a case of truly exceptional cruelty. The Member States should unite and start taking action, even without UN support. If we wait until Russia and China come over to our side, then it may be too late.

I welcome the fact that a special summit is to be held, like the one on Libya, but this is not now only about ending the conflict, but also about our maintaining a European presence in the region. Europe is often accused of a lack of political involvement and that it acts too late, including, in particular, in the Middle East. So this time let us make sure we stay ahead of the development of events. At the summit, the Member States must also think about how to work with Syria after the fall of the regime. Now – right away – we must plan measures which will guarantee stability in Syria, and plan these measures in conjunction with the League of Arab States. How can intercultural conflicts be prevented? We do not want another war, here, and we do not want a repeat of Iraq.

Until then, we can only count on the righteous in Syria – people who are risking their own lives to rescue other Syrians, protecting and saving them from the hands of a cruel regime. I am currently working on a written declaration which will honour the righteous and establish a European Day of Remembrance for the Righteous. I hope that when this nightmare in Syria ends, we will also honour the deeds of the upright and the righteous in Syria and, at the moment, there are many of them.

  György Schöpflin (PPE). – Mr President, I think we can all agree that what is happening in Syria – the use of force against people calling for political change – is unacceptable and deplorable. We have heard a great deal this afternoon on this topic. The question in my mind is: why are Syria’s rulers so obstinate in resisting change of any kind? The Assad regime has not offered a single meaningful concession to the social forces demanding change. I think this requires an explanation that few of the assessments have so far offered.

It is a mistake to see Syria as a unified society, far from it: it is wholly divided, with basically five major groups living side by side. The group that has monopolised power is the Alawites, to which Assad’s own extended family belongs. The Alawites have co-opted the Druze, the Christians and the Shia. Taken together, they make up about 30% of the population. The majority of those at the heart of the anti-Assad movement are Sunni Muslims, who have been very largely excluded from power and its benefits by the Assad system. The fear of the ruling establishment is that a simple majority system would put power in the hands of the Sunni majority, with no guarantees that other groups would be included in a future regime run by the Sunnis.

Any settlement, if it is to work, must take these factors into account. Otherwise, sadly, the fighting and killing will go on, because neither side will see any benefit from a settlement. International guarantees for the security and well-being of Syria’s minorities are essential if a settlement is to last.

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE). – Mr President, in Syria, civilians continue to die. This Monday, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights said that the situation in Homs was deplorable. More than 300 people are estimated to have lost their lives since the beginning of February. The UN Human Rights Council cannot keep track of their numbers. Children are being kidnapped, tortured and killed. These are the actions of a government which has lost its legitimacy in front of its own people and in front of the international community.

The EU has imposed an asset freeze and visa ban on 108 individuals and an asset freeze on 38 entities. This stance must be intensified. We should cut the money supply through further sanctions on the sales of gold and precious gems. At the same time, we must reach out to the Syrian people and work with humanitarian organisations to develop humanitarian corridors to help the people. We must increase this momentum and put more pressure on the Assad regime to stop the violence, step down and ensure a peaceful transition to democracy.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE). – Mr President, it is evident that the regime of Bashar al-Assad is committing crimes against humanity which must be stopped immediately, and today we call on the United Nations, the Human Rights Council, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, and the ICC, to cooperate and to ensure full accountability for these crimes and to end impunity.

The fact that Russia and China have exercised their veto in the United Nations Security Council to block the draft resolution on Syria is deplorable and has had very serious consequences. It has encouraged the Assad regime to use heavy weapons against unarmed civilians. Due to the Russian and Chinese veto, the Security Council was unable to support the call of the League of Arab States for an inclusive Syrian-led political process conducted in an environment free from violence, and we deeply regret that. We are watching the death agony of the Assad regime, a kind of ‘dead men walking’, so we fully support the diplomatic efforts of Baroness Ashton, and our prime goal is to save the lives of the Syrian people.

  Ioan Mircea Paşcu (S&D). – Mr President, the Arab Spring generally – and Syria in particular – has caused splits in the Security Council. The Arab League, the EU and the US oppose the current regime, which is killing its own people, while others support it for – in my opinion – different reasons. Some of its supporters are concerned by the legitimacy of regime change through foreign intervention, while in Russia’s case, there are also crucial strategic motivations. If the current Syrian regime falls, Russia will not only lose a strategic partner which allows it to continue to be part of the Middle East equation, but also a naval bridgehead in the region and an important customer for its arms exports, possibly even a component in its complex relations with Iran.

However, with the Syrian people, the Arab League and most of the international community absolutely opposed to the current Syrian regime, those who continue to support it will find themselves beyond the tipping point at which the losses outweigh the gains.

  Kristiina Ojuland (ALDE). – Mr President, the regime of Bashar al-Assad is the target of tough sanctions from the international community, and this must continue. I regret that Russia and China have not yet joined us in these efforts. In addition to the economic sanctions, which have started to paralyse the criminal regime, we must also show our unconditional support to those who peacefully stand against it. The past year has shown us that the will of the people can overthrow any regime, no matter how strong.

My colleagues here today in the Plenary have proposed relevant and concrete measures that the EU should take, and I very much hope that we do not waste time in delivering a clear strategy towards Syria.

  Diane Dodds (NI). – Mr President, as we look to Syria, we recognise the horror of what is happening now but also the potential that this crisis could escalate, resulting in even greater bloodshed. It is deeply regrettable that the minimum action required at this stage, the UN resolution, was vetoed by China and Russia. It is vital that pressure be brought to bear on Russia, in particular, to recognise their responsibility in this region. Their actions have given the lead to President al-Assad in claiming that he has international backing for his actions. That is a heavy responsibility in light of the continued bloodshed on the streets of Syria and the purge of the city of Homs.

Today, Members have sincerely called for a new Syria. There is much to fear as to what will come next. For Syria’s 2.5 million Christians, they look at what has happened in Egypt and Iraq and see that freedom of religion is not part of the new dawn. Instead, they are experiencing increased persecution. We want to see Syria free from the tyranny of al-Assad but we want to ensure that the new Syria is one where everyone can live peaceably, including the Christian minority. As a previous speaker has said, international guarantees will be essential in this respect.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI). – (DE) Mr President, in my opinion, there are growing signs that the conflict in Syria is turning into a highly dangerous religious war, as experts have long feared. Syrian Sunnis have fought in the Iraq war in the past and now their fellow Sunnis are returning the favour. These people are linked together not just by tribal relationships that go back centuries, but also by a common religion. Importantly, the Sunni Arabs on the western border of Iraq are attempting to strengthen their own position in relation to the Shi’ite central government in Baghdad.

As if this and the involvement of Iran were not enough in the way of conflicts, it is looking increasingly likely that al-Qaeda is intending to move into Syria. In the light of the Russian veto, a UN peacekeeping mission has no real chance of success, in my opinion, quite apart from the fact that a mission of this kind would only make sense in the event of a ceasefire. The EU should not allow itself to be drawn even further into this confusion of conflicts, because in a religious war, it could really get its fingers burnt and the result would be spectacular failure.

End of the catch-the-eye procedure

  Villy Søvndal, President-in-Office of the Council. – (DA) Mr President, first of all, I would like to thank you for an excellent, informed and very committed debate. It is easy to understand why, as the situation is appalling. I believe that everyone in this Chamber shares the view that it is unbearable to watch people being fired at by mortar bombs in residential areas, people who go out and demonstrate peacefully being shot at, and people being tortured, disappearing or having to flee. I believe that everyone shares the same contempt for a regime that responds in such a way to its own people. That is also one of the reasons why we in the European Council have utilised almost every foreign minister meeting that I can remember to discuss Syria as one of the major topics.

It is important to emphasise that we have a strategy in the EU. We have a strategy that we are following and that we will continue to follow concerning the best way for Europe to help the Syrian people in the current situation. Our first message is: stop the violence. Stop shooting at your own people. This is the position that we are putting forward in all international fora in which we have the opportunity to do so. We are doing this in the United Nations General Assembly, where a vote will take place tomorrow on a resolution which will supposedly strongly condemn what is happening in Syria. We will also do this in relation to the UN Security Council, because, as many speakers have also mentioned, it is crucial to get the UN Security Council to criticise the position of Russia and China on this matter at every opportunity we get. As a responsible member of the Security Council, as one of the permanent representatives, we cannot just sit back and watch what is happening. We have a responsibility to protect, as some speakers have also said. That is something that we intend to pin both China and Russia down on. I also believe that it will make an impression not only if the EU says this here, but also if the Arab League and Turkey do so, too. I noticed today that China is on a tour around the Arab countries. They are presumably doing this because they believe that they have something to explain.

We will also use our opportunity at the meeting in Tunisia on 24 February to put our message across in respect of putting a stop to the violence and finding a political solution. After all, there is only a political solution to the crisis that we are facing. We will ultimately promote our position everywhere else, in all other fora in which we have the opportunity to do so. After all, that is what we as foreign ministers do – that is what Baroness Ashton, the High Representative, spends her time doing.

What are the options for action? Again, I understand your impatience very well. There are four possible areas for action that we will continue to pursue. The first is the consideration of a peacekeeping force, which will come from the Arab countries and which they wish to implement in collaboration with the UN. The specific form that this is to take is still somewhat unclear, but it is one of the topics we will pursue further when we meet in Tunisia. Next there is a proposal for international corridors. In this regard, I will simply say that we will certainly not rule this out, but it requires very strong backing from the international community, because where international corridors are concerned, we are talking about forcing our way forward. In this case, we are talking about military operations. There have also been some strong words said about avoiding a devastating civil war. I do not necessarily think it is wise to take more weapons into an area where there is a risk of civil war, with the risk of the situation getting out of control.

In reality, the debate today has confirmed much of what constitutes the EU’s position in this conflict. Firstly, we are continuing to tighten the sanctions. That is something that we will also do at the next meeting on 27 February. We are increasing the number of areas and the number of people covered by the sanctions. We are increasing humanitarian aid where we can and, in this regard, we are not ruling anything out. We are working ever more closely with the opposition and we are also calling on the members of the opposition to work closely together themselves so that we do not have an opposition that is fighting amongst themselves. That is absolutely crucial if a new Syria is to emerge.

Finally, I would like to make a comment regarding yet another debate, namely, the question of what alternative there is to President Assad. Someone said that it is ethnic extremism. I do not believe that. I believe that the Syrians have the same desire as everyone else, namely, to determine their own future in an arrangement in which we give them the opportunity to do so and we press for this to happen. I do not believe that any country is condemned to choose between a dictatorship or religious extremism. I think this is also the lesson we can learn from some of the elections we have seen in North Africa, for example, in Tunisia, where we are due to meet on 24 February.

Thank you for the debate. I will take the conclusions and the contributions that have been made to the High Representative, Baroness Ashton, and they will, of course, be used to help shape the opinions that will be the EU’s opinions on the conflict and our contribution to finding a solution to it.

  President. – I have received six motions for resolutions to wind up this debate.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow, Thursday, 16 February 2012, at 12.00.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) Once again, we would express our concern at, and absolute abhorrence of, the strategy that the major powers of NATO have drawn up for intervention in the Middle East, in coordination with Turkey and the dictatorial regimes of the Gulf Cooperation Council. The interventions and attempts at internal destabilisation currently under way, the instigation of sectarian conflict and the preparation for more imperialist aggression against sovereign peoples and countries are unacceptable.

Taking advantage of legitimate concerns about the situations in various countries of the region, a massive campaign of deception and lies is under way in the mainstream media and is attempting to obscure the real reasons for the violence that has been reported in Syria for several months: intervention and infiltration by foreign special forces and secret services, involving funding, training and weaponry for armed mercenaries and terrorist groups, are being presented as a popular struggle for democracy. At a time when the development of the international situation, marked by the deepening crisis of capitalism in multiple areas, is pointing to the real and significant dangers of further wars of aggression against the peoples of the region, which jeopardise international security, it is more important than ever to assert the values of peace and international solidarity.

  Tokia Saïfi (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Bashar al-Assad ‘will fall’. These were the words spoken by our Minister, Mr Alain Juppé, to the European Parliament, on Wednesday 15 February. Words of great common sense and hope: France, Europe and the world support, and will continue to support, the Syrian people. They will certainly support them, but it is more important to save them. Over the last 10 days, nearly 300 people have been killed in Homs by government forces, taking to almost 6 000 the number of deaths since the beginning of the uprising. On Sunday, the Arab League, faced with the extreme urgency of the situation, proposed a new plan: to send in UN peacekeepers. Some Member States find the idea of Western intervention dangerous; others see in it a first step towards stopping the violence. If the European Union wants to exert pressure and act, it must speak with one voice: that is the aim of the Foreign Affairs Council on 27 February. In the meantime, the Friends of Syria Group (an initiative by President Sarkozy) will meet on Friday 24th in Tunis; this will send a strong signal to Damascus, and also to Moscow and Beijing, which continue to block the United Nations Security Council sanctions.

14. 19th session of the UN Human Rights Council (debate)

  President. – The next item is the statement by the Vice-President of the Commission and High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on the 19th session of the UN Human Rights Council.

  Villy Søvndal, President-in-Office of the Council, on behalf of the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Mr President, honourable Members, it is a pleasure to speak to you about the outcome of the UN Human Rights Council on behalf of the High Representative.

The UN has a unique legitimacy to promote respect for human rights as universal norms. Throughout the past year, the Human Rights Council has demonstrated its willingness to respond in a united way to the call of millions of citizens for their right to freedom from fear and from want.

The EU was instrumental in making the Human Rights Council adopt resolutions on North Africa and the Middle East, in particular, Libya, Syria and Iran, but also in the case of Belarus. These are actions that matter. They put the governments of those countries under close international scrutiny and send a clear message. There must be no impunity for gross human rights violations.

This response is proof that multilateral institutions matter. It is our duty to consolidate the momentum built up in 2011 in Geneva and New York and help the UN to live up to its mandate.

The High Representative, Ms Ashton, is strongly committed to these efforts. This is why, early in her mandate, she participated last year in the main session of the Human Rights Council together with US Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, and delivered a very strong speech on human rights. Unfortunately, this year, the date of the main session clashes with the Foreign Affairs Council, which she will be chairing and which will be discussing Syria and key issues of concern on human rights.

The second day overlaps with the General Affairs Council, in which she has to participate in order to ensure that the views expressed in the FAC discussion on Serbia and Kosovo are fully and accurately reflected in the GAC discussion of Serbia.

The High Representative remains strongly committed to the defence and promotion of human rights worldwide. The High Representative, Ms Ashton, welcomes the continued interest of the European Parliament on the EU human rights policy in the UN and the intention of Parliament to send a delegation to Geneva to attend the 19th session. I will address the Human Rights Council during its ministerial part, representing the High Representative, Ms Ashton. I will stress the EU’s determination to continue playing an important role in the work of the Council.

The EU will intervene consistently in the different agenda items of this Human Rights Council session. I would like to highlight some of the EU’s priorities for the session.

We have just had a substantial exchange on Syria, and you will agree that its dire human rights situation deserves to stay high on the agenda of the Human Rights Council. We believe that the Human Rights Council should maintain a strong, effective capacity to monitor the situation. We will work to secure concrete follow-up to the resolutions on Syria adopted by the Council in 2011.

Iran remains a source of serious human rights concerns such as the increasing application of the death penalty and repression against media operators. The EU will fully support the renewal of the mandate of the special rapporteur on human rights in Iran.

The EU also expects the Human Rights Council to continue to closely follow the human rights situation in other countries of the region, such as Yemen and Bahrain.

We acknowledge the recent positive development in Burma/Myanmar. Serious challenges still remain and must be addressed in order to improve the human rights situation in the country and deepen its transition to democracy. For this reason, the EU will introduce a resolution to extend the mandate of the UN special rapporteur on the situation in Myanmar. Likewise, the EU will work closely with Japan in order to secure an extension of the mandate of the special rapporteur of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to address the continuing critical human rights situation in the country.

The issue of accountability in Sri Lanka should remain on the agenda of the Council. The authorities need to fully implement the recommendations of the report of the UN Secretary-General’s panel of experts and the lessons learnt, and of the reconciliation commission.

Ms Ashton is deeply concerned by the increasing number of acts of religious intolerance and discrimination across the world. She recently condemned violence against religious minorities in Nigeria, Egypt and anywhere in the world. The EU will engage at the Human Rights Council for freedom of religion or belief, seeking to renew a strong collective response based on human rights standards.

Finally, last year, the Council adopted a landmark resolution on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, introduced by South Africa. The EU will work at this session to ensure the success of the follow-up panel on discriminatory laws and practices and acts of violence against individuals based on their sexual orientation and gender identity.

The annual session of the Human Rights Council, which brings together key actors on human rights from states to NGOs, can be considered the world’s House of Human Rights. The EU stands ready to engage and cooperate with countries from all regions to ensure the success of this session. We want this Council to have a direct impact on the empowerment of people and to hold accountable those who are responsible for grave human rights violations.

IN THE CHAIR: OLDŘICH VLASÁK
Vice-President

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, the delegation from the European Parliament’s Subcommittee on Human Rights will travel to Geneva for the 19th session of the UN Human Rights Council, as has been the case in previous years for the sessions of the Council. This year, two important processes are under way.

Firstly, the 13th and 14th sessions of the universal periodic review will be organised in the course of 2012. Secondly, there is the ongoing review of the EU’s human rights policy, which should contribute to making the European Union a more active, coherent and effective force in the world. Having said this, I should stress that the EU and our Member States should guarantee respect for human rights in our own policies in order to increase the coherence between internal and external policies and thus enhance the credibility of the European Union in the UN Human Rights Council.

Tomorrow, we will vote on the resolution on the 19th session of the UNHRC. In our resolution, we welcome the designation of Burma, Syria, Libya and Iran as key issues of the session. We also welcome the many horizontal issues which will be addressed during the session of the Council. Not for the first time, we regret the fact that the review process has not led to the development of further-reaching membership criteria as regards commitments and performance on human rights issues. We reiterate our call for competitive elections for all regional groups, and we recommend that the European Union and its Member States state their clear opposition to the practice of regional groups putting forward ‘clean slates’ and lead by example on this matter.

On Arab Spring countries, we take note of the restoration of Libya’s membership of the UNHRC and encourage the country’s reintegration. At the same time, we regret that the opportunity was not seized to draw up strong and transparent criteria for reinstating suspended members. We welcome the statement by UN Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, urging the Egyptian authorities to end the excessive and brutal use of force against protestors in Cairo and elsewhere in the country.

In our resolution, we address serious human rights violations in Syria, a situation which has been discussed in depth today in this room. A universal periodic review, special procedures and the EU’s involvement are among the topics addressed in our resolution. So tomorrow, by adopting this document on the 19th session, the European Parliament will mandate our delegation to voice these and many other concerns which are part of the agenda of the session.

  Richard Howitt, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, as we approach the annual high-level session and the European Parliament’s own delegation to the UN Human Rights Council at the end of the first round of the Universal Periodic Review process, and now that the Council’s own review is completed, the challenge of our commitment to human rights has never been greater – greatest perhaps at the moment as in the debate we have just conducted on Syria.

Kofi Annan, speaking after the launch of the UN’s ’responsibility to protect’, said: ’“Responsibility to protect” will remain pure rhetoric unless and until those with the power to intervene effectively – by exerting political, economic and, in the last resort, military muscle – are prepared to take the lead’. At least 400 deaths this year; sexual violence against those held in custody; children as young as ten in solitary confinement; High Commissioner Pillay herself saying that these crimes against humanity are likely in Syria – it is right that Europe goes to Geneva and gets the UN to act where the UN Security Council has failed to do so.

But we should have praise too. On lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights as the President-in-Office rightly said. On Libya, too: the expulsion of Libya was an essential part of the transition in that country which should not be forgotten and which sets a historic precedent for the Human Rights Council itself. It also allowed the country to appoint a new administration explicit in its support for human rights. Amnesty International says its people are enjoying freedom of expression for the first time in 42 years.

As this Parliament’s rapporteur, we should also give full backing to the framework on business and human rights adopted by the Council and signal Europe’s determination to promote and to implement it, including, I am proud to say, this week, the announcement by the Enterprise Commissioner, of proposed human rights guidelines for the ICT and employment sectors here in Europe.

The need to challenge ourselves in Europe on other issues remains, though. Let us recall the recommendation of the Goldstone Commission following the Gaza conflict and the Panel of Experts’ recommendations following the end of the conflict in Sri Lanka. Time may or may not heal when we suffer an individual bereavement, but when hundreds and thousands die in what are said to be crimes of war, there will never be a healing without justice and the European Union must show that all war crimes will be held to account.

In Sri Lanka, having visited the last combat zone this year whilst maintaining my Group’s consistent support for an independent commission of inquiry, I acknowledged the government can change the debate if it genuinely conducts investigations against perpetrators and secures convictions, as at least inferred in its own report.

Finally, on behalf of the Socialist Group too, we should send a clear warning against countries refusing to ratify human rights instruments by being consistent in our own support, including, nine years after it was signed in, the International Convention on Migrant Workers, seeking to protect over 200 million of the most vulnerable people worldwide. It is to our deep shame that no EU country has either signed or ratified this Treaty.

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

  Nicole Sinclaire (NI), Blue-card question. – Mr Howitt, you mentioned two things which I want to bring together: Gaza and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights. Would you agree with me and criticise the High Representative for her failure to tackle the issue of corrective rapes of lesbians in Palestine, and also police brutality against LGBT people in Palestine? I visited Gaza and Palestine in November last year. This is evidently a problem that the EU ignores, but it still funds Palestine and it is afraid to tackle this problem on cultural grounds. Would you criticise them for that?

  Richard Howitt (S&D), Blue-card answer. – No one serious in this room suggests that Baroness Ashton has anything less than the highest commitment on gender and other forms of discrimination. That question allows me to say that we will be voting against a criticism of her in this text, when she will be in the Foreign Affairs Council upholding that and other principles when she is unable to be in Geneva.

  Kristiina Ojuland, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, the ALDE Group is very pleased with the fact that the joint motion for a resolution on the 19th Session of the UN Human Rights Council has given the delegation of the European Parliament a mandate to address a wide range of human rights issues that have recently arisen very painfully.

With regard to the key issues of Burma, North Korea, Syria, Libya and Iran, we would like to point out the role of the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China in reaching a constructive resolution of several crises.

We deplore the reluctance of the two non-democratic regimes to cooperate in the UN Security Council, in particular, by vetoing the adoption of the resolution on Syria. The hypocrisy of Mr Lavrov when calling for the stabilisation of the country is incredible. It is no secret that the Kremlin only wishes to maintain access to Tartus naval base, which has been staffed with Soviet or Russian military personnel since 1971 when the Soviet Union and Syria signed an agreement.

The Cold War is over and we must set aside the neo-colonialist discourse of spheres of influence. That also applies to Beijing, which is increasingly suppressing the freedom of thought, conscience and religion in Tibet. This has led to an increasing number of self-immolations of both temporal and spiritual people in Tibet. The EU and its Member States must consistently pursue a meaningful dialogue with China on human rights and raise those issues on every possible occasion.

Finally, I would like to stress the importance of combating discrimination on all grounds, also in the EU, including gender, race, nationality, age, sexual orientation and religion.

  Barbara Lochbihler, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Parliament’s resolution on the 19th session of the UN Human Rights Council represents a very good opportunity to highlight the huge importance of this body. It is the only UN forum in which breaches of human rights in the relevant countries can be directly addressed. The results of the EU’s investigation into the council’s working methods were highly constructive and the EU supports the independence of the Office of the High Commissioner and the Special Rapporteurs.

It is highly regrettable that Baroness Ashton cannot take part in this session of the Human Rights Council. This could be interpreted as playing down the importance of human rights policy in foreign relations. However, one very positive feature is the generous funding given by the European Union to support the work of the UN human rights bodies.

The Commission should consider increasing the amount of money in future, because the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has many new responsibilities as a result of the events of the Arab Spring.

In our resolution, we have devoted a separate chapter to breaches of human rights in the Arab Spring countries. It lists a number of specific requirements which the EU should support. I would like to highlight just two of them. One is the situation in Yemen, where it is important that the serious breaches of human rights, which, in some cases, amount to war crimes, are stopped. There must be no immunity from prosecution for people in positions of political responsibility.

The second country is Algeria. It is currently undergoing the process of Universal Periodic Review in the Human Rights Council for the second time. The fate of the thousands of people who have disappeared and of their families urgently needs to be addressed.

The Human Rights Council can deal directly with breaches of human rights in individual countries and you, Mr Søvndal, have mentioned that you have made use of last year’s momentum to adopt even more specific resolutions.

You have my full support. The requirements in the report by the Special Rapporteur on Iran must be implemented. We need to see concrete results in North Korea. Although there have been some changes for the better in Myanmar/Burma, international attention must remain focused on the human rights situation in this country.

We need to implement the results of the fact-finding mission to Gaza and those responsible for the breach of international law must be held to account. In addition, the findings of the investigation commission on Côte d’Ivoire must be put into effect and I am pleased that you have already mentioned this in your speech. We must ensure that the report by the UN Secretary General’s panel of experts on Sri Lanka is taken seriously and implemented.

  Marek Henryk Migalski, on behalf of the ECR Group. – (PL) Mr President, Mr Søvndal, it is opportune that we are holding this debate straight after the debate on the situation in Syria. In the European Parliament resolution we are talking about at the moment, the Syrian situation is, in fact, one of the more important issues. I think the condemnation of China and Russia in the resolution for the position they have adopted on Syria is one of many good things which are worth supporting and which my political group also supports. It is also to be welcomed that this is the unequivocal position of the European Parliament on what is, indeed, a shocking matter.

The second thing I would like to say is that you devoted a large part of your speech, Mr Søvndal, to explaining why Ms Ashton will not be present this time at the UN Human Rights Council. I deeply believe that those who accuse the European Union of not being interested in human rights issues will not use this absence as evidence which confirms this charge. I deeply believe it will be treated as you said, Mr Søvndal, as an absence necessitated by other official duties.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (FR) Mr President, we have decided not to support the joint resolution of the European Parliament on this matter, not, however, because we disagree entirely with its substance, but because of its many shortcomings. Words aside, in our eyes, it errs too much on the side of ‘double standards’.

We have tabled amendments to illustrate these shortcomings: however, I would like to focus on one of them. I have just come back from Turkey, from the Kurdish part of Turkey, and I would like to know for how long we are going to continue to remain silent on the deterioration of the democratic situation in this country, most particularly since 2009.

More than 10 000 people have been remanded in custody in a year; more than 5 000 people in pre-trial detention for the KCK affair alone, including numerous elected BDP representatives and activists who are continuing to call for a peaceful and political solution to the Kurdish question, and also children from the age of 12, lawyers, journalists and human rights defenders.

I was right there on Monday. There were more than 140 arrests, mainly of trade unionists and artists. Yesterday, there were more than 180. This cannot go on. The European Union must remain silent no longer. Mr Erdoğan’s double standards must stop.

I sincerely hope that this question will be tackled at the Subcommittee on Human Rights.

  Frank Vanhecke, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (NL) Mr President, the resolution which is now before us is fairly balanced and it is very easy for me to go along with most of the recommendations. What I regret, however, is the fact that this Parliament is shying away from facing up to a fundamental and structural problem in the UN Human Rights Council. That structural and fundamental problem consists of the fact that some of the biggest human rights abusers in the world – for example, China, Cuba and Saudi Arabia, to name but a few – are all allowed to remain members of the Human Rights Council unchallenged. That is actually unacceptable.

Only countries with a spotless reputation are in a position to, and have any right to, lecture other countries. Granting that right to the aforementioned dictatorships pretty much equates to turning it into a piece of absurd theatre. That is a structural defect that must be addressed, otherwise the compliance procedures will never function as they should. I therefore hope that Parliament will tomorrow adopt the amendments which I have submitted to this effect.

  Othmar Karas (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we will also be talking about Syria in the context of the 19th session of the UN Human Rights Council. We have been strongly critical of the decision by China and the Russian Federation to veto a Security Council resolution on Syria. We have ensured that the issues which are important to us appear on the agenda. Burma/Myanmar, North Korea, the Arab Spring, the situation in Syria and Libya and the Islamic Republic of Iran will all be discussed during the session. We welcome the fact that Libya’s suspension from the Human Rights Council has been lifted. Regardless of that, we will still be focusing on Libya, because we cannot be completely sure how the situation there will develop in future. Therefore, we need to send out a clear signal to all the countries involved in the Arab Spring that further aid from the Member States is dependent on them meeting certain criteria, which include the rule of law, fundamental rights and civil liberties, good governance, combating corruption and respect for human rights.

We must ensure that issues such as fundamental rights, freedom of speech and freedom of religion play a more prominent role in the public debate. That applies in all the countries which we are dealing with. I welcome the fact that the funding for promoting democracy and human rights throughout the world is being increased and that much of this money will benefit the Human Rights Council. It is equally pleasing that the subject of human rights has increased in importance within the UN system. This is clear from a glance at the Security Council agenda. However, in order not to undermine our own credibility, we must put our own house in order. We should not allow the majority of Member States to delay the implementation of international treaties. It is unacceptable that only one Member State has ratified the convention on the rights of migrant workers. We cannot stop making aid available or prevent accounts from being unfrozen unless we ourselves act according to the highest standards.

On the subject of credibility in general, we need to put an end to the well-known practice of forming blocs in the Human Rights Council. We should focus on what we have in common, rather than our differences, and enter into practical alliances. This is the only way in which we can ensure the necessary transparency, increase the budget of the Human Rights Council even further and reinforce its credibility.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI). – (DE) Mr President, it is not a problem for me that you have given priority to the Vice-President, Mr Karas. We non-attached Members are used to being overlooked. Regardless of that, Mr President, because the EU Member States finance a large proportion of UN missions, we need to discuss whether it would be sensible to send a UN peacekeeping force into Syria. This will only make sense if there is a ceasefire and that really does not seem very likely. On the contrary, the conflict is threatening to spread. Our most important tasks are to provide humanitarian aid and to prepare for a further influx of refugees.

Against the background of the current report from the UN Human Rights Council on Internet censorship, the EU needs to tackle the subject of freedom of expression on the Internet. The controversial Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement clearly overshoots the mark. Data protection and fundamental rights are obviously being sacrificed in order to guarantee that the US entertainment industry continues to earn billions of dollars. This is totally unacceptable.

  Joanna Senyszyn (S&D). – (PL) Mr President, the world needs a new global human rights plan – not just paper promises, but specific action. Politicians have to understand that investing in human rights is equally important as investing in the economy. There is, here, an analogy with investing in training and education for the young generation. Everyone acknowledges this to be the most effective investment, but when it comes to drawing up and approving the budget, they suffer an attack of amnesia.

It is high time human rights were brought out of the political ghetto. There is no justification for the violations of human rights that take place not just in countries which are considered undemocratic, but also unfortunately in Member States of the European Union and in the United States. Recovery from the crisis at the expense of the poorest is a violation of human rights. Governments must guarantee development which is equitable, tackle abuses which lead to and exacerbate poverty, and reduce armed conflicts, because they promote violence.

In relation to the forthcoming 19th session of the UN Human Rights Council, I would like to draw particular attention to violence against women. A situation in which every day in Europe, one woman in five suffers violence is something which must not be tolerated. It is estimated that the annual economic, social and health cost of the effects of violence against women in the 47 Member States of the Council of Europe amounts to EUR 34 billion. Over the last two years, the Council of Europe, the Commission and Parliament have taken important steps in tackling violence against women. Unfortunately, the measures taken do not reflect the commitments made.

I appeal to the European Union and to all Member States of the Council of Europe to sign and ratify the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence. To date, the convention has been signed by only 18 Member States, and none of them have ratified it.

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

  Marek Henryk Migalski (ECR), Blue-card question. – (PL) Mr President, your speech, Ms Senyszyn, included a reference to poverty and economic discrimination in certain European countries or Member States of the European Union and in the United States. Do you not think this is somewhat inappropriate in view of the issues we are talking about here, such as murder, torture, killings and imprisonments?

  Joanna Senyszyn (S&D), Blue-card answer. – (PL) Mr President, thank you for your question, Mr Migalski. No, I do not think it is inappropriate, because we all talk about what goes on in undemocratic countries, all of us talk about it constantly and we condemn it, while we pass over at least certain things which go on in particular in the United States and in European Union Member States, countries which consider themselves leaders in the field of upholding human rights. In fact, when we look at different statistical data, for example, on violence against women, we find that in Europe, seven women die every day because of violence, and very many other things also become apparent – the Guantánamo prison, for example. So these things, too, need to be talked about, and we must not pretend that bad things happen only in undemocratic countries, in places where there are regimes, because they are also going on around us.

  Charles Goerens (ALDE). – (FR) Mr President, 2012 is starting particularly badly.

Amongst those responsible for the worst violations of human rights, we can point the finger at Syria, its President and the harem of supporters which accompany him in the dying days of the regime, and we can only hope that its end is as close as possible. Amongst those responsible for crimes against humanity figure, first and foremost, the Iranian authorities, but they are not alone in this.

What is particularly worrying is the attitude of the two members of the United Nations Security Council who continue to oppose more effective measures against the Syrian regime. One of them, Russia, which is nonetheless a member of the Council of Europe, is sending a clear message in its refusal to side with those who are trying to put an end to the bloodshed now associated with the name of the town of Homs.

Unfortunately, this scandal undermines the goodwill shown throughout the world by all humanists, whether they are acting as part of civil society or in one or other of the many institutions dedicated to the defence of human rights.

Nothing, no political, commercial or geostrategic reason, can be used to justify the disgraceful attitude of those States that are blocking every means the international community has at its disposal to react to the outrageous situation in Homs.

The 19th session of the UN Human Rights Council will, I hope, provide the opportunity to remind all concerned of their most basic responsibilities when it comes to respecting the dignity of the human being. The European Union, as it is founded on the principle of the inviolability of human dignity, is undoubtedly in the best position to launch this appeal.

  Rui Tavares (Verts/ALE). – (PT) Mr President, I shall begin by asking a question which is, in fact, answered in the joint resolution of this Parliament: how many days will our High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy spend at the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva? This is a council that is taking place after a year in which much has changed in countries such as Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Syria and Bahrain, where the people have risen up against the regimes that oppressed them.

Some of these peoples have succeeded in their revolutions and others have not. What I believe most Europeans regret is that the EU was not prepared to help these peoples to make their transition when this occurred. This could not have been sped up by us, but we could have provided a framework for it. Fortunately, however, there are the cases that we have cited in our resolution, such as Burma, which seems to be on the path to greater openness and democracy.

In any case, many things change, but what does not change is EU strategy, which needs to be made effective, consistent, coherent and flexible. Coherence and flexibility do not contradict one another. What we cannot continue doing is offering the same types of trade agreement to Arab countries after the Arab Spring as we did before the Arab Spring. Tomorrow, we will vote on an agricultural agreement with Morocco, which is a country that still does not recognise the self-determination of Western Sahara.

What we cannot continue doing is allowing European companies to do business with dictatorial regimes without being punished here. My apologies, and now I will answer my question: our High Representative will not spend a single day at the United Nations Human Rights Council. I consider that a disgrace.

  Paul Murphy (GUE/NGL). – Mr President, I would like to speak about my amendment on Kazakhstan, where the oil workers engaged in a long, heroic struggle for better working conditions and for the right to have an independent trade union, have been met by massive repression by the Nazarbayev regime. This repression culminated on 16 December 2011 with a crackdown on a peaceful demonstration, with many protesters killed. Video evidence clearly shows state forces basically mowing down peaceful protesters.

However, outrageously, the General Prosecutor’s report seeks to place the blame on the protestors and then use this as a pretext to arrest the leaders of the political opposition, human rights defenders and journalists, including Vladimir Kozlov and Vadim Kuramshin, who all face potentially long prison sentences.

I would like also to draw the attention of the House to the fact that Ainur Kurmanov and Esenbek Ukteshbayev, leaders of an independent trade union who have spoken at meetings in this House about Kazakhstan, and who have been out of Kazakhstan since October 2011, have now contacted me with information that they may be abducted or arrested and brought to Kazakhstan to be charged with causing the killings in Zhanaozen. We have to demand that a genuinely independent international inquiry is set up into the events of Zhanaozen.

  Nicole Sinclaire (NI). – Mr President, amongst the items on the agenda at the forthcoming UN Human Rights Council will be Cyprus. I would like to concentrate on human rights issues in Northern Cyprus and their place in negotiations for Turkey’s accession to the European Union. In Northern Cyprus itself, there have been reports of violations of the human rights and freedom from discrimination of minorities, torture, and violations of freedom of movement, religion and speech.

In 1974, during the Turkish invasion of Cyprus, the city of Famagusta was overrun by armour, and the civilian population – fearing massacre – was forced to evacuate, leaving behind everything they could not carry. Only Turks were allowed to remain, and the Varosha section of the city remains isolated and unpopulated to this day. This is in contradiction with UN Security Council Resolutions 550 and 789.

Technically, this border dispute does call into question the legitimacy of the Cypriot accession to the European Union. A 112-mile long ‘green line’ still divides the island. 1 588 Greek Cypriots are still on the missing persons list following the Turkish invasion, but still the EU – with the exception of one or two Member States –pushes for Turkey’s accession. By discussing Turkey’s accession whilst unresolved border issues and questions of human rights in Northern Cyprus remain, the EU is undermining the integrity of the United Nations. You are overlooking appalling human rights abuses, and you are making a mockery of the integrity of your own position on human rights.

Regarding Turkey’s statement that they would freeze EU ties when Cyprus takes over the EU Presidency, I would ask the High Representative: why is the EU negotiating membership with a country that is acting in such a bullying manner? Although, on second thoughts, the High Representative might agree that such a country would fit perfectly into the European Union.

  President. - I now give the floor to Ms Costello, and I hope that this contribution, which is her first in this Chamber, will bring her happiness and satisfaction in her work. Please, you have the floor.

  Emer Costello (S&D). – Mr President, thank you for your kind words. Indeed, I am delighted to make my maiden speech here in the European Parliament on the subject of human rights. The protection and the promotion of human rights are fundamental features of the European Union’s moral and legal framework.

The EU needs to agree common positions so as to channel our collective voice in strong defence of human rights. In this regard, I welcome the Arab Spring, and I would condemn in the strongest possible terms the ongoing and appalling repression by the Syrian regime of its population, as described in the previous debate.

As an incoming Member of the European Parliament’s Palestine Delegation, I am also particularly concerned about human rights violations in Gaza, East Jerusalem and the West Bank. The EU must adopt a strong common position on the follow-up to the fact-finding mission to Gaza, and I call on Baroness Ashton to ensure that the recommendations of this mission are implemented in full, and to ensure that there is full accountability for all violations of international law, regardless of the alleged perpetrators.

I want to welcome the inclusion of Burma as an EU priority for the 19th session of the UNHCR, and commend the work of the special rapporteur on human rights in Burma. I look forward to the transition to democracy in that country.

If we are to challenge third countries on human rights, we must ensure that human rights are fully protected in our own domestic policies. EU Member States should lead by example, and, as has already been alluded to, we need to ratify all international human rights instruments that we have helped establish, particularly in relation to migrants in our own countries.

Finally, I want to welcome the commitment to prioritising LGBT rights, and I wish the delegation from the European Parliament well with their mandate.

  Marietje Schaake (ALDE). – Mr President, human rights and their universality are increasingly under pressure as a result of block politics in the United Nations and because of allowing countries into the Human Rights Council who have less than a clean state themselves. This is problematic.

Another concern I have is how to ensure that the UN Human Rights Council takes the changing world sufficiently into account. As we speak, prisons are increasingly populated by bloggers. Human rights defenders are presented under torture with transcripts of their e-mail, mobile phone and other conversations. People are tortured for their passwords and we see that European technologies play an important part in making that happen in repressive environments.

The struggle for human rights has moved online and digital freedom is increasingly essential for human rights, such as freedom of expression, press freedom and access to information, but also the documentation and sharing of human rights violations with the rest of the world. Frank La Rue’s UN report on freedom of expression is essential in this regard. It also clearly states that copyright enforcement could risk undermining the respect for fundamental rights and freedoms. I would urge prioritising digital freedoms within the UN Human Rights Council context and to ensure that information is upgraded.

  Michael Cashman (S&D). – Mr President, I welcome the statement on behalf of the High Representative. Indeed, the Human Rights Council will be an historic first, after the first ever UN resolution on human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity was adopted last year. The Council will at last examine in depth the issue of human rights breaches of LGBT people across the world.

We commend the excellent work of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, and hope this session’s panel will be open, frank and intelligent. Equally, we need to monitor developments in Zimbabwe and condemn the systemic and escalating violation of human rights in Zimbabwe under the Mugabe administration. In Belarus, the dictatorial regime needs to be brought to an end, the death penalty abolished, political prisoners released, and free and fair elections must take place.

I also welcome the focus on discrimination against people living with HIV and AIDS. It is crucial to remind people every day that HIV and AIDS is a disease and not a crime, and we must fight the stigma that people who live with this infection face every single day.

Finally, I would like to say to the High Representative and the Commission that it is up to us to fight for human rights and to defend human rights defenders, whether we do so within our EU association agreements or the Cotonou Agreements. If we turn away from that which we can influence, we can hardly lecture the rest of the world.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, I welcome the positive role played by the EU in reforming the Human Rights Council. I express my hope that Europe will continue to have a positive contribution to the debates in Geneva, including throughout the discussions of country reports. I call upon the High Representative to include the topic of human rights systematically in the discussions with other states, as this is the only way to obtain wide support for the Union’s positions. Moreover, I wish to point out the negative effects of frozen conflicts on the respect for human rights. The situation in Transnistria is relevant in this regard.

I would like to know the explanation for the High Representative’s lack of reaction when it comes to the tragic death of the Moldovan citizen, Vadim Pisari. I would like to remind you that he was killed on 1 January at a checkpoint in the separatist region of Transnistria by a Russian soldier in the peacekeeping forces.

  Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE). – (ES) Mr President, the struggle for human rights to be respected and the fight against any type of discrimination should be a European Union objective during the next meeting in Geneva.

For that reason, I welcome the fact that the European Union has taken the step to take part in the special debate that has been organised about the situation of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, given that this will be the first debate on the report on LGBT people, drafted by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.

European Union involvement is necessary in this very serious issue, and so that the crisis does not become an excuse to marginalise basic rights and to cover up the discrimination that many of these people suffer in Europe and throughout the world.

In addition, is it important to raise the issue of religious freedom, remembering, at the same time, that the European Union must maintain an appropriate balance when it comes to any type of belief, and that the right to change religion or not practise religion exists, and to deal with the situation in some Member States where special tax regimes and concordats are in place for certain religions.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Mr President, the broad and comprehensive concept of human rights set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights forces us to acknowledge that the EU is not in a position to give the rest of the world lessons in this area.

Above all, it cannot do this because of what is happening within its own borders. The right to social security; the right to unemployment benefit; adequate pay for workers; equal pay for equal work; the right to food, clothing, housing and health care; the right to leisure; and the right to free education: all of these, and many others, are rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

These rights are being jeopardised by the EU, primarily in its Treaties, which make some of them subject to the market and free competition, but, above all, because of the policies now in place in several countries. Human rights cannot be used as a weapon to attack those who pose an obstacle to ambitions of supremacy, when they are conveniently ignored domestically or in relation to saving friendly regimes. The US, Israel, NATO’s wars of aggression: there are too many examples, and they have, unfortunately, been repeating themselves over the years.

  Jaroslav Paška (EFD). – (SK) Mr President, a few days ago, in the Mamae Nunnery in the Tibetan-inhabited district of Ngawa in the southwest Chinese province of Sichuan, an eighteen-year-old nun set fire to herself in protest against the religious policy of the Chinese administration. Security forces closed access to the nunnery immediately after the incident and have imposed a strict news blackout on the case. The Chinese nation is one of the oldest cultured and civilised nations in the world, and so I cannot understand why the highest representatives of this large, educated and decent nation feel so much hatred and anger towards the Tibetan people, few in number and unarmed, who want nothing more than to preserve their own culture and faith.

It might therefore be a good idea to use the 19th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council to remind the leaders of the world powers that, if we want a better world, their behaviour must be marked by decency, wisdom and generosity to the weak.

  Andrew Henry William Brons (NI). – Mr President, it is self-evident that human rights are universal in that they are enjoyed by all people. Rights cannot be withheld systematically from unfavoured groups, but there are some groups that are so unfavoured in polite liberal society that they are universally invisible as victims.

The people who head the list of invisible victims are the Afrikaners or Boers, especially the rural Afrikaners in South Africa. Since 1994, more than 3 000 farmers and their families, most of them Afrikaners, have been murdered in systematic genocidal attacks by politically and racially-motivated terrorists. The police routinely refuse to respond to complaints of attacks. The former president of the ANC Youth League, Julius Malema, popularised the singing of the song ‘Kill a Boer’ at ANC meetings. The Afrikaners are as invisible to the European Parliament as they are to the United Nations. I wonder why.

End of the catch-the-eye procedure

  Villy Søvndal, President-in-Office of the Council. – (DA) Mr President, I would like to start by thanking you once again for an exciting debate. In the European Union, we believe that everything relating to human rights is absolutely crucial to progress throughout the world and also to ensuring that these are not rights that are defined in an individual situation, but rights that are universal and that all countries bind themselves to and respect. We have not achieved this yet, but that is what we are pressing for. I would like to emphasise that we are very much engaged in this in the Council, too. We have an informal meeting between the foreign ministers in March, a Gymnich meeting, where one of the two topics we will discuss is precisely human rights – with a view to taking a decision on behalf of the EU again in June.

When we have such a high profile as we do where human rights are concerned, it is also important, if I may put it like this, that we put our own house in order – in other words, that we keep to the straight and narrow ourselves. This also means, of course, that we must continually bring these matters up at bilateral meetings with third countries, and it is important, as several speakers have also pointed out, that we see progress in the form of tangible results, where the world is making progress.

I would now like to add a few remarks in respect of some of the countries that have been mentioned. It is correct – as we also discussed under the previous item – that the human rights situation looks pretty dire in a country like Syria. It is also correct that, as regards Libya, there is no doubt that recent developments indicate that it is making progress where human rights are concerned. Several people also drew attention to Burma. After a long period of dictatorship and a lack of freedom for people, it looks like Burma is now making progress again. Evidence for this comes in the form of elections, by-elections, the release of prisoners and respect for minorities. It is once again important to say that what is absolutely essential where human rights are concerned is that they constitute fundamental principles that apply to everyone. We have a duty to go out and fight to ensure that they do indeed apply to everyone. That is democracy, it is the principle of the rule of law, it is human rights, it is rights for minorities, whether ethnic, sexual or religious. It is people’s fundamental right to determine their own future.

Lastly, I would like to say that I understand the criticism, and I understand that you would like to see Baroness Ashton at all of your meetings (you have got second best today). However, her absence is a sign that there really is a great deal to be done. I am nevertheless firmly convinced that the criticism of Baroness Ashton would be even greater if she was absent from the next foreign ministers’ meeting, where Syria is intended to be the main topic, or from the meeting in the General Affairs Council, where the main topic will be Kosovo and Serbia. In this regard, I therefore believe that Baroness Ashton has got her priorities right.

With those remarks, I would like to thank you for the debate. Keep the flag flying for human rights. That is an important European characteristic.

  President. - I have received one motion for a resolution to wind up this debate.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on 16 February 2012.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The human rights situation has deteriorated in recent years. Under the impact of the economic crisis and the terrorist threat, the exercise of fundamental liberties has been limited. Even when changes such as the Arab Spring provided the premises to improve this situation, the difficulties in changing the actual situation of citizens persist. That is why I believe that we need a more practical instrument to support the democratic transition in the Southern Mediterranean for the creation of states based on the rule of law. As regards the most disadvantaged groups, unfortunately, women and children are still the main victims. The discrimination against them – including economic discrimination – is more and more obvious and we must focus more on their protection. I think a more effective cooperation is necessary between the European Union, UN and the other international bodies so that the infringement of human rights is no longer encouraged by the impunity still enjoyed by the perpetrators.

15. Guidelines for the 2013 budget - sections other than the Commission (debate)

  President. – The next item on the agenda is the report by Derek Vaughan, on behalf of the Committee on Budgets, on the guidelines for the 2013 budget procedure – sections other than the Commission (2012/2001(BUD)) (A7-0030/2012).

  Derek Vaughan, rapporteur. – Mr President, it is not easy to set your own budget. Therefore, I wanted to start by thanking all the shadow rapporteurs, the Bureau and the Parliament’s Secretary-General for their cooperation in putting together these guidelines. I believe now that there is a broad consensus that in difficult economic times, the European Parliament must play its part and make savings in its budget.

For example, I now believe that very few in this Parliament would argue against the proposal to freeze our budget. I believe certainly we need to ensure that the rise in the Parliament’s budget next year is below inflation. No doubt there will be discussions as to what inflation is, but at least there is now this broad agreement.

I am also pleased that the main recommendations in our guidelines have been accepted. I think that it is important as a Parliament that we identify savings in our own budget. I believe we need to avoid unnecessary new initiatives unless they are absolutely needed. I believe that we need to freeze our travel budget lines, pending the requested review from the Secretary-General which we requested as part of this year’s budget process. I believe we need to freeze all allowances for Members, both daily allowances and the office allowances, and perhaps have the objective of freezing all those allowances until the end of this particular mandate.

I also believe we need to examine all our budget lines, especially those budget lines which are always under-implemented. I believe that these are the budget lines that we should look to, to make savings in our budget. I believe that we need to ensure that we avoid new unforeseen building projects for the rest of this mandate. In the recent past, we have had many building projects proposed and now we need to take stock.

We need transparency so that this Parliament is fully involved and informed about building projects and therefore I welcome the request to have regular updates at the Committee on Budgets on the building projects which are proposed.

Another suggestion is to seek greater cooperation with other EU institutions, for example, cooperation on buildings, on translation, on interpretation, on security and on human resources. For example, there is already a joint agreement in place between the Committee of the Regions and the Economic and Social Committee working together jointly on many of these issues. I think perhaps we should take a look at that joint agreement in order to learn some lessons and maybe work with them in terms of joint work and cooperation, again with the aim of making savings. I certainly believe that there is a lot of scope for us to make savings in the Translation Service for example.

So I believe there are many possibilities out there for us to make savings, although I also accept that it is not always easy to identify and make those savings. Therefore, I have suggested that the Secretary-General comes forward with an idea for an independent evaluation of the Parliament’s budget. This is a way of bringing fresh eyes, a new pair of eyes to the budget, helping us to identify and make the required savings.

My suggestion is that we establish a working group between the Bureau and the Budgets Committee, who can bring in expertise from outside and, between them, look at making savings. I believe this working group could form the basis of an independent evaluation of Parliament’s budget. It could also look at a comparable study which was requested as part of this year’s budget process; a comparable study with other parliaments in Europe and maybe the Congress of the United States as well. Also, the working group could look at the travel costs review. We are promised a report on travel costs, again as part of this year’s budget process. This working group could perhaps look at that.

Finally, I would say to colleagues that I understand some will be concerned about this idea of a freeze in the Parliament’s budget. They may feel it is too difficult to achieve but, there again, there are others who will want to go much further and to cut the budget, and indeed some of the amendments in front of us today to be voted on tomorrow reflect that. However, I would hope that most colleagues in this House would agree that the guidelines which we put forward are a good compromise. A good compromise and a good way forward; a way forward which would allow us to make savings in the Parliament’s budget but also, at the same time, to ensure that this Parliament is run effectively.

  Monika Hohlmeier, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by sincerely thanking my colleague, the rapporteur Mr Vaughan, for his excellent cooperation and his readiness to discuss the various problems in depth and to find a solution.

We already presented an austerity budget last year, in which the actual original budget only rose by 0.8% and, in view of the additional costs incurred through the accession of Croatia and the Treaty of Lisbon, we still remained below the inflation rate of 1%, achieving 1.9%.

This year, we are again publishing guidelines for an austerity budget, seeking to show that we are aware that we are in an environment in which it is not possible to make enormous financial leaps forward, but rather that consolidation is the order of the day, so that the budget will need to be examined in terms of efficiency and the potential for cutting costs.

I also welcome the convening of a working group that is to bring in external experts as deemed necessary and useful, to work in this direction with the Bureau, the Secretariat and Parliament’s administration.

I also believe it is right for us to further strengthen interinstitutional cooperation and that we should further optimise the way in which Parliament works in terms of organisation, efficiency, the use of financial resources and personnel. This has enabled us to save EUR 21 million in the area of translation and interpreting alone in a single year and we want to continue in this vein this year.

As Mr Vaughan has said, we are freezing travel costs and day-to-day expenses and, with regard to buildings policy – after all I am the rapporteur on buildings – I believe it necessary for us to examine closely what we have agreed to see whether buildings policy and construction projects are being managed in a professional, cost-efficient manner. The particular aim will be to save costs in the medium term, in particular annually recurring costs, and to exploit the relevant synergies.

We also expect the other institutions to join us in our efforts and to offer their support. I believe it is necessary for us to navigate a course in which the precise work of Parliament is linked with efficiency and good organisation. I would like to thank the Parliament administration, the Secretariat and the Bureau for their excellent cooperation and hope that we succeed in presenting a reasonable, solid and well-considered budget.

  Edit Herczog, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (HU) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, allow me first of all to congratulate Mr Derek Vaughan on his report. Let me begin by stating that we consider it a very important accomplishment that in the 2012 budget, we were able to achieve significant results in terms of savings. We must continue along these lines. We must manage European institutions, including institutions other than the Commission, like good housekeepers.

I consider it extremely important in times of economic difficulties and economic crisis that when it comes to savings, we start with ourselves, and it is very important that we start with MEPs, and that a reduction in MEPs’ travelling expenses, the freezing of their allowances and the potential reduction of indirect costs related to them, such as translation expenses, are the first things we implement. However, it is very important that we do not act like a lawnmower when doing so. One of the goals we must set for ourselves is the continuous improvement of efficiency, and this does not only mean that we must save, but also that we must make investments in the hopes of long-term savings. A better integration of technological achievements, for example, is sure to produce savings in the long term.

At the same time, I would also like to stress another very important point, namely, that we definitely cannot save, for example, on the expenses of the preparation of Croatia’s accession. MEPs and staff from Croatia must be granted the same privileges as all other MEPs. Therefore, we must, of course, differentiate. I would like to underline that cuts in staff-related costs must definitely be preceded by consultations with the trade unions and the social partners.

Finally, I would like to personally welcome the suggestion to create a committee to develop continuous efficiency and cost-saving measures in cooperation with the Committee on Budgets and the Parliament Secretariat. Looking forward to this work, I would once again like to thank the rapporteur and everyone else who participated in this work. Thank you for your attention.

  Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (NL) Mr President, I, too, would like to thank rapporteur Derek Vaughan for his excellent work and the pleasant way in which he involved all the shadow rapporteurs in his project. Thank you very much for that. The previous two speakers, who spoke on behalf of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament and the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), have already shown that something is indeed changing in this House with respect to its own budget. Where last year it was really hard to get cuts through the House, I now notice, across the board, a willingness to look much more critically at our own housekeeping.

That makes sense. The economic crisis is hitting hard, and Member States are having to contend with huge budget cuts. We have only one good answer to that and that is increasing transparency. Our budget is still not completely transparent. Therefore, that is one issue where we still need to do some work.

One element of that work also forms part of Mr Vaughan’s report, which calls for an analysis of our own budget, so that we can identify where potential cuts can still be made in our House. Last year, this plenary embraced that same request on two occasions, both in the discharge report and in the very report we are discussing now, but they were both last year. Unfortunately, up to now, the Bureau has not yet given a positive response to this. My political leader, Guy Verhofstadt, sent a letter to President Buzek in December asking when we, as a plenary, as the Committee on Budgets, would receive that analysis of the budget.

I would, therefore, through you, Mr President, personally urge the current President, Mr Schulz, to get involved in this issue. The Secretary-General, together with the Bureau, has analysed all the budget lines and we are to receive a selection of the points that have come out of that analysis as a proposal for the 2013 budget. Let them give that analysis to the Committee on Budgets and, then, we can do the political work of making choices. We do not always need to leave that to the Bureau.

To conclude, I would like to say that I strongly agree with the general line that we should start with a budget freeze and I hope that, during the remainder of this year, we will actually be able to agree on a much leaner budget for our own House.

  Richard Ashworth, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, national governments throughout Europe are striving to cut expenditure, deliver better value for money and keep budgets under tight control, and that is our job too. As Members of this House, we should be doing the same. We ought to be closely scrutinising the institutions’ budgets; we should be enforcing rigorous cost control, and we have here the real chance to show leadership.

I would like to give credit to the Secretary-General and Parliament’s Bureau for the very realistic figures and proposals which they brought forward today. But I would also say that we now have the right, as Members of this House, to demand that the other European institutions follow that example. We should be demanding real savings in their budgets and they should be able to demonstrate value for money.

I fully support the rapporteur’s call for a freeze on their budgets; indeed, as he will know, there are many areas where I would wish to go further. But for now, I congratulate Mr Vaughan on a very good report.

However, there are three points that I want to make. The first concerns building policy. The members of this House ought to be looking more critically at building investment, building management and building cost control, and, in particular, we should expect the other institutions to be achieving greater efficiencies through sharing resources.

Secondly, administration and staffing costs. This Parliament should be looking to the institutions to deliver a progressive reduction in costs through exploiting economies of scale. It is now time we looked again at staff levels, staff regulations and staff pensions policies to ensure that they are both up to date, relevant and represent value for money to the European taxpayer.

Finally, it is not possible to have this debate without discussing the two-seat arrangement of this Parliament. May I remind this House that, in approving the report by the Special Committee on the policy challenges and budgetary resources for a sustainable European Union after 2013 (SURE), we called for the parliamentary seat to be kept under review. It is indefensible that this House goes on promoting cost-saving, efficiency and competitiveness amongst the other institutions, amongst national governments, and indeed amongst the people of Europe, while we continue such a wasteful practice ourselves.

I would therefore like to recommend to the rapporteur and to this House that, for the sake of the credibility of this institution, we need to have that debate and we ought to have it now.

  Miguel Portas, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (PT) Mr President, the general guidelines for Parliament’s next budget are driven by an effort towards containment, but I believe that in general, they are headed in the right direction. However, there is always a ‘but’. The services for this plenary opted to exclude a proposal tabled by the Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left from the debate and vote. This proposal was that Parliament should reach an agreement with the Council and the Commission on freezing Members’ salaries for 2012. I would say that this moderate and reasonable proposal is fundamental, and that there is no reason for it to be excluded from the debate. Changing the Statute for Members is not the only way to achieve this measure: it can be achieved without changes to the Statute for Members. Above all, however, this is an arbitrary decision. We cannot continue to prevent Members from talking about their own salaries in this House. This is incomprehensible to anyone outside Parliament. I must say that episodes like this mean that, with friends like these, sometimes Europe does not need enemies.

  Marta Andreasen, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Mr President, in the middle of this crisis in which the EU is imposing cuts on Member States, this House still thinks it has the right to ask for inflationary increases. It cannot even agree on what the inflation percentage is but, whether it is 1.9% or 3%, the fact is that this EU bureaucracy is already bloated and needs to go on a hard diet.

The cost of this Parliament, which has grown disproportionately, amounts to more than GBP 2 million per MEP. This is not value for money. Entertainment and representation costs have grown by 160% in the last four years. We should do away with this expenditure.

The House of European History, with an initial cost estimated in excess of EUR 50 million, and with running costs of more than EUR 11 million per annum, is an extravagance at any time. We should be dropping the whole project.

Funding for European political parties and foundations has grown 176% in the last four years. We do not need these European political parties. We MEPs are elected by our constituents or on national party lists.

Prime Minister David Cameron is calling for a freeze, but what we need is a significant reduction in this Parliament’s budget and overall, in the whole budget of the European Union, at least a 10% decrease for next year. Without a cut, we are behaving like fat cats.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI). – (DE) Mr President, in these difficult times for the Member States, the realistic cost-cutting proposals we have heard from Mr Vaughan are quite correct and deserve our support. It is obvious that we need to freeze spending on administration at a time when all of the people of Europe are having to tighten their belts. There is no doubt that we can achieve further savings by improving collaboration between the institutions and by cooperating more effectively in areas such as human resources, organisation and building management.

However, despite the necessity for savings, there are a number of areas where caution is required. The first of these concerns the environment. We must have an effective environmental policy in all of the EU’s institutions and bodies. The institutions in particular should act as a role model for Europe.

The second area is that of translation and language services. Attempts have already been made to cut costs in this area over the last year. This situation cannot continue indiscriminately, however. The European Parliament is responsible for drawing up legislation for 500 million Europeans. These people need to be able to understand our work in their native language. Transparency in democratic processes should not be sacrificed for the sake of the interpreting budget. I would like to mention specifically the support and cooperation given by the Secretary-General and his team on these difficult issues.

  Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE). – (ES) Mr President, the budget is a cycle over time and when it comes to the budget, each Parliament rapporteur and other institutions seek a balance between the legitimate interests of the Members, the sensitivity of the electorate and the needs of the administration.

Referring specifically to the budget for the European Parliament, I want to begin this speech by saying that the budget works well and many of the chapters work very well.

There are several reasons why Parliament’s budget is as large as it is, such as increased responsibilities, a growing number of Member States, the difficult problem of multilingualism, and the need to provide technical support to over 700 Members. We often wonder, however, leaving the absolutely necessary to one side, whether the European Parliament’s budget is sustainable in the medium term and during this economic crisis.

We have come from a meeting of the Committee on Budgets, the Vice-Presidents of this Parliament and the Secretary-General. Since I became involved with budgetary issues, I do not think I have ever witnessed such a strong shared desire within the Committee on Budgets to cut costs, even in times of negative growth in real terms, as raised by the rapporteur, Mr Vaughan, as well as the administration’s will to implement genuine saving measures, without affecting Members’ safety and services.

Let us not forget that what we produce in this Chamber is legislation, and that legislation should be the final objective. We must ensure that the legislation, the set of laws we produce, is good quality and is viewed that way by the citizens of Europe.

Both the Committee on Budgets and the European Commission are seeking an increase of less than 2% for 2013. This Chamber’s Bureau starts with a proposal for an increase of around 3%. We are only one percentage point apart at the start of the budgetary process, and I believe that we will find a common objective during the budgetary process.

Fellow Members will remember that it is said that virtue lies in the middle ground, and I trust we will also find the middle ground between these two proposals.

  Vladimír Maňka (S&D) . – (SK) Mr President, the rapporteur listed areas where Parliament can make savings and showed how we can work more efficiently and make savings. As the rapporteur for the 2010 budget, I discussed budgets with the representatives of the European institutions and directorates-general of the European Parliament. We managed to identify a number of inefficiencies and save millions of euro. Based on concrete examples of bad management, at least those we managed to identify, Members approved the report in which we stated that ‘an independent assessment of the activities of the European Parliament is necessary’. We agreed to start this audit in the Directorate-General for Infrastructure and Logistics and in the area of the Security Service. Instead of an independent external audit, however, only an internal audit was carried out.

If we assess ourselves and are not interested in the views of experts from outside, we will not identify savings. Ladies and gentlemen the crisis has forced viable businesses and institutions to look for savings and use resources efficiently.

As the Chair of a self-governing region of my country, I manage an area which has about as many employees as the European Parliament. Due to the crisis, our resources have fallen by more than 20%. Without thorough analyses and decisive measures, we could not have coped with the situation. I think that the Secretary-General of the European Parliament has carried out many useful measures that have brought positive results, but this is not enough. We should learn from the European Court of Auditors, which was the first European institution to allow an independent audit of its own work. Even before the crisis, the Court of Auditors reduced its administrative costs and achieved substantially higher efficiency in its work. This is the route to the necessary structural changes. If we follow it, we will save millions of euro and become more efficient.

  Carl Haglund (ALDE). – Mr President, allow me first of all in my capacity as coordinator for our group in the Committee on Budgets to thank our excellent rapporteur for his good work. I am also convinced that we can find very broad common ground in this House. That is important in this difficult economic time.

My colleague, Mr Gerbrandy, explained very well where our group stands. We are very positive with regard to the development in the House right now, where we seriously examine all our costs in order to find savings instead of increasing our own budget. This is a path we need to continue on. A part of this could actually be the external audit that my colleague, Mr Maňka, just asked for. We have been calling for a similar type of solution for a longer time. It probably would not hurt.

At the same time, the Secretary-General, Mr Welle, whom Mr Ashworth referred to earlier, has been doing a good job with finding savings once we started to demand them. So we obviously have to look at ourselves and remember that the savings will only be created once we ask for them. Now we have started to do so and that is a good thing.

We will also vote on the single seat amendment, which some colleagues referred to. As stated before, this is a symbolic issue for many, but it is also an economic issue. In these times of austerity, it is important that colleagues have the opportunity to take a stance on this issue once again. That is why many Members from our group signed this amendment. So we are on the right path. Let us continue in this direction and we will look far better in the eyes of the public in the future.

  Peter van Dalen (ECR). – (NL) Mr President, Member States have been cutting spending for years now, and rightly so. However, the need to cut spending has still hardly crossed the minds of the European institutions. They continue to ask for more money and carry on spending like there is no tomorrow. Fortunately, Mr Vaughan’s report has finally broken with that wasteful tradition and he wants to freeze administrative spending. Bravo! Well done! Put a stop to all that squandering!

In your report, you also call for an independent assessment of the budget by a Parliament working group. I am less happy about that, because I think that it is a mistake to allow the fox to guard the chickens. We need to leave that to external experts. That assessment also needs to address the question of how all members should account for how their individual allowances are spent, because that sacred cow that is members not having to account for their huge expenses must be done away with. Accountability and transparency.

Recital 9 of the report calls for a freeze on travel-related budget lines for 2013. On my initiative, the 2012 travel budget has already been put on hold and I look forward to the report by the Secretary-General on that matter.

  Claudio Morganti (EFD). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this report discusses reducing waste by the European Parliament, but it fails to mention the real waste which we all know well: having two seats for this Parliament costs at least EUR 200 million a year which, over the course of a legislature, constitute a record EUR 1 billion. I believe that if ordinary European citizens were aware of this situation, they would be chasing us with pitchforks in their hands. We cannot ask for sacrifices from everyone and then throw away a similar amount, for no purpose.

I have tabled an amendment in this regard that will be voted on tomorrow, gaining support from almost all of the political groups. Let us see if we can at least give a clear signal on this matter. The Danish Presidency has already come out clearly against the dual seat: today, I also asked President Monti, who failed to answer. The Treaties may – indeed, must – be changed and we can no longer submit to the scandalous and anachronistic French blackmail.

  Lucas Hartong (NI). – (NL) Mr President, we have a saying in the Netherlands: ‘No words please, just deeds!’ The report by Mr Vaughan, who is a member of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, is the very opposite of this: all words and no deeds. He proposes to freeze the budget of the EU institutions, but then he contradicts himself, in the very next sentence, when he says that the budget will have to be increased to meet requirements.

While an increase in the budget is allegedly not allowed, Croatia’s accession to the EU alone has so far cost our citizens around EUR 1 billion, and it will end up costing a whole lot more. Mr Vaughan proposes that we continue with structural and organisational reforms, but the Committee of the Regions, which was tasked with doing exactly that, has, to this day, done absolutely nothing about it, as was shown by the recent budgetary audit. While institutions are being called upon to make cuts, the European Court of Justice is continuing its expansion regardless. That is not sending out the right message to our citizens.

The budget for travel and personal reimbursements has temporarily been frozen and that sounds good, but it is major savings that we really need to be making. Meanwhile, the House of European History is being constructed at a cost of at least EUR 75 million. That is the kind of thing that causes the budget to increase year upon year. What does Mr Vaughan propose, however? That we appoint a working group. What a joke!

Our citizens demand action, not empty words. It is high time that the European Union stopped hanging on every word of the smooth talk trotted out by the S&D Group and started listening for once to the voters who are footing the actual bill. Do you know what those voters are saying? They are saying: ‘Those people at the EU really have gone mad’!

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE). – (PT) Mr President, first of all, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteurs on the excellent work they are doing.

It is worth mentioning some figures at this point so that we can get a sense of where we are. For the current year, the EU budget is around EUR 129 billion in payment authorisations, which corresponds to approximately 1% of EU gross domestic product, as has been the rule. It is worth noting that the budgets of all 27 Member States are approximately 44 times that of the EU budget.

Another interesting figure is this: between 2000 and 2010, national budgets increased 62%, as against 37% for the EU budget, and I would stress that 12 new Member States joined in that period. In addition, the EU budget is never in deficit and is an investment budget. The total for all administrative and operational expenditure by all of the institutions amounts to around 6% of the EU budget, and the administrative and operational expenditure of Parliament equates to only around 1%. This does not mean that we should not continue to demand rigour and to employ the principles of economy and efficiency: quite the contrary, we must continue following these principles of sound financial management, when both implementing and drafting budgets.

As we did for the administrative budget of the institutions and Parliament for this year, the current year, we must achieve maximum rigour and maximum savings, yet at the same time ensure the minimum resources necessary for the institutions to run smoothly and, in the case of Parliament, the means to ensure excellence in lawmaking. I believe we are on the right track.

  Eider Gardiazábal Rubial (S&D). – (ES) Mr President, I would like to begin my speech by congratulating the rapporteur, Mr Vaughan, on his excellent work.

He put forward some guidelines for the European Parliament’s budget that are in line with work that was started by this Chamber some years ago and these guidelines are supported by a large majority.

Please allow me to remind you that the European Parliament’s budget represents a little over 1% of the total budget for the European Union and, even though we are discussing a much reduced budget, it does not mean that we cannot continue to take measures to reduce this Chamber’s expenditure.

We are at the start of the 2013 budgetary debate and the objective of this motion for a resolution is to provide a set of budgetary guidelines, which we are going to work on in the months to come. Our priorities for 2013 will be characterised by budgetary responsibility and the reduction of expenditure without impeding the proper functioning of this institution.

For that reason, we believe that all the European institutions have to make the necessary efforts to freeze their budgets. Specifically, here in Parliament, we propose that the necessary measures are taken to reduce travel costs. When it comes to funds for Members, we ask for them to be frozen until the end of the parliamentary term.

As a Parliament, we consider that we should and could make considerable savings in the medium and long term. For that purpose, we also propose three courses of action: the possibility of carrying out an independent assessment of our budget; the creation of a specific working group with Parliament to investigate possible measures; and we also ask the Secretary-General to carry out an exhaustive analysis to detect any possible duplicities and underused budget lines.

I have faith that the measures that have already been taken and the future reforms we will put in place will help us to achieve better financial management of this Chamber.

  Anne E. Jensen (ALDE). – (DA) Mr President, I also believe that it is a shame that it is not possible for us to make the most obvious savings and improvements in the efficiency of Parliament’s work, namely, by stopping the travelling circus to Strasbourg and, for example, handing these buildings over to another European institution. However, this is, unfortunately, not something that we have any power over. It is a decision that only the EU’s Heads of State or Government can make.

I agree with Mr Vaughan that we must make our work more efficient and look for savings, but I would like to emphasise that savings and improvements in efficiency must not be made at the expense of the multilingualism of Parliament. It is great if we can find technical solutions that can result in savings and perhaps also provide the same or a better service in terms of translations, but we must not abandon the linguistic diversity.

I would like to congratulate Mr Vaughan on the results he has achieved so far in his work to freeze Parliament’s spending. However, I also think it is important to emphasise that all EU institutions must endeavour to improve their efficiency. This also applies to the European Court of Justice, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. The forthcoming enlargement to include Croatia may be a suitable opportunity to consider whether the resulting increased expenditure can be covered by increases in efficiency.

  Ashley Fox (ECR). – Mr President, may I start by thanking Derek Vaughan for his work on this report. I am happy to support his call for a freeze in spending in 2013. This must be a first for a Member of the Labour Party. In the UK, they oppose every single measure the coalition government takes to reduce expenditure to clear up the mess they left Britain in. I hope, Mr Vaughan, that your masters in London take note.

A budget freeze is the minimum our citizens expect. I should like to see EU administrative expenditure cut year on year for the whole of the next seven-year period. We should, for example, abolish the useless European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. That would save the taxpayer money and reduce bureaucracy. We could also save money by having just one seat for this Parliament and ending the wasteful monthly trek between Brussels and Strasbourg. We face austerity at home and our electors will be watching how we act. I urge Members to support this report.

  Barbara Matera (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the difficult international economic and financial context and the lack of a strong European governance have highlighted the weaknesses of the individual Member States, many of whom are calling for huge sacrifices from their citizens in an attempt to ward off a period of unprecedented social and economic disruption. The keywords that are imperative for drawing up the guidelines of the EU budget for 2013 are ‘savings’ and ‘budgetary discipline’.

I regard as appropriate the call for expenditure restraint announced by Commissioner Lewandowski, which places a ceiling of 1.9% on the increase in the Commission’s administrative costs, equal to the inflation rate expected for 2013. Parliament must follow the same line, by freezing its administrative expenditure and all of its real estate expansion plans, without falling into the trap of agreeing to populist amendments.

It will not be easy to respond to attacks by those who do not believe in Europe and have lost confidence in it. However, the EU budget represents only 2% of total European public expenditure. We must therefore show that the EU budget is able to generate added value in addition to national public expenditure, supporting and integrating investment in those policies that lie at the heart of the recipe for resolving the current crisis. Coming up with strong responses through policies geared towards growth is our aim, as well as a test of our credibility for the 2013 financial year.

  Göran Färm (S&D). – (SV) Mr President, I would like to say a special thank you to the rapporteur, Mr Vaughan, who I think is doing an exceptionally earnest and creative job with regard to Parliament’s own budget and the administrative budgets of the other institutions. I note, too, that he has received praise from practically all of the other political groups, which demonstrates that he has been able to establish broad agreement on where we currently stand.

It is certainly worth noting that a new attitude is prevailing. Up to now, Parliament’s budget has increased year on year, but now there is broad agreement that we should freeze the budget at a general level and that we should implement major savings in certain specific areas. There is also a high level of consensus that we should start to place restrictions on MEPs’ personal expenses. This is something that I believe to be extremely important.

The report has certainly made an impact, as we can see by the fact that only seven amendments have been tabled, which I believe is something of a record. If we look at the figures, we can see that, while we have traditionally always added 20% of the long-term budget total for administrative expenditure, we are now down to around 19%, and that, in fact, represents a saving of around EUR 70 million.

This is, of course, a result of pressure from the rest of the world, but the point is that we should not just make cuts. What we need to do, above all, is to find a way forward that is based on efficiency, modernisation and the principle of economy – and where this is concerned, I believe we are only just beginning.

I believe that this can be done without reducing the quality of our core activities. Above all, we must, of course, defend our legislative and budgetary work, but this requires a truly systematic effort. I am therefore very pleased that we have been able to agree on the establishment of a working group in Parliament with the possibility of drawing on external expertise in areas where we can learn a great deal: buildings, maintenance, energy, the environment, procurement, travel and so on. These are areas where we can learn from both industry and public administration.

In areas relating to the organisation of legislative work, interpretation, translation and so on, I am convinced that we can learn from other parliaments and other international organisations. It is also clear that this Parliament has costs that cannot be compared – travel, interpretation and so on – as this is the only multinational legislative parliament in the world, and that is obviously something that we need to take into account.

Lastly – and now I am speaking not as the coordinator for my group, but as a Swedish Social Democrat – if we seriously want to be respected for the way we deal with citizens’ trust and money from taxes, we cannot continue to move Parliament between Brussels and Strasbourg in the long term. Therefore, I appeal to those governments that are now pushing for cuts in the EU budget: put this issue on the agenda in no uncertain terms.

  Paul Rübig (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, I am grateful that this debate is being held here in Strasbourg. With regard to Amendment 1 – buildings – I would like to say that Strasbourg is a city of peace, a place where bridges have been built in Europe. and it was here, for example, that one of our Presidents, Robert Schuman, was a founding father of the European Union. This also provides a basis for the future. This is the headquarters of Arte, a broadcaster that does a huge amount of work in bringing European culture to public attention. We should be proud of this and should consider the idea of building another studio for Parliament opposite the Arte studios, as a place for Europe to meet and set the agenda for the future.

Amendment 2 refers to a single seat. That is what we have. Our single seat is Strasbourg. We should hold to the Treaties we have concluded. That goes without saying.

When we come to the issue of a House of European History in Amendment 4, then it is our duty to show our younger generations how important it is to work for this peace every day. This needs to be documented thoroughly. We have over 1 million visitors per year to our visitor centre and here to Parliament itself; it is projected that the new Parliamentarium will have 100 000 visitors. People want to know how the history of Europe has developed. We also need strong European political parties for this. We need to show solidarity in the face of national conflict and the egoism of individual Member States. We need a strong European Union and this requires strong political parties. Naturally, these also need to be funded.

In relation to Amendment 6 regarding representation: visitors do need to be looked after and have the right to expect proper, orderly services here in the House. That is why tomorrow’s vote is particularly important.

  Georgios Stavrakakis (S&D). – (EL) Mr President, I, too, should like to take my turn in thanking and congratulating our rapporteur on his report and excellent work.

For yet another year, the debate on the guidelines for the administrative budget of the institutions of the European Union is being held while the economic and social crisis is severely testing the budgets of all the States. Everywhere in the European Union, budgets are being prepared on the basis of rationalised public spending and harsh economic measures in numerous sectors of the economy.

In this sense, I support the rapporteur’s position and the need to avoid any superfluous spending or spending which is not immediately necessary, by clearly defining the priorities and, where possible and useful, by redistributing spending, so as to rationalise the administrative budget of those institutions.

However, like the rapporteur, I, too, should like to emphasise that account should be taken, when rationalising administrative spending, of the need to abide by the economic commitments of the European Union, such as the accession of Croatia, and the need to maintain an effective administration that can respond to the enhanced responsibilities of the European Parliament under the Treaty of Lisbon.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – (GA) Mr President, like the other speakers, I commend Mr Vaughan for the good work he has done on this fairly difficult task. He has done a good job.

I think in times of austerity, it is natural that the public at large, and particularly the media, look at politicians and the overall expenditure associated with their activities. This in itself is not a bad thing, and it is good for us to look at our own situation. For that reason, I see no reason why we should not have an external audit of our activities. This would certainly be good in the overall context, but it would also make it easier for us to defend whatever expenditure we have, and certainly it might point out areas that we ourselves would think are perfect but may lead to savings without impacting on the overall effect.

People have also mentioned the single seat and so forth. This is certainly an issue. Having us here in Strasbourg every month is something that many citizens do not even realise is happening; secondly, it does not make a lot of sense to them. So there is a need for a discussion on that, and maybe a need to come to an arrangement with the French and possibly with Strasbourg regarding how matters could be looked at and improved in terms of efficiencies. Also ancillary committees – the Committee of the Regions is definitely something that needs to be looked at in terms of its size, how often it meets, and so forth. So an external audit is something I would welcome.

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

  Paul Rübig (PPE), Blue-card question. – (DE) Mr President, I would like to thank Mr Kelly for bringing up the issue of Members’ expenditure. I would like to say to the Members of this House who are calling for a reduction in allowances and salaries that all Members can decide for themselves how much they spend and work and how much effort they put in to doing their job as well as possible.

For example, they can chose to donate their salary to worthy organisations, to the poor, or the unemployed. Those calling for a reduction should make a public statement indicating what it is they get paid for. Do you think that this would be a good proposal, enabling every Member to take the initiative themselves?

  Seán Kelly (PPE), Blue-card answer. – Mr President, certainly it is up to Members to do what they will in that regard, but I think that the point I made regarding having an external audit is the best and probably the most objective way to look at it. It has been said that we do not see the mote in our own eye, and for that reason, I think it would be better to look at it not in a personalised manner, but in an objective, overall manner. That might lead us to take corrective action, if such was necessary.

  Wojciech Michał Olejniczak (S&D). – (PL) Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur for the excellent and thorough report he has presented to us today. We face new challenges following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. The quality of our work will determine how Europeans live in the future. We have begun reforms in connection with the common agricultural policy and cohesion policy. We are also very active in other areas. We must be very professional and have good support both from the European Parliament’s administrative service and the staff of the Commission, as well as from the people we employ. So the appropriate resources are necessary, and we should not be saving on the quality of our work.

However, we do have a crisis in the European Union. We need to show solidarity with those we keep telling to make savings. This is being said to the Greeks, the Poles and those who live in other countries. I support the idea of freezing the European Parliament’s budget, but at the same time we need to look for many other solutions, too – solutions which will be even more effective. Mention has been made here today of the European Parliament’s seat in Strasbourg. This is something we cannot understand, because we talk about this on a daily basis, and it is also incomprehensible to millions of Europeans, who do not know why the European Parliament has two seats. This should be sorted out immediately and a way found out of this absurd situation. From the very beginning, I have been in favour of the European Parliament having a single seat in Brussels. This will mean savings of many hundreds of millions, savings which we are calling for here today.

  Paweł Robert Kowal (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur for the report, but quite honestly, he need not have bothered. This report could consist of just three words: cut, cut, cut. If we want, today, to set an example to the citizens of Europe, we must cut costs, starting with our own, and it is meaningless – I am speaking, now, to Mr Rübig – to talk about small amounts. Would you entrust your money to someone who does not manage with looking after his own, small amount, Mr Rübig?

Our problem is actually about the fact that we are unable to start with ourselves. We spend such a lot on European Union and European Parliament propaganda. This is the only point on which I am in agreement with Mr Rübig. It is a good idea to give money to fund the House of European History, although I do not know if this money should feature in the budget of the European Parliament. Besides, Mr Rübig, the best propaganda will be if we cut our allowances. The best propaganda will be if we reduce representation expenses by 15%. So the report must either contain figures, or it must simply say: cut, cut, cut.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, in the context of economic constraints currently faced by the Member States, complying with budget discipline is essential. The institutions must display responsibility and budget austerity. At present, the administrative expenditure of the institutions represents approximately 5.8% of the EU’s total budget. With a view to making additional savings, the overlaps and inefficiencies of the budget lines must be identified. Furthermore, the possibilities of making savings after implementing the knowledge management system must be considered. I draw attention to the principles of good management referred to in Article 27 of the Financial Regulation. In this regard, I believe that the institutions’ budgets must clearly reflect the principles of economy, efficiency and effectiveness.

  Jan Kozłowski (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, I think that in the context of the economic crisis and the burdens associated with servicing public debt, it is extremely important for the European Parliament and its Members to show responsibility and budgetary discipline. With this in mind, I agree with the rapporteur that in the coming years we need to take care to draft a realistic budget and to take action which brings long-term savings.

I think freezing budget lines for such things as travel in 2013 is a solution which is very definitely appropriate to the difficulties Europe faces. I agree, too, that in this legislature, building projects should be limited to those which are already in progress. Finally, I think it is crucial to have close cooperation between the Bureau and the Committee on Budgets throughout the whole year, as this will enable a smooth budgetary process and effective implementation of changes which bring real savings.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Mr President, while it is true that much can be done to contain the costs of the European institutions, including Parliament, we are bound to reiterate here our concerns about genuine respect for the principle of multilingualism in this House.

There are obvious shortcomings in the interpretation and translation services, which jeopardise the ability of Members to express themselves in their own language under various circumstances. For example, amendments to this report and others were only accepted in English in the Committee on Budgets. This therefore jeopardises equal treatment for Members, regardless of their nationality. Against this backdrop, the cuts made to the interpretation services can only make the situation worse.

Moreover, it is unacceptable that these cuts could threaten workers essential to the functioning of this House. It is unacceptable that this will exacerbate job insecurity amongst those working in interpretation and translation, jeopardising their jobs and rights.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, austerity for administrative costs and investment to support and encourage growth: these are the keywords of the guidelines for the 2013 budget. I would therefore like to join in the thanks to Mr Vaughan for his work in an atmosphere of great sharing and total cooperation.

At this time of economic crisis, Europe must make its voice heard. We need more Europe and a strong European governance, just as we need – as has already been repeated – Europe to do its part alongside the Member States, giving all European citizens, through the Member States, a clear picture of what Europe is doing in support of growth. We have to start doing this through the budget choices and through our vision of a strategy for growth of the Union and of individual Member States.

I am, however, beginning to think that alongside the cuts, sooner or later, we must also bring in the greatest cut of all, the one that citizens want most, and without which the European spirit in many Member States will continue to be very low. It is difficult to explain to people why we have two seats.

  Nicole Sinclaire (NI). – Mr President, I would like to give my thanks and congratulations to Mr Vaughan for this report as well as my commendation to him for becoming the King Canute of the 21st century, although King Canute would have had a much easier task in stemming the sea than the task of stemming the tide of EU expenditure.

In the middle of an economic and financial crisis and ongoing national budget and consolidation efforts, the EU just does not want to see sense. It does not want to actually reverse expenditure but wants a freeze on inflation, which is probably still an increase. What we actually need is to withdraw expenditure and save taxpayers’ money.

It needs to be by independent assessment. You have the daily allowances of EUR 304 and there will be a significant number of MEPs – and some MEPs I see in this place right now – who sign in on a Friday in Strasbourg when there is no official business, stealing taxpayers’ money. That should stop. Office allowances are only required to be 50% receipted. That should be 90% receipted and they should be independently audited, as mine is independently audited. If that money is not properly spent, it should be returned. The House of History is a colossal waste of taxpayers’ money that should be stopped. End this extravagance and return taxpayers’ money.

  Paul Rübig (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, this debate has revealed that the citizens of the European Union are entitled to know more about the work of this House and what the institutions do for them. For this reason, I suggest that we should increase our public relations work because it is important that these matters should be communicated in all languages in the interests of international awareness. This is what makes our interpreters so important, because the European Parliament is the only parliament in the world in which communication is facilitated in so many linguistic constellations.

For this reason, it is an extremely important element of the budget that the political parties and Members should take a more active role in explaining Europe’s role as a peaceful endeavour, that it is made clear that we are working effectively, and that differences do arise between the Members. That is exactly what today’s debate has shown.

End of the catch-the-eye procedure

  Nicole Sinclaire (NI). – Mr President, on a point of order, in the previous debates on human rights, I had a timed speech and I also had a blue card, but you refused me a second blue card. But we had the previous speaker who had a timed speech and a blue card, and you also gave him a catch-the-eye.

I would also note that the PPE Group here has had several catch-the-eye speakers, even though I was the very first person to make a request. You need to have equality here. If you talk about equality and democracy, at least give some pretence of it in this Chamber.

  President. – Ms Sinclaire, I think everyone had an opportunity to speak. You also had an opportunity, and I do not think there has been an infringement of the rules.

  Derek Vaughan, rapporteur. – Mr President, I, too, would like to thank the shadow rapporteurs and all colleagues here this afternoon for their contributions.

I am pleased that there does seem to be a broad consensus that we need to look to make savings in Parliament in order to achieve a low increase in our budget, and I am sure the Secretary-General is watching on television and taking note of this discussion.

Of course, there will be differences of opinion on how we achieve the savings and how much of a saving needs to be made. We have had examples today of differences over a single seat, the House of European History, staffing levels and translation costs: all differences between colleagues.

Another difference was the role of this working group that I have suggested. On that and other issues, we have tried to be as flexible as possible, so all we are asking for in terms of the working group is that it be considered and the details sorted out at a later date.

The aim of these guidelines is to strike a balance between the views of all colleagues in the Chamber, and the aim at the end of the day will be to get as low an increase in Parliament’s budget as possible, whilst at the same time ensuring the effective running of Parliament.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on 16 February 2012.

  Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy (ALDE). – Mr President, I should like to make the point that we are speaking in a vacuum because of the absence of the Secretary-General and the Vice-Presidents who are responsible for the budget. I believe that this is something that we should consider in the next debates on this issue – that the three of them are all present.

  President. – Thank you. I quite agree with you that when we are debating an issue as important as the budget, the responsible actors should be present. I will forward your objection, with which I agree, to the Presidency of the Parliament.

(The sitting was suspended at 20.05 and resumed at 21.00)

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Jiří Havel (S&D), in writing. – (CS) Members of the European Parliament are well aware, more or less right across the political spectrum, of the need for cost-cutting measures in the current economic situation. However, rather than a short-sighted cutting of funds for the key investments committed to by the EU which will secure Europe’s economic growth in the future, Derek Vaughan’s report emphasises effective management. In other words, the aim is to do more with the available resources. In practice, that means, for example, closer cooperation between EU bodies and institutions, enabling the more effective use of resources, as well as a thorough review of all items in the EU budget, in order to limit unnecessary duplication of some initiatives and so on. Mr Vaughan also proposes freezing the administrative expenditure of all bodies and institutions. The report provides a sober view of the matter, free of counter-productive populism, and I am therefore ready to support it.

  Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD), in writing. – (PL) The European Union is going through the worst crisis it has experienced since its foundation. The sharply rising unemployment, particularly among young people, the collapse of industrial production and trade, and the need for significant savings in the countries which make up the Union, mean that the European Parliament, too, must cut back on expenditure. Therefore, I welcome this report, particularly paragraph 2 and its reference to greater integration of the institutions. Studies have shown that such action would reduce the expenses Parliament incurs in connection with the monthly move to Strasbourg. Looking at the ever worsening financial situation of the Union’s citizens, I cannot see the point of the monthly move, which, on an annual basis, costs around EUR 280 million and results in the emission of 20 000 tonnes of CO2. Neither can we disregard the opinion of the citizens who, in 2002, collected over 1.2 million signatures petitioning for the European Parliament to have a single seat in Brussels.

Another important point contained in the report is the proposal to reduce the budget of the European External Action Service. As the work of this institution shows in practice, despite its significant expenditure, it has not given the European Union a more important position in the eyes of our external partners. Therefore, I think it is necessary to review the costs associated with diplomats’ pay and allowances and Ms Ashton’s travel costs.

IN THE CHAIR: ALEXANDER ALVARO
Vice-President

16. Composition of committees and delegations: see Minutes

17. Blind persons’ access to books (debate)

  President. The next item is the debate on the oral question to the Commission by Erminia Mazzoni, on behalf of the Committee on Petitions, on blind persons’ access to books (O-000006/2012) – (B7-0030/2012) (2011/2894(RSP)).

  Erminia Mazzoni, author. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the question arises from the petition presented by the European Blind Union to the Committee on Petitions, which I chair, in which the petitioners have asked the European Parliament to intervene to support the signing of an internationally binding treaty, in order to ensure that people who are blind, visually impaired or have difficulty reading can freely use books written in Braille, in large print and in audio format, produced in all countries and protected by copyright.

Currently, only 5% of publications can be used by this section of the population. The request follows the opposition expressed first by the Commission and then by the Council to the idea of signing this treaty. Both European institutions have proposed agreements between the stakeholders in the European Union, in the form of simple recommendations on a voluntary basis, under the auspices of the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO). This is definitely a weak approach, which fails to protects the right of a considerable number of European citizens not to be marginalised. The huge limitations on free access to all publications have significant cultural implications, consequences of a social nature that are easy to imagine and, what is more, a negative impact on intellectual recovery and growth in terms of emancipation and independence for these citizens.

Important scientific studies have shown, in fact, that through the use of Braille, especially if it is learned at a young age, blind people can develop their powers of expression and communication and so develop their personality. Thus, allowing a more flexible copyright framework on works for the blind and visually impaired means meeting the needs of a group that is otherwise strongly discriminated against in practical terms.

The will expressed by the Commission and the Council appears to conflict with the 2010-2020 strategy for people with disabilities, and fails to take into account the guidelines contained in the report ‘Unlocking the potential of cultural and creative industries’, which Parliament voted on in this House in May of last year, in disregard of the prerogatives protected by Parliament’s Treaties. What is more, it does not respect the principles enshrined in the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

It is difficult to understand why, on so sensitive a subject, the Commission has changed its position. There are many treaties, to which the EU is a party, relating to the regulation of intellectual property rights. There is currently a draft treaty in this regard under discussion before the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright. It is on this point that we are calling on the Commission and Council to review their position, because today we are witnessing the way these two institutions can, at one table, discuss European anti-discrimination legislation – the discussion is under way on the new general regulations in the fight against discrimination, particularly those involving the disabled – and, at another table, the same two institutions reject the possibility of breaking down such an obvious barrier.

Economic impediments can be discussed and a settlement can always be found. However, the fundamental principle that economic interests must never prevail over the protection of fundamental rights must remain firm. It is on this point that the committee that I chair decided to call upon the institutions, using a question, in an attempt to make the position of the Commission and Council more adequate, more consistent, and more just, as this Parliament has already expressed recently.

  Michel Barnier, Member of the Commission. – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank you, Ms Mazzoni, for giving me the opportunity to speak to Parliament about the issue of the exception to copyright rules for visually impaired people, and about current international discussions. As you know, the European Union is determined, by its very values, to advance the rights of people with disabilities and I have had personal discussions, Ms Mazzoni, with all those organisations which deal, in particular, with visual impairment.

It is vital that the full participation of people with disabilities in social, cultural and economic life becomes a genuine reality in our modern democratic societies. The European Commission has intervened, in particular – as you pointed out – with the 2010-2020 disability strategy. We support the full and effective recognition of the rights of these people with disabilities, as recognised, in particular, by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and by the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

That is the approach that we also uphold in current discussions within the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) concerning the rights of visually impaired people to which your question indeed refers.

I should like, ladies and gentlemen, to clarify things and be more specific. One element of the debate relates to the need for, and usefulness of, a legally binding international legal instrument on exceptions to copyright rules for visually impaired people. In other words, does the objective that we, both you and I, are pursuing, require or demand an international treaty or not?

Independently of this debate, we must also be pragmatic, and focus on a more concrete and more urgent issue. Can the text currently on the table, in its succinctness and in its substance, provide a practical, credible and effective solution to the problems encountered by visually impaired people?

As regards the European Union and current legislation, all Member States have introduced exceptions for visually impaired people in accordance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights and with the directive on copyright in the information society. Furthermore, concrete measures have been taken to encourage, at the level of the European Union, cooperation between rights holders and organisations representing visually impaired people.

More than just an exception, what we also need, of course, is effective cooperation between creators and organisations of visually impaired people to ensure that books become accessible as quickly as possible in the most appropriate formats for those who need them. The need for books in accessible formats for visually impaired people is a real and urgent need. We must therefore ensure that the prime objective of the discussions is to find the best answer in concrete, practical, effective terms, and as quickly as possible.

Ladies and gentlemen, these discussions on substance must be a first step on the way to allowing us, once stakeholders have reached a joint, robust position, to determine the legal nature of the instrument to be introduced. Should it be a treaty? Should it be a recommendation? I am personally open to either of these two positions.

The Commission and the European Union are engaged in constructive discussions. We have helped to move the discussions forward by proposing, with the support of other States, a single text to replace the four previous texts. This text was greeted as a major step forward, also by the World Blind Union. However, I think we should go further in its material content.

On the occasion of the last meeting of WIPO, the European Union and its Member States asked for open discussions to be held on the substance of the text which had to be improved rapidly. Our position on the improvements to be made was communicated in writing and orally to our partners and to interested parties completely transparently. We would thus encourage our partners and all parties to the discussions to get to the heart of the matter as quickly as possible.

As it is a subject, Ms Mazzoni, ladies and gentlemen, in which I am interested and personally involved, as are associations for visually impaired people, I intend to make contact and to talk very shortly with all the governments of the European Union to make more rapid progress and home in on a concrete solution so as to resolve this issue along the lines called for in your question.

  Elena Băsescu, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (RO) Mr President, I start by welcoming the initiative of Ms Erminia Mazzoni to address this oral question. According to estimates, in Europe, there are approximately 30 million people with visual impairment. Additional measures are necessary so that they do not suffer further shortcomings such as access to books. These determine limited opportunities for education, training and subsequent inclusion on the labour market. For example, statistics show that, at present, less than 25% of the blind succeed in obtaining employment. Technological progress provides new opportunities to increase the number of books accessible to visually impaired persons. An important element is the format diversification: audio and electronic books are now available in addition to the Braille publications.

What we are lacking is a European legislative framework enabling the publication and dissemination thereof. I call upon the Commission and the Council to double their efforts for this purpose including by supporting a specific exception from copyright. Furthermore, I consider that the exchange of experience and good practices must be promoted between Member States. In this context, I wish to point out that in Romania, public libraries have the legal obligation to establish sections with books in formats accessible to the blind. Finally, I would like to welcome the generosity of the authors and publishing houses voluntarily offering the rights of publication on a medium adapted for such people.

  Michael Cashman, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, I know Commissioner Barnier well. Commissioner, you have no time for discrimination. I have known you for a very long time and I have seen you defend the principle of equality.

Therefore, I wish to urge you to go further. As you know, we need to take positive action in tackling this worldwide book famine for the blind and people who are visually impaired, in full respect of copyright legislation. Parliament supports a binding treaty, organisations for the blind support a binding treaty, as do most countries. Therefore, Commissioner, I urge you to go forward. Your record on the principle of equality of access is second to none, but blind people across the world are victims of a worldwide book famine. I do not believe that the creators of these works stand as a barrier to access. Can we possibly imagine a world without access to the works of Shakespeare, Victor Hugo and the countless others that enrich our very lives? I urge you to do all you can.

  Marian Harkin, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, over the past two years, we have heard many debates in this Parliament about keeping the rules, whether it is the ‘six-pack’ or the ‘two-pack’ or the fiscal compact.

When it comes to money and budgets, we are asked to keep the rules. Yet when it comes to the rights of persons with a disability or to the petitioners, like the European Blind Union, up to now, we have been told that soft law recommendations and voluntary licences are a better option.

Commissioner Barnier, you spoke of cooperation, of identifying the best solutions, and you have said you are open to constructive discussions. Yet the Commission is not facilitating the access of blind EU citizens, and this is hardly honouring those fine words. What I hear from you right now is: yes, but not yet – we need further negotiations.

In my own country – Ireland – the National Council for the Blind tells us that millions of blind EU citizens face a book famine, in which only a low percentage of books are converted to an accessible format that they can read.

The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the work of the European Blind Union and the Parliament report on unlocking the cultural and creative industries, I believe, Commissioner, provide you and the Commission with a road map. I think all we are doing tonight is asking you to take that pathway.

  Margrete Auken, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DA) Mr President, Commissioner, I will not repeat what has already been said concerning the scale of this problem. It is a major problem, and it is disgraceful, and the strategy that you have presented here will, in reality, achieve nothing. Nothing will happen with regard to what we heard earlier. There are a lot of pleasant words, but there is no action. I am not as nice as Mr Cashman, who tried to smother this in flattering words. I have no use for such things. I need to have clear answers right now. What we need is a proper treaty. We need a binding treaty. We need clear rules in this regard. There can be no point in ‘talking to our partners’ once again. This really is just words. So far, in all these years, nothing has happened. We have said it before and we will say it again: we are in agreement here in this Parliament, and most Member States support this. Therefore, it is no good us behaving as if the problem can be resolved by simply talking about it. The Treaty deals with binding agreements, and it concerns real exemptions and not peculiar arrangements. This is not a commercial issue. It is not about making money – or, more correctly, it should not be about making money. It is about people who want to do something to give the blind something like the same opportunities that the rest of us have. As Mr Cashman put it so clearly earlier, it is terrible to imagine how many people are actually cut off because the interests governing this issue are far too narrow. This time, therefore, I hope you will take us seriously.

  Claudio Morganti, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, welcome once again to Commissioner Barnier. A recent survey published in Italy reports that a blind or visually impaired person reads an average of nine books a year, a very high figure if we consider that the national average is three books per person. Furthermore, no less than 30% of these readers read every day. From these data, it is easy to see that reading is extremely important for people with eyesight problems and I find it really absurd that these issues related to copyright cannot be easily overcome.

The development of new technologies and digital formats should significantly increase the supply, but the problem of copyright often becomes a stumbling block, because of its costs which impact negatively on the decision of publishers and producers. I think that we should therefore, as soon as possible, find an agreement that excludes this particular category of books designed for those in need from the law on copyright and that such an agreement shall be binding in order to avoid possible discriminatory situations.

Books are culture, and people with visual impairments must have the same rights as everyone else to enjoy this valuable opportunity which, as I mentioned at the beginning, blind people make great use of and greatly appreciate.

  Heinz K. Becker (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, as a member of the Committee on Petitions, I would be in favour of Parliament voting against non-binding arrangements. With reference to Ms Mazzoni’s resolution, I believe that we will soon be faced with further steps, namely, that we will also need to consider the online sector. I have established that steps in this direction are already under way in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. However, once the online issue is added, the topic will become even more difficult.

I welcome the fact that these issues are now to be regulated at European level. The good news is that the number of people with visual impairment is declining thanks to medical advances. For this reason, as a member of the Committee on Petitions, I would call on you, Commissioner, to do the right thing by the visually impaired, who suffer discrimination, and enable them to access the most important cultural asset we have, namely the book.

  Phil Prendergast (S&D). – Mr President, this oral question highlights once again the vice-like grip copyright holders have on books and information, even in such an innocuous instance as this.

Blind and print-disabled persons have the same right of access to books as everyone else. However, their rights and their reality are completely at odds with one another, as these people continue to live through what is being termed a ‘book famine’.

The European Blind Union, the European Dyslexia Association, the Dyslexia Association of Ireland, the Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament, and even Parliament itself, have all called on the Commission and the Council to create binding legislation through the World Intellectual Property Organisation, yet the Commission and Council continue to walk the path of soft legislation, despite expert advice and guidance from blind persons’ organisations arguing to the contrary.

Put simply, this legislation would allow organisations to make an adapted copy of books and therefore make more books available to blind and print-disabled persons. That would be an intrinsic good. The need for this legislation is abundantly clear to me, as it should be to everyone in this House.

  Luigi Berlinguer (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what we are asking for is a new treaty to regulate exceptions for the visually impaired on cultural works and on books. This is not charity – it is a fundamental right to access culture.

The European Union and, in particular, the Commission, has not been particularly active: it has not done enough and has, in my opinion, been too conservative, almost to the point, in essence, of boycotting the Treaty itself. I refer to the amendments proposed by the European Union in November in Geneva. Fine words need to be followed up by concrete action.

Voluntary agreements are not enough: it is a treaty that we need. So we must remove the legal obstacles that block the circulation and usage of works in Braille and in electronic format, the latter being particularly suitable for the visually impaired. We must no longer come up with the pretext that the treaty represents a danger for copyright per se.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D). – (LT) Mr President, Europe is home to millions of people for whom books have to be provided in an accessible format – audio, Braille or large print books. However, publishers are rarely interested in such book formats. Therefore, only around 5% of global works are published in a format that is accessible for the visually impaired.

There is, at present, no legal standard that would provide for exception to copyright for cross-border distribution of formats adapted for the blind. Commissioner, do you agree that remedying this state of affairs would entail changing international copyright law in order to let people legally share collections of books across the European Union and beyond?

I would like to call on the Commission and the Council to adopt a binding ‘books without borders’ treaty, which would enable the blind and partially sighted to share published materials worldwide. The World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) is considering the possibility of drawing up an international treaty to improve access to books for the blind and other visually impaired people, and Commissioner, I therefore ask you to support this treaty, as does the blind and partially sighted community in my country, Lithuania.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Ádám Kósa (PPE). – (HU) Mr President, society tends to believe that accessibility is about lifts, ramps and handrails. This is not so. A large portion of people with disabilities – including the deaf, the hard of hearing and, the focus of this debate, the visually impaired and the blind – are denied access to information. Mr President, please record in the minutes that my sign language interpreter did not translate for me just now on my own request, with which I intended to demonstrate what it means to not have access to information. Only 5% of the visually impaired are able to read books. Active political cooperation is necessary.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D). – (RO) Mr President, at the EU-27 level, less than 5% of the published books are accessible to the blind and visually impaired individuals. Such people must have access to published books or printed material in Braille, audio or electronic format. The blind do not have adequate access to books written in Braille format either in bookshops or in libraries. Libraries must be equipped with terminals for the blind which should enable them to have adequate access to literary works in electronic format.

Most of these people are unemployed and therefore do not have an adequate income. That is why financial accessibility to literary works in Braille, electronic or audio format is extremely important. I support the creation of an online European catalogue of works available in accessible formats. I also support a legally binding treaty concerning copyright for books and materials published in electronic format for visually impaired people.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE). – (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, many blind and visually impaired people are listening to you today.

The aim of the European disability strategy 2010-2020 is to remove barriers in lives, but currently, only 5% of books are accessible. These people are limited when it comes to learning, becoming informed and reading like everyone else can, and we do not currently have the tools to quench their thirst for reading.

For that reason, they hoped to hear you were going to work for a binding agreement so that they can access culture, without being reminded of their disability every day.

Consider their thirst, Commissioner, and work for that binding agreement, but keep in mind, too, that we are all potentially disabled.

  Eva Lichtenberger (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, to be honest, your answer disappointed me a little. You obviously want to stick to the old system of complex negotiations with each country, which will again mean that there will be no greater access to literature, in other words, no further opportunities for the blind and visually impaired. I find this doubly sad because the European Union is now blocking a forward step in the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), while many other partners to the treaty would be prepared to move forward. We are missing a huge opportunity here. You are not campaigning in favour of more rights for authors, but rather against people who are to be guaranteed equal access to cultural assets under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, so that they can also fully share in these cultural assets. I am calling on you to remove these barriers and to sign up to a binding treaty.

  Kay Swinburne (ECR). – Mr President, I welcome the motion for a resolution which has resulted from citizens petitioning and agree that we should ensure that books and other written documents are made accessible to our blind and partially-sighted citizens.

The results of a recent study commissioned by the Royal National Institute for the Blind revealed that a mere 15% of the top one thousand most popular books were made available in alternative formats. This is clearly limiting blind people’s access to written material. However, advances in technology are resulting in improved and expanded opportunities being made available to those currently disadvantaged by the absence of suitable print media. We need to ensure that appropriate technology is suitably funded so that blind and partially-sighted citizens can benefit at a reasonable cost from the new computerised solutions emerging. As we all begin to make the transition to electronic formats for our books, we need to ensure that suitable devices and computer applications for the blind are also being developed so that they, too, can participate in this new way of accessing literature.

  Jaroslav Paška (EFD). – (SK) Mr President, our blind and visually-impaired citizens have approached me for help in resolving their problem concerning the granting of exemptions from copyright for the cross-border distribution of works specially made ​​or modified for them.

The Copyright Committee of the World Intellectual Property Organisation proposes to deal with the request by the blind and print-disabled community by means of a binding international treaty that would open up copyright for them, giving them unrestricted access to special printed matter from other countries. For the representatives of our blind and visually-impaired fellow citizens, this would be a better solution than the adoption of non-binding recommendations as proposed by the representatives of the European Union, and they are therefore striving to achieve a change in the position of the EU. Since Parliament already assessed such a solution as being appropriate in April 2011, we should support the request made by our visually-impaired and blind fellow citizens.

  Nicole Sinclaire (NI). – Mr President, I am pleased to support any initiative that empowers and enables physically disadvantaged people, in this case, the blind and partially sighted.

The EU has been, in my opinion, insensitive to the needs of millions of blind and partially-sighted people. All Member States and relevant institutions should make the strongest possible representations to the World Intellectual Property Organisation in Geneva in June for a full, binding treaty. This is the best way to ensure the fundamental right to read that is currently denied to far too many – apparently 300 million worldwide.

Put an end to this famine.

  Peter Jahr (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, I would also like to thank the previous speakers for their discipline. I am very grateful to Ms Mazzoni for taking up these resolutions. What is the issue at stake? The resolution refers to the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, according to which discrimination on grounds of disability is to be prevented, and calls on the Council and Commission to press for a treaty to be concluded within the framework of the World Intellectual Property Organisation. Thus, the Committee on Petitions will repeat a decision made by Parliament last year, in which we already called for a legally binding solution. Commissioner, I am sure you will understand our irritation and impatience at having to urge you yet again to take up Parliament’s suggestion and to do all that you can to ensure that a binding treaty is concluded. The time is finally ripe. We really are talking about some of the weakest members of society. We are talking about people with a disability, and this group has earned a binding treaty.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE). – (ES) Mr President, I wanted to take the floor because, to be quite honest, I am flabbergasted.

Thirty million people in Europe have difficulties with vision or reading, but only 5% of books are in a readable format for them, and that is in rich countries, it is not even 1% in poor countries. What does the champion for basic rights do? What does the European Union do? It hides behind economic reasons. Rather than defending a fundamental, basic principle, what it does is find problems when it should be taking the lead on the worldwide stage in the fight for an international agreement that specifically allows access to reading for people with difficulties. These people are starved of reading.

What surprises me is that it has to be the European Parliament that urges the Commission, represented here, to lead this debate in international fora. The same message would be conveyed to the Council if it were present.

What has to be done, will be done, however, and we obviously hope that this debate will help to alter some of the attitudes that have been obstructive up to now.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, there are 30 million visually impaired people in the EU. They are robbed of the right to the same unrestricted access to books that sighted people enjoy. Let me put this a different way. If we state things precisely, then visually impaired people are robbed of the right to education. At a time in which we are campaigning for better training and education, we are guilty of excluding visually impaired people from these opportunities. This discrimination has to stop. So, please lend your support to the cause of the visually impaired, giving them equal opportunities and, above all, take action.

End of the catch-the-eye procedure

  Michel Barnier, Member of the Commission. – (FR) Mr President, first of all, I am very happy that all of you have put your questions vehemently, critically, with the utmost sincerity, to the Commission and, on the whole, I feel encouraged by what you have requested from the Commission.

I have listened very attentively to you, ladies and gentlemen, on a subject in which I am, for a number of reasons, personally involved in my public life, namely, the place of people with disabilities, whatever their disability or illness. I believe, indeed, as Ms Harkin said when she spoke about a citizen’s Europe, as Ms Lichtenberger said, that those with the greatest difficulties, with the greatest vulnerabilities, who have a disability, have more right than others to the accessibility to which you, Ms Lichtenberger, referred.

Many of you, Mr Morganti, Ms Băsescu, Ms Blinkevičiūtė, Ms Werthmann, Ms Ţicău, Mr Romeva, have mentioned the number of people – several million – who suffer from a disability and, particularly, from a visual impairment. In my case, to pick up on what Mr Cashman has just said, I find the current discrimination towards these people intolerable. I say this also to Ms Prendergast and Ms Swinburne, who spoke on this subject.

We are involved in a dialogue with our international partners and the Commission intends to work, as it has been encouraged to do by the view of the European Parliament, to advance the rights of visually impaired people. Before embarking on a legally binding treaty, as you wish to do and to which I am open – and I shall tell you under which conditions – we must, ladies and gentlemen, and I would ask you to understand this, identify what should be the content of this text so that it genuinely provides satisfactory solutions to the problem of discrimination against people with disabilities.

I am a very down-to-earth person. I am very sensitive to this cause. I have worked on it since the beginning of my mandate as European Commissioner through meeting with associations dealing with visual impairments, and I met with them again just a few days ago in Spain and at their European Federation in Brussels. I met people from WIPO.

I have also – Ms Auken, Mr Becker, as I am talking about practical solutions – actively worked on a memorandum of agreement that I signed personally some months ago, in September 2010, between publishers and visually impaired people. This agreement provides for the introduction of structures, a network of intermediaries which will enable the circulation and distribution to visually impaired people of works accessible throughout the entire European Union. I told you what I could do immediately and I am committed to that. What we must do immediately is to work with publishers and with associations for visually impaired people on these concrete steps forward and we shall continue to work on the most effective text of a potential legally binding treaty.

Today, there is a considerable distance between the compromise text which has been drawn up and the concrete progress that we must make. Nor is it clear, indeed, that it is sufficiently useful, in particular, for visually impaired people. I would therefore say to Ms Harkin, Mr Paška, Mr Jahr, and to each and every one of you, that what I think is needed for genuine progress – and not speeches, wishes or texts, of a merely technical or legal nature, as the Commission sometimes does – for genuine practical progress, I must be sure of the quality of the content and, in this respect, we have made clear, constructive suggestions to all our partners.

How can we embark, as you wish, on producing a legally binding treaty? If I want to do that, I need a mandate from the Council. First of all, I need an agreement from the College. I think that I will get it. Furthermore, I need an agreement from the Council and I shall ask for this mandate in order to negotiate a legally binding treaty, subject to approval by the Commission.

However, Ms Auken, you have said that all Member States agree on this. That is not the information that I have. Today, a number of states, for other governmental reasons, do not yet share this line of thinking. What I need is sufficient support. I am perfectly happy to ask the Council for a mandate, but if I fail, if the Council refuses to give me one, we shall have made no progress. Consequently, I should like, over the coming weeks, to find a satisfactory agreement at the level of the Member States in order to be able to pursue actively the idea of a treaty. Ladies and gentlemen, I shall meet the governments, one by one, and I shall ask for this mandate in a forthcoming Council meeting. However, I want to be sure that I will get it and I want to be sure that it will bring about a practical change to the situation.

That is my current thinking. I say this to you: a proposal that I shall make to my fellow Members of the European Commission to gain the agreement of the College in order to request this mandate; a discussion that I shall conduct personally with my colleagues, with each of the governments which belong to the Council to obtain this mandate, and then we shall to able to make progress.

Mr Berlinguer, you know perfectly well that I am not a conservative. I say this also to Ms Bilbao. I feel encouraged by your resolution. I say this, in particular, to Ms Mazzoni and I say this also in a very particular way to your colleague, Mr Kósa, who spoke extremely clearly in favour of this treaty. These are the steps that I intend to take. As I usually do what I say I am going to do, I shall be particularly careful to report to you on these steps extremely clearly and openly, so that you are informed about any difficulties that I may encounter. However, I am going to make progress on this issue in the context of respect for the Charter of Fundamental Rights, of the Convention and of the Treaty. I am going to make real progress in the coming weeks along the lines that I have just explained to you.

  President. – I have received one motion for a resolution tabled in accordance with Rule 115(5) of the Rules of Procedure⁽¹⁾.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Thursday, 16 February, at 12.00.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Paweł Robert Kowal (ECR), in writing. – (PL) I am strongly in favour of the motion for a resolution on Petition 0924/2011 by Dan Pescod, on behalf of the European Blind Union (EBU)/Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB), on access by blind people to books and other printed products.

We should show particular sensitivity to the needs of the millions of blind and partially sighted people in Europe. These people, as well as other people who have difficulty reading because of a disability, need publications in accessible formats, such as large print, audio or Braille. Today, particularly in view of the widespread availability of the Internet, access to information – rapid access, without further barriers – is, in fact, something which guarantees that people are able to exercise their civil and social rights in full. The lack of this access means, in reality, a restriction of the rights of citizens who, as it is, are already the victims of a disability. Facilitating access to the benefits of culture in the form of books, discs and the press is an essential part of what should be done to help blind and visually impaired people and, most importantly, it determines whether they can obtain the education they need. We ought to do whatever is in our power to ensure that the millions of blind and partially sighted people in Europe can enjoy their fundamental right – the right to read and to have access to books and publications.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – Nowadays, there is a growing trend to concentrate on our personal problems without thinking about others. However, there are people who are limited in their capabilities due to some strokes of fate. Our duty is not only to accept them but to do our best to make them feel fully-fledged members of our society. By facilitating access to books for the blind, we are taking the right path towards this aim. The blind should be protected and assisted by internationally binding laws and treaties; their access to books and other printed product should be facilitated to the maximum extent possible.

  Olga Sehnalová (S&D), in writing. – (CS) In October last year, I signed an initiative of the World Blind Union, together with the European Blind Union, which calls for an effective solution to the problem of availability of books and other printed materials for blind people and people with reading disabilities. The initiative demands that the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) adopt a legally binding exemption in relation to copyright in the area of copying and other distribution of printed materials. The Commission and the Council, however, are proposing only a non-binding recommendation, which I consider wholly insufficient. I therefore fully support the European Parliament resolution, which follows on from a question on the oral response of Erminia Mazzoni and calls on the Commission to reconsider its position. I consider this step to be a logical continuation of the support from the European Parliament which, in its resolution of May last year on unleashing the potential of the cultural and creative sectors of industry, backed the legally binding nature of this copyright exemption. In practice, that would mean including the exemption in the relevant binding legislation, both at international level – modifying WIPO treaties – and at European level – Directive 2001/29/EC. The Commission has a key role, of course, in both cases. In view of the options now offered by the new communications media, including the Internet, which we make ever greater use of in everyday life, it would be truly regrettable if we did not also make full use of this opportunity to benefit blind people and people with reading disabilities.

  Joanna Katarzyna Skrzydlewska (PPE), in writing. – (PL) For people who have a visual disability, the lack of books published in accessible formats is a barrier which is both significant and difficult to remove, making full integration with society impossible. The restricted access to such publications which affects blind or visually impaired people also means restricted access to opportunities to enhance their knowledge, obtain an education and, in relation to this, improve their situation in the labour market. There is no doubt that all European Union bodies should support measures which aim to promote equal opportunities for disabled people and to combat their social exclusion.

In my opinion, therefore, the draft of the treaty advanced, among others, by the World Blind Union, requires very careful attention and should not be blocked by the European Union. The measures proposed in the treaty make it easier for people who have a visual disability to use published material on the basis of international exchange, which also combats discrimination against blind and visually impaired people.

(1) See Minutes

18. Deposit guarantee schemes (debate)

  President. – The next item is the report by Peter Simon, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on deposit guarantee schemes (recast)

(COM(2010)0368) – (C7-0177/2010) – (2010/0207(COD)) (A7-0225/2011).

  Peter Simon, rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, tomorrow we are to vote on the new regulation on the deposit guarantee scheme at first reading. This is remarkable on several counts. Firstly, on a procedural level, because, as part of the new regulation of the financial markets, we have thus far managed to reach an agreement between the Council and Parliament at first reading, where both sides at least had a solution that they agreed they could live with. That is not the case here. Agreement between the Council and Parliament has proved impossible.

The other remarkable thing is that this proved impossible at a point where the new financial market regulations are most tangible to the people of Europe, because it is their fate at stake, their savings books and their current accounts – in other words, their money.

The European Commission made a proposal that initially seemed a little too inflexible in Parliament’s view when it came to the way in which guarantee schemes were to be organised. As rapporteur, I am very pleased that, thanks to the excellent support, cooperation and constant dialogue with the shadow rapporteurs, I have finally succeeded in producing a draft that takes account of this. This means that in future, the principles promised by politicians in all Member States to their people will be embraced in Europe and that, in the event of future bank crises and bank failures, the taxpayer will not be required to pick up the tab, but rather the banks will have saved the necessary resources in a fund during the good times, or at least the less bad times, to enable them to pay depositors, current account holders and savers in the event of a crisis involving the collapse of a bank.

In addition to suggesting such a stable fund, we also came up with a solution for the periods within which ordinary citizens should get their money back. I think that the period of one week that we suggest is within a timeframe where people will still manage to get by and will be able to go about their daily business without needing additional cash. We did not think that longer periods without access to finances would be reasonable.

We continue to believe that we need to ensure that the different risk profiles of the banks in Europe should be taken into account when payments are made into a guarantee fund. Riskier banks should be required to pay in more than banks that have a lower risk because of their business models.

All of these principles were brought together into an overall draft here in Parliament, finding broad majority support in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, in a broad coalition of parties, from the Left, through the Socialists, the Greens and the Liberals to the Conservatives. When we came to negotiate with the Member States, this made it all the more difficult for us to understand why they were unwilling to provide the necessary resources for a guarantee fund, to be provided by the banks in order to establish sufficient stability, why it proved impossible to achieve a faster payout for depositors, and why a consumer-friendly solution could not be found, even after eight months of negotiations. We therefore agreed, by means of a first reading, to give a clear signal in favour of consumer protection in Europe. We are prepared to go to a swift second reading with the Council. We wish to thank the Commission for its efforts in brokering a deal. However, we believe that tomorrow, we will have to show the European public what we think is appropriate in relation to depositor protection in Europe.

  Michel Barnier, Member of the Commission. – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the crisis has made us face hard facts: banks do go bankrupt. Deposit guarantees are a vital instrument in protecting the public from the consequences of a bank failure. They also provide a tool for prevention and prevention is always much less costly than a cure because depositors know that, if the worst comes to the worst, they will be entitled to compensation.

This proposal has been on the table for a year and a half. I have not forgotten that Parliament has supported us since the beginning, and I should personally like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Simon, and also the shadow rapporteurs, for all your hard work and your support on this proposal. I wholly support the level of ambition that you just referred to, Mr Simon, and many of the concrete proposals contained in the report. I understand why Parliament decided to include this matter on the agenda of the plenary.

Your report clearly shows that the Commission and Parliament are pursuing the same objectives.

First, an adequate level of pre-financing. It is one thing to promise high compensation – two years ago, we raised the level of cover to EUR 100 000 – however the money has to be there. Our scheme is based upon the idea that the guarantee must be borne by the companies themselves.

Secondly, a speedy reduction in payment deadlines. Since late 2010, depositors are guaranteed to receive compensation within 20 working days, namely one month. That is a step forward, but not far enough, as you yourself have said. How can you feed a family for a month without access to a current account? We propose seven days and we think that is the right length, even if it is to be achieved gradually. It is technically possible and, furthermore, some countries have already achieved it.

Thirdly, contributions linked to risks. It is quite right for a bank with higher risks to contribute more. This is a matter of justice, and also stands to reason.

Fourthly, it must work well with crisis management tools. There is more than one way to protect depositors from bank failure. Therefore, provision could be made, in managing the bank’s crisis, to maintain access to accounts, for example, by transferring the accounts to another bank, which could be advantageous for depositors.

This kind of operation has a cost, and that is why our proposal authorised the further use of a guarantee fund for the purposes of early intervention or orderly resolution. You understood that and you indeed supported and even extended this proposal. Deposit guarantee and orderly resolution of banks are supplementary tools to guarantee continuity of access by depositors to their funds, to prevent rushes on banks and to maintain the stability of the entire system.

Of course, each of us has our own views. I am sorry, for example, that guarantee schemes can no longer legally borrow from their opposite numbers in other countries. The proposal was undoubtedly ahead of its time; we even thought that we were being moderate whilst you had recommended a genuine ‘pan-European’ scheme. However, I am sure, Mr Simon, that this idea will gain ground.

I note, ladies and gentlemen, that after the efforts of the Polish Presidency, the Danish Presidency has, to date, spared no effort and I would like to thank it for having advanced the positions of the Council, which, to be honest, are not always as ambitious as you or I would wish for.

Neither shall I go back over the work carried out by Parliament over the last few months. Nonetheless, I remain convinced, on the one hand, of the goodwill of the Council – and of the Danish Presidency in particular – and of your own, of which I am aware, and I am still convinced, ladies and gentlemen, that we are extremely close to an agreement.

Of course, such an agreement, if it is to come about, must take account of each party’s red lines and, in particular, the red lines to which you yourself referred and that you described in rigorous detail in relation to the Commission and to Parliament. If I understood the rapporteur correctly, there are certain essential points: significant pre-financing allocated to a guarantee fund, a credible timetable for reducing payment deadlines, and then the contribution which must be based on risk.

Mr Simon, ladies and gentlemen, I think that now, regardless of any decision you make about procedure, we should concentrate on these key issues if we are to reach an agreement as quickly as possible given the crisis we find ourselves in and faced with the concerns, the anxiety and sometimes even the anger of a number of our citizens. I believe that the Council – by drawing closer to your position – Parliament and the Commission would carry out their work effectively if they bring a rapid solution to this deposit guarantee scheme which I believe to be truly of general interest.

  Zuzana Roithová, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection. – (CS) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as rapporteur of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection for this report, I would like to express my satisfaction that all of the key proposals from our perspective were incorporated into the final text. This mainly involved changes to the calculation of target amounts for deposits covered, deposit guarantees for small municipalities, supplements to the definition of savings books, and also the pushing through of short-term guarantees for deposits above EUR 100 000 in relation to property sales and the like.

I am pleased that it will also be possible to use funds preventively for rescuing banks. We succeeded in pushing through information on the function of deposit guarantees, not only for new customers, but also for existing customers. I also consider it a success that contributions will correspond to the risk profile of the financial institution, so that a risk-free building society will contribute less than a high-risk credit union. As a result of this, bank costs will fall and deposit security will increase.

We will vote here tomorrow on an instrument which should restore the trust of our citizens in the financial markets. I would like to thank the Commission for the proposal.

  Dimitar Stoyanov, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs. – (BG) Mr President, I would like to start off by thanking all of my colleagues who have given me this opportunity today to address the plenary on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs. When reviewing the proposal for a directive on deposit guarantee schemes, the first task for the Committee on Legal Affairs was to investigate the legal basis for approving this act. The act was found to be in accordance with the Treaties. Following this review, the Committee approved a total of 16 proposals for amendments to the directive, some of which were accepted by the committee responsible and some were not. The underlying problem, one of the main suggestions of the Committee on Legal Affairs, was to do with the payout period, with the Committee proposing an extension of this period of up to four weeks. Our reason for this was that we consulted with a number of deposit guarantee schemes. We were therefore convinced that the payout period of five business days is practically impossible. On this point, I do not wish to disagree with the opinion given by the rapporteur and the Commissioner, who state that in the event of any bank going bankrupt, people still have to provide for themselves. I am of the opinion that no one supports themselves by relying solely on their savings. I believe that enabling the schemes to invest and work with their assets is much more important because, as it stands at the moment, their available assets will have to be kept liquid almost permanently in order to meet the short payout period.

The other two proposals related to lending between schemes have, I see, been removed altogether from the directive by the committee responsible. Therefore, our proposal has become pointless despite our considerable efforts to improve it. With regard to the delegated acts, as mentioned in the very beginning, we extended the objection period from one to two months, although the approach based on three plus three months, which I support, has already been adopted.

  Burkhard Balz, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I can only agree with Mr Simon. I very much regret that we did not succeed in completing this report by the end of last year as planned. From my point of view, and that of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), our text offers a well-balanced approach which increases security and protection for depositors, on the one hand, while avoiding excessive demands on the banks, on the other.

In my opinion, we also succeeded in striking the right balance between harmonisation and flexibility. It was clear that we would need to negotiate hard with the Council on some issues. However, I never expected that the Member States would block any substantial rapprochement.

The Member States declared several times that they were unwilling to commit to a deposit guarantee scheme as long as we had no proposals in relation to crisis resolution. We all know, however, just how long we have been held up with the report on crisis resolution.

I believe that we have no other choice than to vote on this report tomorrow in plenary after more than six months of waiting. I believe that we need truly credible, reliable deposit guarantee schemes in the European Union. If the Council believes differently, it should answer to the public on this issue. We have played our part as colegislators. I would like to thank Mr Simon and the other shadow rapporteurs expressly for their extraordinarily positive and productive cooperation.

  Wolf Klinz, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, when the Lehman Brothers Bank in New York collapsed in March 2008, the global financial crisis reached its first high point. For small-scale savers and depositors, this crisis began a year earlier, when Northern Rock in the United Kingdom ran into difficulties and long queues of depositors suddenly began to form outside bank buildings, with customers waiting to withdraw their money.

This was not just limited to Northern Rock, but was also evident in other banks too. The uncertainty among savers, in particular small-scale depositors, was enormous, which was why national governments found themselves forced to guarantee investments above the contractually guaranteed minimum level. Some states, like Germany and Ireland, actually guaranteed deposits to an unlimited extent, something that could not be sustained in the long term. The divergence between the deposit guarantee schemes in Europe came at a price at the time.

That is why the Commission rightly said that we must ensure order and we must present a uniform deposit guarantee scheme for all 27 Member States of the European Union. It did this in an extremely convincing and acceptable way. The gaps were closed, depositor security was strengthened and a broad degree of harmonisation was established.

As representatives of Parliament, we support this proposal. We had thought that we could have tabled one or two improvements. Unfortunately, as Mr Balz has already explained, our negotiations with the Council have been unsuccessful to date. Nonetheless, we are not giving up hope, but believe that we may still succeed in the coming months.

The following is an important point, however: a deposit guarantee scheme protects depositors and is therefore necessary. However, it is even more important that it should not run out of money. Even more important again is that insolvency, or even difficulty, should be avoided, and that we should have preventive measures in place. That is why we urgently await the Commission’s presentation of the crisis and process management dossier.

  Sven Giegold, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, it is good to see a native of Düsseldorf in the chair. Firstly, I would like to point out that it is actually 18 months since the Commission presented its proposal. The proposal became necessary after it was found in several countries throughout Europe, including Germany, that the deposit guarantee schemes were unable to keep the promises made, and that was the case right across the various banking sectors. The Commission tabled an ambitious proposal and Parliament did not avert its eyes from the crisis.

It is abundantly clear that the banking system is under stress and we must avoid fanning the flames even further. This is why we were prepared to agree to a compromise reached on a cross-party basis that would involve a significant reduction in the Commission’s requirements with regard to the level of deposits to be saved. We were prepared to ensure that the deposit period would be extended. In our proposal, we also ensured that the tried-and-tested bank guarantee systems would be preserved. Despite all our willingness to compromise, the Council has so far refused to meet our demands. I am certain that most of the citizens of Europe do not want this. They want a guarantee scheme for deposits that has enough cover to make it credible that higher risk banks should be required to pay more than those who take fewer risks, and which is in a position to pay out money to the public quickly.

We cannot wait for this any longer. This grand coalition of the three big Member States who have blocked this for so long is now beginning to weaken. It is time for a majority vote in the Council. I am glad indeed that the Commission is on our side in relation to our central demands. I look forward to continued positive cooperation and a prompt agreement in the interests of our citizens.

  President. – Thank you very much, Mr Giegold. It is a pity that the Council is not here to listen to what you have to say.

  Vicky Ford, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, the purpose of the deposit guarantee scheme is to put an end to the scenes of queues of frightened customers, desperately trying to get their cash out of a failing bank and to stop banks having to be bailed out by taxpayers. I agree with this. We all want to give people confidence that their money is safe with a bank.

I have supported the rapporteur in many key areas, such as risk-based contributions and the emergency payout period. Banks must have proper computer systems for a rapid return of funds. Parliament is right to fight for this.

I recognise that there needs to be a level playing field across the single market, but I am concerned that this report will pull vital funds out of some of our economies. Many governments share these concerns, including Mario Monti’s I understand.

The question is how to pay out funds. The proposal forces banks to take the equivalent of one and half cents in every euro – or one and a half pence in every pound – away from lending to businesses and into supposedly safe investments, with unlimited investments allowed in sovereign debt.

This fund, equal to 1.5% of deposits, may be enough in countries where there are many small banks, but it would not be enough in countries which have very concentrated markets and are dominated by huge players. That is why in the UK, for example, the government has gone further to protect depositors – but in a different way, with ring fencing, higher capital ratios and the right to pull in funds retrospectively.

Let me be clear. I completely support Member States who want to introduce pre-funded schemes if that works for consumer protection in their market, but for this directive to work throughout, it must take account of the realities and differences in our national markets. While we will continue to support the rapporteur where we can, I hope he will take the opportunity to listen to the concerns of a number of different countries and work towards a better proposal supporting both the depositors and those in need of lending commitments from banks.

  Jaroslav Paška, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (SK) Mr President, I would like to begin by saying that any strengthening of the deposit guarantee scheme is good news for citizens who deposit their savings in financial institutions. The revision of Directive 94/19/EC on deposit guarantee schemes is justified today by the fact that we now have several dozen different deposit guarantee schemes in the EU with various responsibilities for financial institutions and varying degrees of cover for deposits. The same rules for the protection of deposits throughout the European Union and the legal entitlement of depositors to protection of up to EUR 100 000 will give depositors in all countries the same certainty, thus avoiding unnecessary movements of deposits between countries. However, the mechanism for lending money between Member States’ systems, which could, under certain circumstances, become the means by which the crisis spills over from one country to another, seems problematic to me and would certainly not be good.

  Kay Swinburne (ECR). – Mr President, the aim of this directive is clear: to protect individuals’ deposits when an individual bank collapses, or even when the European banking system itself is failing. The crisis showed that this is an area where increased Europe-wide coordination is necessary. During the worst of the crisis, we saw capital move from individual banks in some countries to banks in different Member States offering better deposit protection regimes, which added to the general turmoil.

Whether or not to pre-fund a deposit guarantee scheme is one of the outstanding issues. Alternative schemes have worked effectively across many Member States, even during the crisis. I therefore fail to see the justification for a solely pre-funded solution. We need to be more flexible in our approach. According to estimates by the UK Treasury, to pre-fund 1.5% of all British deposits would amount to an excess of EUR 15 billion being taken out of the economy. This would mean EUR 15 billion less capital available to provide loans for small businesses. We need to recognise that alternative systems do – and should – continue to exist.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule149(8))

  Sven Giegold (Verts/ALE), Blue-card question. – I would like to know whether you are aware that studies show very clearly that the amount of capital is not the key variable in showing how much lending happens in the real economy. Most banks use a large amount of money in order to take it – exactly as you were describing – out of real economic activity. So the real question is: how are banks regulated? It is not about setting aside 1%. So I would like to know whether you were aware of these studies and whether you took them into account in your deliberations.

  Kay Swinburne (ECR), Blue-card answer. – Mr President, I would like to thank Mr Giegold for the question. I am aware of all the different systems, but I guess my real concern here is that there is not one size that has to fit all. We can find different ways of doing this, and where Member States have got effective systems in place – and there are many Member States which do – we need to take into account the fact that their systems work effectively.

So if it suits people to have pre-funded, fine; but if we need a mixed system, then that should also be fine. We should not have to fit everything into one box.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, deposit guarantees represent an indispensable element for the credit institutions’ supervisory system. The system will allow compensation of depositors up to a certain ceiling, established at EUR 100 000. Depositors are exempt from participation in long insolvency procedures. At present, EU systems provide different protection levels for deposits and impose unequal financial obligations on the banks. It is important that the deposit guarantee system should ensure financial stability for clients. That is why depositors must be informed with respect to both guaranteed and non-guaranteed financial products.

I support the ex ante funding of the systems and differentiated contributions to deposit guarantee systems. I wish to point out that such systems must be permanently supervised. It is essential to perform crisis simulations for the systems used.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D). – (RO) Mr President, the approximately 40 deposit guarantee systems in the EU ensure different deposit protection levels for different groups of depositors, and impose different financial obligations on the banks, limiting the internal market benefits. The minimum guarantee level established at EUR 100 000 provided for in this directive ensures protection for a greater part of the deposits, in the interest of both consumer protection and stability of the financial system.

It is important that all depositors should benefit from the same guarantee level irrespective of whether or not the currency of the Member State is the euro. In the event that an insolvent credit institution is closed, the depositors of any of the subsidiaries located in a Member State other than that where the credit institution is established must be protected by the same guarantee system as the other depositors of that institution.

End of the catch-the-eye procedure

  Michel Barnier, Member of the Commission. – (FR) Mr President, I have listened very carefully to what has been said by your rapporteur in his own speech and thereafter. I would like to thank Ms Roithová and Mr Stoyanov, the rapporteurs for their committees, for having welcomed the improvements proposed for this Commission text by the Commission and by your rapporteur to make the guarantee scheme more effective and less costly, as indeed Mr Simon has pointed out, particularly for the most vulnerable, of whom there are many at present.

I would like to thank Mr Balz for having pointed out the logical link – in a sense, the synergy – that I myself had proposed in the discussions, with the plan for the resolution scheme that the Commission is about to propose in the coming weeks. Mr Klinz, first of all, very strongly emphasised how important it is to have a scheme – you said a single European scheme – or at least an identical one, so that countries lagging behind can catch up with those who have already introduced this guarantee scheme. This must be a consistent scheme and I, like you, Mr Klinz, Mr Paška and Ms Băsescu, think that this helps the financial stability of the European Union.

This harmonisation that Mr Klinz and Ms Ţicău have just mentioned will be one of the major achievements of this plan when it is made official and operational. I would like to point out, ladies and gentlemen, that these patient, tenacious, week-on-week efforts are all working in the same direction, towards a single market for financial services, much as we have, for 50 years, been building a single market in all the other domains. However, I would like to be the Commissioner who, with you, will develop and, if possible, bring to completion the single market in financial services. This text contributes to that.

Mr Giegold requested, as I myself have done, new advances from the Council to enable us to reach a compromise as quickly as possible and I share, Mr Giegold, your point of view, that, and I had said this myself as had Mr Simon, that a riskier bank must pay more. That is clearly the rationale behind this text.

I would like to say just a word to Ms Ford and Ms Swinburne who have scrutinised this text closely. I honestly believe, Ms Ford, Ms Swinburne, that together, we have struck the right balance between prevention and the costs of prevention. I should like to note further that this text allows for a transition period during which the guarantee fund will progressively become fully functional and complete.

I should also like to note that this text has a signal advantage. It allows a mixture, with ex ante prevention being added to ex post cure. You can see, and here I am addressing Ms Ford and Ms Swinburne, that when we have not sufficiently planned for ex ante prevention, or indeed planned for it at all, we end up with deposit guarantee schemes in deficit. That is the case in a number of countries. I would like to say that this scheme seems to me to have struck the right balance

I also think that when we speak about all these matters – Mr Klinz you spoke about the crisis and the failure of a particular bank – I shall not fail to remember that it was clearly the financial crisis and the behaviour of a number of banks that shattered growth and placed many citizens in great difficulties.

I would like – as I think I have replied to everyone – to thank you for your support and simply say to Mr Simon that as Commissioner responsible for this matter, I have confidence in him and the coordinator. I have faith in you regarding a text that provides a good compromise for the economy, for depositors – particularly the most vulnerable – and one which will enable a rapid solution to be reached. I shall continue to be available to facilitate an agreement between the Council and Parliament.

Ladies and gentlemen, given the current situation, this citizen project is too important to remain in the realms of theory. We must bring this project to a successful conclusion. It is crucial for the citizen’s Europe that we wish to construct and also to provide a practical response to the worries and concerns of a number of citizens.

That is why I would like to thank you, Mr Simon, for the efforts that you will continue to make in the coming hours, days and weeks to enable us to reach an agreement with the Council. In any case, I shall be ready to play my part in it.

  Peter Simon, rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, I can only return these expressions of thanks in equal measure. Like you, I am convinced that there is a positive prospect of success in the coming weeks and months under the Danish Presidency, provided all those involved, by which I mean quite explicitly the Council, enter into constructive negotiations. Constructive negotiations also mean being willing actually to provide certain minimum standards in these guarantee schemes, as emphasised verbally on frequent occasions to the public. Then I believe that we will have no problem and that we will start to see light at the end of the tunnel.

I would like to thank the rapporteurs and the shadow rapporteurs for their kind words and for their support to date. I believe that we will also be able to continue working together in this positive vein in the coming months and would like to add my voice to that of Mr Barnier in relation to what we have heard from Ms Ford and Ms Swinburne. I think I could not have put it better myself at this point.

I would therefore like to limit my answer to a single point, namely, to the comment made by Mr Stoyanov in relation to the question of a four week payout period versus a seven day payout period. None of us want to make promises that we cannot keep. We therefore need to make it clear that the schemes can pay out within the promised deadlines. National legislation requires British banks to take all the necessary steps to facilitate this. They have already been able to do that. If British banks can do this in seven days, then I believe banks in your country, and mine too, will be able to do the same. We will allow them sufficient time to be able to make money available as quickly as possible in the interests of the public. I believe that this is a point that we will need to discuss further in our forthcoming negotiations with the Council. I would again like to thank all my colleagues and hope that we shall produce a result under the Danish Presidency.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow at 12.00.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Iliana Ivanova (PPE), in writing. – (BG) As a consequence of the considerable gaps in the existing legal framework for deposit guarantee schemes that have became evident during the financial crisis, my colleagues and I worked diligently on reforming the European directive currently in place. We were able to achieve a balanced text that protects citizens’ savings better and, at the same time, does not pose an excessive risk to the banks. Our proposals cover the stability of the deposit insurance funds, compensation payout period and recognition of multiple risk levels. I would like to emphasise that guaranteeing assets of up to EUR 100 000 is not a sufficient condition for providing reliable protection. Therefore, we proposed preliminary (ex ante) financing schemes and the implementation of a risk assessment system. This allows riskier banks to allocate more assets to the fund, guaranteeing their clients’ savings. Our key proposal concerns the compensation payout period – we are proposing this period be decreased from the current 20 business days down to seven. Unfortunately, our proposals are not being accepted by Member States at this stage. I would like to appeal to the Danish Presidency to make every possible effort to motivate Member States to show the ambition we need to achieve a result. This result is in the interest of all European citizens and will improve the stability of the financial sector within the EU as a whole.

19. Third-country legislation and EU data protection laws (debate)

  President. – The next item is the debate on

– the oral question to the Commission on the extra-territorial impact of third-country legislation and EU data protection laws by Sophia in ’t Veld, Sylvie Goulard, Sonia Alfano, Alexander Alvaro, Sarah Ludford, Theodoros Skylakakis, Ramon Tremosa i Balcells, Philippe De Backer, Jens Rohde, Stanimir Ilchev and Giommaria Uggias, on behalf of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (O-000315/2011 - B7-0025/2012),

– the oral question to the Commission on the extra-territorial impact of third-country legislation and EU data protection laws by Cornelia Ernst, Miguel Portas and Marisa Matias, on behalf of the Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left (O-000318/2011 - B7-0026/2012),

– the oral question to the Commission on the extra-territorial impact of third-country legislation and EU data protection laws by Jan Philipp Albrecht, Rui Tavares, Raül Romeva i Rueda and Judith Sargentini, on behalf of the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance (O-000326/2011 - B7-0028/2012), and

– the oral question to the Commission on the extra-territorial impact of third-country legislation and EU data protection laws by Simon Busuttil, Manfred Weber and Jean-Paul Gauzès, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) (O-000022/2012 - B7-0035/2012).

  Sophia in 't Veld, author. – Mr President, the issue at stake here today is whether we can be certain that our own European laws always apply within Europe, or whether they could be overruled by third-country laws.

The US, for example, considers that its jurisdiction does not only extend to activities and actors within the US, but also the activities of such actors elsewhere in the world. With that interpretation, US law has extra-territorial effect within Europe. The US, for example, can subpoena companies with a presence in the US to provide data stored in Europe. We have identified, in our oral questions, a number of laws that might have this effect – for example the Patriot Act, the Medicare Act on medical data and insurance data, the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act, and the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA).

However, data stored in Europe is covered by EU law and companies there have to comply with EU law. The Commission acknowledges this, but what action has actually been taken to protect companies that find themselves caught between conflicting jurisdictions? This problem does not only concern the extra-territorial effect from US law, but potentially from any other country.

There are also other countries where European companies have a presence. For example, more and more companies have operations in China, and they, too, can be confronted with this problem. As a matter of fact, we are getting more confirmation nowadays that such companies are being confronted with this problem. This does not only concern EU data protection laws, as the title of today’s debate suggests, but all kinds of laws. FATCA, notably, raises strong concerns for European banks and insurers.

Commissioner, we hope to discuss this matter soon in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs with your colleague, Commissioner Barnier. I would urge you to act now. We do not need new legislation, but it is key that we enforce existing European legislation in the interests of our citizens and our companies.

  Marisa Matias, author. – (PT) Mr President, welcome to this debate on such an important issue, Commissioner. We are, in fact, talking about key issues relating to data protection, particularly in a context in which there may be conflict between two different jurisdictions. Data protection is, in fact, a sensitive area and one which has generated much controversy and, in my view, should continue to generate controversy, because we are talking about what may be a clash between rights and guarantees, safeguarding the European public, who are protected by European legislation, and who then find themselves undermined when the legislation of other countries supersedes European legislation.

It is sensitive for a number of reasons. It is sensitive because there is doubt as to whether there is, to all intents and purposes, a contract between the European public and the European institutions. When members of the public disclose their personal data, they do so on the understanding that they will be protected by European bodies and institutions, and that they will not be distributed for other purposes. Here, therefore, there is a breach of trust. It is obvious that controlling this is complicated, and it is also a serious and dangerous situation because the European Union ends up transferring personal data to third countries, thus breaking this bond of trust between the European public and the European institutions. In doing so, what we are doing when the public allow the European institutions to be the guardians of their personal data in areas ranging from health issues to other matters that have been referred to companies that ask for data – I am talking specifically about the case of the US, which systematically asks for data from the European Union – is breaching the trust of the public, where the public are acting on the assumption that they are giving their data to the European Union, which will act as a guardian for it.

I would therefore also like to say, Commissioner, that these issues have often been problematic for various reasons, but I will always be on the side of public demonstrations wanting to safeguard personal data protection. If there are demonstrations planned to take place because the European institutions are not doing this, I believe that we should be on the side of the public, not against them. This is almost a type of betrayal, and I, or we, would therefore like to ask you, Commissioner, to clarify this issue once and for all, because no community was ever founded on destroying or diminishing the bonds of trust between the public and its institutions. In view of this, Commissioner, please respond and tell us to what extent we can ensure that European legislation supersedes the legislation of third countries. After all, EU legislation certainly supersedes the legislation of the 27 EU Member States, and the public have relinquished their sovereignty in this matter many times, so why should we accept that other countries such as the US can supersede national legislation, having already superseded EU legislation? This needs to be clarified, because it is indeed a very sensitive and serious issue, which we must take into consideration.

Finally, Commissioner, could you please tell us what the Commission is doing in order to prevent this from happening, and to ensure that it does not recur, and that the personal data of all members of the public, of companies, and of the various sectors mentioned in these issues are, in fact, data which people can trust, and that they remain with those who are protecting us? By this, I mean that I do not even agree that all information which is stored should be stored, but that is another debate. In relation to this, as this issue of citizens’ rights is serious and sensitive, I would like you to provide us with clarification so that we can all rest easy.

  Jan Philipp Albrecht , author. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, today we are addressing the issue of whether to allow third countries to access the data of European citizens, as well as the application of the laws of third countries to European citizens here in Europe. Of course, this is a question that relates not just to data protection, but also, in an increasingly interconnected and globalised world, to fundamental questions of the application of the law and questions regarding which law actually applies. I think we need answers here.

We are constantly encountering situations, for example, in the so-called ‘cloud’, where more and more personal data is being stored and more and more services are being used, so that it is hard to know which law is actually applicable and which guarantees we in the European Union can offer our citizens, enabling them to trust in the application of European data protection law even in environments of this kind, or in relation to businesses operating internationally. I was pleased to see that we are now about to get to grips with data protection reforms on a European level. We have a good proposal from the European Commission on the table. However, this proposal, unlike previous drafts, does not contain an article making it clear that, in the event that information is requested by third countries, the law may only be applied if its application is also permitted as part of mutual support in the context of cooperation between the police and judiciary. In this context, I would be interested to know what has happened to this provision, and whether reasons exist for why it has been dropped.

I believe it is important that we should agree such provisions in our data protection laws, particularly while there are no common standards shared with these third countries. I am drawing attention to this, in particular, in my capacity as rapporteur for the joint data protection agreement with the US.

  Simon Busuttil, author. – Mr President, the PPE Group takes the issue of the privacy of EU citizens and their data protection rights very seriously. It is in this spirit that we have been working very hard in the past few years to make sure that we put in place top-notch data protection laws that guarantee citizens’ rights to the full.

When the processing of data is carried out in Europe, we want citizens’ minds to be at rest that they enjoy high data protection standards. The processing of data by third countries presents a different problem. The concern here is that our standards might not be applied in cases which involve third countries. These are legitimate concerns.

Of course, it would be ironic if it were easier for third countries to process European citizens’ data in their territory than for European entities to do so in Europe. That is not acceptable for our citizens and, of course, cannot be acceptable to our Chamber, which is why we have to work together to find workable solutions.

Our solutions should start from the basic premise that a law enacted by a third country cannot be directly and automatically applied in the territory of the European Union unless EU law or Member State national law has explicitly allowed it to be so. We cannot lose control of this prerogative, and no law of a third country should be able to short-circuit EU law or national law, including EU data protection law.

We must make sure that this principle can be applied in law and in practice. I think that the new data protection package recently presented by the Commission gives us the opportunity to do so, as would the framework agreement with the United States that is being negotiated.

I look forward eagerly to Ms Reding’s replies to our questions.

  Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, I agree entirely with the Members who have said that the high standards which we give to our citizens – rightly so – must also be transferred when there is an exchange of data with third countries. We in the Commission take this question very seriously, because the Commission believes and supports the principle that, in international public law, a legal act which is enacted by a third country cannot be directly and automatically applied in the territory of the EU unless – exceptionally – Union law or Member State law explicitly recognises the facts of such an act in their respective jurisdiction.

No legal acts of a third country as such can legally overrule the relevant EU legislation or Member State legislation, and this includes data protection rules. Any processing of personal data in the EU has to respect the applicable EU data protection law. If – and this was Ms in ’t Veld’s basic question – a US law enforcement authority requires information from companies operating in the European Union, whatever the nationality of those companies, they have to use existing channels of cooperation and mutual legal assistance agreements. This issue also applies when personal data are transferred by an EU company to a company in the US and when the data are subsequently processed for law enforcement purposes.

This sounds good – except that this issue is not explicitly addressed in the current EU legal framework. That is exactly the reason why (as the rapporteur knows perfectly well) we have the Data Protection Regulation, which the Commission put on the table on 25 January to try to provide additional legal clarity in these matters. The regulation makes it clear that transmissions can only take place when the conditions of the regulation for such transfers are met, notably when there is a justification on an important ground of public interest – and the public interest has to be recognised in Union law or in Member State law. This could involve, for instance, data transfer between competition authorities, tax and customs administrations, and it could also be for the prevention and investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences.

As you rightly said, this issue has been raised in the umbrella agreement on the protection of personal data. As Parliament has been informed, this negotiation is still continuing. For the moment, we have not yet reached a conclusion with this negotiation. As Parliament also underlined, this is an element which, for my colleague who is responsible for taxation, has to be seen in the framework of the FATCA regulations.

Here, I would like to make it very clear (this may be new information for Parliament) that the Commission has raised this issue with the United States regularly and intensively in the framework of the Financial Markets Regulatory Dialogue and, as a result of the discussion, on 6 February, the US announced that the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) should be complied with by the transfer of data between tax administrations rather than by the imposition of direct obligations on EU financial intermediaries. So that is good news, which now has to be put into a clear text. But this is the direction we want to go in, and the Commission will continue to work with the US and with the Member States in order to identify the best way to address this issue and achieve legal certainty and compliance with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

When I speak here about the United States, this means that it also applies to other third countries. The relations between the EU and the United States are those which are most discussed, but in future, we will certainly also have many discussions about other continents with which we have a specific relationship.

  Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (ES) Mr President, I understand that regulation when it comes to data protection can be based on internal security strategies. We cannot forget, however, that its extra-territorial impact could infringe on the rights of European citizens.

What has arisen in connection with the Medicare Act, FISA, the Patriot Act and FATCA cases is more than mere concern. It appears that many of these measures stipulate that European financial entities, in the widest sense of the term, are obliged to provide all types of information, whether it concerns the title holder, their account types or the withholding of payments, among others.

There is no prior agreement to justify obtaining this data, nor do the users know what the data will be used for or the amount of time for which it will be stored.

It is therefore necessary to adopt measures and design a body of regulations and legislation to avoid infringement of the principle of territoriality. We should be able to maintain our relationships outside the Union, as well as our territory’s security, whilst totally respecting the rights of European citizens.

The European Commission should show much more commitment and interest in this task.

  Dimitrios Droutsas, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (EL) Mr President, the potential extra-territorial repercussions of third-country legislation, especially US legislation, and especially in the data protection sector, is of immense and obvious importance to the European Parliament. It is imperative for us in the European Parliament to clearly know, including from you the Commissioner, if there is any infringement of EU legislation, especially on data protection. This relates directly to the rights of European citizens and impacts on the economic community within EU territory.

However, I should like to take advantage of today’s debate to repeat something which I said during the recent presentation of your proposals to revise the 1995 Personal Data Protection Directive which, I, too, will repeat, is a step in the right direction as far as we are concerned. We are living in times in which Europe is being accused of a lack of leadership. Unfortunately, the European Union has lost standing and clout internationally, especially in the foreign policy sector, but that is another story.

As far as data protection is concerned, however, Europe is at the vanguard and is showing the way to other countries outside the European Union. I hope and trust that, after our numerous discussions, Europe and you personally will continue work in this direction with the same degree of commitment.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, data protection standards in third countries still differ considerably from European standards. It is, however, our duty to ensure that European citizens are guaranteed compliance with our minimum European protection standards, on which we pride ourselves. This personal data must be fairly processed and collected for particular and legitimate purposes. European citizens should be guaranteed a right of access to and rectification of personal details concerning them and should be able to bring legal action should their rights be violated.

We must act to ensure that European and international standards can coexist and to resolve a legal dispute which is potentially detrimental to European citizens. European legislation alone is not sufficient. It must tie in and coexist intelligently with international standards, as we cannot shirk our duties and commitments towards European citizens.

This situation is similar to other debates in this Parliament. It reminds us of the relevance of projects such as the introduction of a European Terrorist Finance Tracking Programme. A system of this nature would provide us with a tool, which has proven its effectiveness in the United States, while fully respecting national law, and consequently the protection of the personal data of European citizens.

The European institutions must continue to work in this direction and to pursue fully their protection standards.

  Sophia in 't Veld, author. – Mr President, I do not know about the procedure. Simply, the most important question has remained unanswered, and I would like to be able to put the question again to the Commissioner in order to get an answer before we leave.

The question is: under current EU data protection rules, what can a company do to protect itself if it has an operation in the US and it has to comply with the subpoena? The subpoena says that data stored in Europe – and therefore covered by EU law – must be provided to the US authorities. This is not through a mutual legal assistance treaty; this is a company which has an operation in the US and is being obliged to provide data stored in the EU.

That data is covered by EU laws. How is the Commission going to protect those companies, which are asking for protection?

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Phil Prendergast (S&D). – Mr President, in the context of the potential threat to EU citizens’ rights to data protection and privacy from third countries, I am particularly concerned at the provisions foreseen in the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement with regard to international cooperation, which compound the serious questions that the Treaty raises.

I intend to pursue this matter with the Commission and hope that the Commissioner will enlighten us on the implementing measures necessitated by these international cooperation provisions.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Mr President, in recent years, we believe that we have seen a wave of security and repression driven by imperialism, especially with the supposed justification for the so-called War against Terror, which infringes civil liberties and the fundamental rights and guarantees of citizens, gradually weakening the democracy in which we live. We are concerned about various things that are public knowledge, such as the illegal use of personal data by the CIA, for example, and the establishment of arrangements between the EU and the US, as in the case of the agreement on the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications, which puts both criminals and non-criminals, suspects and non-suspects, into a process that has not been confirmed to be effective. In addition, there is the risk of resistance movements being pursued through the use of data, under the pretext of combating terrorism.

We cannot exchange freedom for more security because, in the end, we will lose both. These two values are not incompatible: quite the contrary, a society can only be safer by guaranteeing extensive rights and democratic freedoms.

  Jaroslav Paška (EFD). – (SK) Mr President, the protection of the data of European Union citizens and institutions is guaranteed by the legal and contractual documents of the EU. Any intervention by third countries in the protected rights of our citizens is unacceptable. In my opinion, it is therefore necessary, in order to maintain good relations with the United States, to maintain an open dialogue with them in order to create better partnership relations. The European Union is not yet a colony of the United States, and we cannot therefore accept the extra-territorial effects of American laws on EU territory. Our citizens expect the European Commission to be aware of these basic rules and to reach an agreement during regulatory negotiations with our American partners that will eliminate the concerns of our citizens and institutions about the potential effects of the Patriot or FACTA Acts on their lives.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, this debate is welcomed, all the more so as today, we have also discussed the topic of respect for human rights.

I believe that the issue of data transfer to third countries must be tackled in a balanced manner. Information transfer is necessary to combat terrorism. At the same time, a minimum threshold of the right to privacy must be observed by applying the principle of proportionality.

I would like to remind you of the debates generated by the negotiation of the PNR Agreement between the EU and the United States. The final agreement contains clauses that ensure such a balance. For example, information can be communicated only for the purpose of combating serious offences and only for certain operations. Due to the guarantees included in the Treaty, citizens are provided with a high degree of transparency, and sensitive information is protected by strict conditions of use.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D). – (RO) Mr President, in the context of this debate, I shall refer to the passenger name record.

The EU has signed or is renegotiating bilateral agreements regarding the passenger name record with the United States, Canada and Australia. Parliament is currently analysing the proposal for a PNR Directive which establishes a common treatment for the passenger name record within the EU. However, in third countries, there are data protection systems different from the European Union’s system. Within the Committee on Transport and Tourism, I requested that where third countries are concerned, PNR data transfer should take place only when there are adequate guarantees with respect to personal data protection, and that the storage, processing and analysis of PNR data corresponding to passengers on international flights be carried out only on European Union territory, so that the applicable legislation is the European legislation on private data protection.

As regards PNR, I ask the Commission: how does it guarantee European citizens that private data transfer and processing are protected under European Union legislation?

  Kay Swinburne (ECR). – Mr President, time and time again in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, when we have considered the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (AIFMD), short-selling, the European Market Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR) and now the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID), we have dealt with the issue of the extra-territorial implications of US legislation. The European institutions have all stated their commitment to maintaining open markets in order to keep investment flowing around the world.

However, we are yet to come up with a clear solution to the questions being raised tonight. As a result, we are having to insert clauses in our EU financial services legislation in order to give the EU equal weighting to the US in the regulation of financial entities and products.

We have been forced to incorporate word-for-word in EMIR what I consider to be protectionist language from the Dodd-Frank Act. This does not seem to be an optimal solution to this problem, but I cannot yet see an alternative to US regulatory overreach into European companies and markets.

The implications of these extra-territorial provisions for access to and from our financial markets for Asia, Latin America and the rest of the world are yet to be seen, yet any solution that is proposed must, above all else, not just suit the US.

End of the catch-the-eye procedure

  Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, I agree with the speakers: it is high time that we say to the rest of the world, to our partners, that we are a continent of 500 million citizens who must be respected, and that the laws which we have decided together with this House have to be applied on the territory of the European Union. You might have seen that the Commissioner who is speaking to you has been very explicit on this: saying that the high guarantees which are our values, which are in our European laws, must not be eliminated in relations with third countries.

This is why we already have laws in place, and we are going to improve and strengthen them with the guarantees which the Treaty and the Charter of Fundamental Rights give to our citizens. We will make our European laws – which have to be respected by third countries on our territory – stronger. This is exactly the reason why I have tabled before this House a reform of the 1995 data protection rules and why I have said very clearly – and you can see what is going on in other territories at the moment in the political discussions – that those laws which we make here will become a world standard. That is what we want to achieve in the future.

For the time being, I have been very clear on the fact that the data protection rules of 1995 are missing some elements, such as arrangements concerning infringements, which we have included in our reform. The monitoring of data protection law compliance is also left completely up to national authorities, who are not currently obliged to inform the public or the European Commission. This should be changed, because the set of rules on data protection should, in future, be made on a continent-wide level in order to reinforce application.

Since the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, agreements which we have with third countries – colleagues have been speaking about SWIFT and PNR – have to be agreed on by Parliament. This has dramatically changed the way that third countries approach the European Union. Lessons have been learnt from the way in which questions on SWIFT were dealt with. PNR is under discussion now and you know that the umbrella agreement which I negotiated with the United States will be on the table for this House to accept or to reject.

In the ACTA agreement, which this House also has to decide upon, the Internet freedom provision has been included in the final text of the legislation precisely because of the remarks made by this House, because we do have problems (in answer to the question from the Member asking the fundamental question of tonight’s debate), because there is the problem of the conflict between two jurisdictions. This is a conflict of international law – and such issues of international law must be clarified by the Court in The Hague – but we have tried in our new legislation to clarify all these points.

If you read Recital 90 of the regulation, you will see, and I quote, that: ‘the extra-territorial application of these laws, regulations and other legislative instruments may be in breach of international law and may impede the attainment of the protection of individuals guaranteed in the Union by this regulation’. That is why transfers should only be allowed where the conditions of this regulation for the transfer to third countries are met. That is what we have to work on now, beyond the conflicts which will arise between partners, beyond the international agreements which we have to vote on in this House and beyond the implementation of our European legislation in the framework of international law.

I therefore count on your support in the forthcoming legislative process on the data protection legal framework and on the umbrella framework, in order to clarify these points and in order to make it crystal clear that, on European territory, European law has to be applied.

  President. – Thank you very much Ms Reding. What a pity. I almost managed to bring the session to a close before 23.00. I, too, would like to thank all the Members for their discipline nonetheless. Thank you to the ushers, the House’s services staff and, not least, to the translators for their efforts. Thank you very much for today’s work.

The debate is closed.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Given that the level of data protection in the EU is much higher and more comprehensive than in the vast majority of third countries, it was important to enshrine the extra-territorial reach of the directive, in order to prevent European companies from being able to transmit personal data to their facilities outside Europe with offshore processing, in order to circumvent the application of the strict limits imposed by the directive.

The directive bans the transfer of personal data to any third country that does not have an adequate level of data protection. The number of countries that meet this criterion, according to the Commission, is currently very low. It is unacceptable that cases such as the agreement on the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications may occur, whereby, in the context of internal company transfers, European personal data must be made available to the US authorities because they are in US territory, negating the rights and guarantees offered by European legislation to citizens and businesses. There is an urgent need to adopt the necessary measures, in order to guarantee effective application of the rules of European data protection, and to prevent the possibility of any third-country legislation superseding Union law on protecting the interests of European citizens and companies based in the EU.

20. Agenda of the next sitting: see Minutes

21. Closure of the sitting

(The sitting closed at 23.00)