Verbatim report of proceedings

Wednesday, 18 April 2012 - Strasbourg

1. Opening of the sitting

IN THE CHAIR: ALEJO VIDAL-QUADRAS
Vice-President

(The sitting opened at 09.05)

2. Documents received: see Minutes

3. Coordination of social security systems (debate)

  President. – The first item is the report by Milan Cabrnoch, on behalf of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, on the amendment of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems, and of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (COM(2010)0794 - C7-0005/2011 - 2010/0380(COD)) (A7-0043/2012).

  Milan Cabrnoch, rapporteur. – (CS) Mr President, we have an opportunity to debate the proposed amendment to the regulation on the coordination of social security systems in individual Member States. I would first like to thank all of the rapporteurs, shadow rapporteurs and others who collaborated on a change to the regulation which we can now approve – and with a large majority, I hope.

The basic aim of the regulation is to ensure that workers migrating within the EU, in other words, citizens of any Member State, as well as stateless persons or refugees, and including both employees and the self-employed, are covered by a social security system in all circumstances, with all of the rights and obligations arising from this, and are also not obliged to pay contributions in two or more countries at the same time. The need to modernise this regulation is connected with changes both to national legislation and to the case-law of the European Court of Justice. It is a need for simplification, easier interpretation and a limitation on the scope for conflicts of opinion. In principle, there are three main areas, which include defining and clarifying the concept of a ‘substantial portion of activities’, and specifying the criteria for possible situations where a person has residence in a state other than the one in which they perform a substantial portion of their activities.

The other important topic is the introduction of the concept of a ‘home base’ to address the problem of air crew members, adopting the solution that the home base will be deemed to be the airport from which they most frequently fly and where they most frequently land, which will determine the legislation or the given national legislation that will apply to air crew in a given case.

The final important area is unemployment benefits for self-employed frontier workers, where these people are not insured against unemployment. Some Member States have insurance systems for self-employed people who are out of work, whilst others do not. This issue is also taken into account and resolved in the submitted draft. Under the regulation, a self-employed person would be insured against unemployment in the Member State where they last worked, even if they return to the Member State where they previously resided. The uncertainty over cover for air crew was resolved through the concept of the home base, which is the place where the air crew member usually performs his work.

The regulation we are discussing today – and which we will approve, I hope – is a practical instrument for the smooth functioning of the common market, as it introduces greater protection and certainty for a greater number of mobile workers. Self-employed people can also now work throughout the common market with the knowledge that social security will also apply to them if they lose their livelihood.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. I am looking forward to the debate, and I would like to thank you for your support.

  Sari Essayah, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (FI) Mr President, it is annoying that the Commissioner has not yet managed to get here to hear what we have to say on the subject, because Parliament, guided by the rapporteur, has followed closely the positions of the Member States on the coordination of social security systems in cross-border cases.

The free mobility of the labour force and the right of the citizen of a country to seek work in another Member State are essentially positive things for the internal market. However, it also poses challenges for the Member States, to ensure, on the one hand, that people do not fall between the social security systems of the countries in which they live and work, and, on the other, to prevent abuse of social security and unemployment benefit systems. This regulation will not, therefore, be a way to harmonise social security systems, but will mainly update the rules on coordination, so that they reflect the changes to the law in Member States.

The regulation will clarify the legislation to be applied in cases where someone works for several employers in different Member States. The applicable legislation would be determined with reference to the main job, because it is in no one’s interest constantly to amend the applicable legislation on the basis of the periods of work that they are involved in.

Perhaps the most controversial issue of all in the amending regulation relates to the export of the unemployment benefit of self-employed persons, in other words, to the notion that unemployed entrepreneurs can collect unemployment benefit in the country in which they work, even if no such unemployment benefit system exists in their country of residence. Fortunately, that original proposal by the Commission was improved in deliberations by the Council and Parliament, with the result that unemployment benefit only applies to genuine frontier workers who, in the main, go back to the country of residence from the country in which they work every day, or at least once a week, and who are at the disposal of the labour market in the country in which they work. In the same way too, the country in which they work is to determine the conditions for unemployment benefit.

It is important that we return to this subject in two years’ time and re-examine whether this is causing problems between Member States.

  László Andor, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, the regulations that are the subject of today’s discussions lay down some specific measures for the coordination of national social security systems. They make practical arrangements to protect the social security benefits of EU citizens who move across borders.

These practical arrangements can only be effective if they reflect changes in the legal and social situation. Since the modernised social security coordination regulations were applied in 2010, we have discovered that changes in national legislation and in working practices create a need for clarification of the text and for some small gaps to be closed.

The proposal which the Parliament is discussing today takes account of recent developments and concepts which were not developed in detail in the regulations. Even though the proposal is technical in nature, it has a direct, practical impact on people who rely on the measures adopted at European level when they make use of the right to free movement.

As this House’s recent resolution on the 2010 European Citizens’ Report made clear, the right to freedom of movement and residence needs to be accompanied by specific measures to give substance to this fundamental freedom. This holds true, in particular, for the two most sensitive issues in the proposal: the introduction of the home base principle for air crew members, and the provision for unemployment benefits for unemployed self-employed persons who return to their state of residence in which no insurance system exists. I can assure you that the compromise reached on these technical issues is in line with the spirit of the regulation, which coordinates and seeks to protect workers’ rights. It clarifies the rights of citizens and it assists institutions when they apply these legal texts.

Mr Cabrnoch’s report makes the importance of adopting the file at first reading and approving the outcome of last year’s negotiations very clear, and I am grateful to him for keeping the compromise in mind when the amendments were drafted. The Commission fully supports the amendments and wishes to thank the rapporteur for helping to foster sound cooperation between our institutions on this matter.

  Alejandro Cercas, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (ES) Mr President, I cannot begin without congratulating the Commissioner, the Commission services, the Council and Mr Cabrnoch for the excellent work that has enabled us to reach a solution to the debate on updating this regulation; we have been able to do so at first reading and therefore, the benefits will be felt immediately.

As others have already done, I would like to mention that although this is an annual exercise, on this occasion, there are two significant differences. Firstly, the new Article 65, which grants unemployment benefits to frontier workers, who did not previously receive them; this will be reviewed within two years to make further improvements. Secondly, and above all, the new mention made in Article 11 of the ‘home base’ criterion, which gives legal certainty to aircrew members and clearly determines the applicable legislation, with the notion of ‘home base’ as a criterion, which already exists in the regulation.

I would like to use the last few seconds to remind my colleagues and public opinion that, with Europe so often in the firing line now, today is a clear example of the way in which Europe can benefit and improve the lives of millions of workers who, thanks to this coordination of social security systems, will reach retirement age or find themselves unemployed but fully covered thanks to the cooperation between EU Member States. This is possible because of the European Union and the European social model which, unlike what someone from the Council said, is very much alive and should improve day by day, because that is what the people call for and that is what Parliament has today shown to be possible.

  Siiri Oviir, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (ET) Mr President, the right to live and work anywhere in the European Union is a fundamental right of all citizens of the European Union. Given that the free movement of workers is one of the key EU measures for achieving a functioning labour market, it is very important to have precise and unambiguous rules for the coordination of social insurance – rules that permit our people to move freely without, at the same time, having to worry about unemployment, pensions, health insurance and other elements of social insurance. The standards established by the regulation now in force were hammered out 10 years ago. In the meantime, our labour market has undergone serious changes. The movement of workers has taken new forms. Changes have also taken place in the Member States’ legislation. Therefore, the intention of bringing the regulation up to date can only be welcomed.

It is our parliamentary obligation to ensure legal certainty for stakeholders. Without the coordination of social insurance, the right of freedom of movement enshrined in Article 48 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union is not guaranteed. New rules introduced in the regulation – for instance, standards covering the social insurance rights of self-employed people, or the addition of the definition of ‘home base’ for people employed by airlines – do not obligate Member States to change already existing systems. These guarantee citizens equal access to a Member State’s social insurance system if they are citizens of or insured in that country. Changes in the regulation, including those that simplify the wording of legal provisions, are in the interests of the citizens of our 27 Member States and others, as they also apply in Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland.

By coordinating national systems, replacing several bilateral systems and speeding up the exchange of information, the payment of social insurance benefits will certainly become more reliable and faster. The Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe supports the adoption of the amendments to the regulation at first reading. As shadow rapporteur, I would like to thank Milan Cabrnoch and the other shadow rapporteurs for their very productive, prompt and sympathetic cooperation.

  Jean Lambert, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, I, too, would like to thank the rapporteur for the work that has been done on this. As has been said, it is a highly technical document, but it is an extremely important one for individuals within the European Union.

As people have said, this is the latest update of what is – in many ways – one of the earliest pieces of legislation put in place by the European Union. It has been extensively revised – a job that we finished in 2009 – and this is now the update. Very soon, we will be seeing how the new electronic system that underpins this is coming into effect, and hopefully it will be able to deal with citizens’ concerns more rapidly.

This concerns the maintenance of rights for people who move across borders for whatever reason or who work in border areas. It deals with the areas of core social security, health care, unemployment, pensions, family benefits, etc. It is extremely important that those rights are upheld. I think we have got quite a citizen-friendly outcome from this first reading agreement.

As we have been saying, it is designed to uphold the rights of individuals who are covered by social security systems. It was not put in place to provide an opportunity for businesses – particularly those with mobile workers – to cut costs by providing them with an opportunity to choose the cheapest place to register their workers for social security purposes. I am very pleased that we have actually managed to close that particular loophole within this revision, because to find yourself registered in a country where you feel you have no connection and to seek health care treatment, for example, in the country where you are resident, is bound to lead to confusion and a lot of difficulties for the individual. Even though the company concerned may feel that it is doing a good deal for itself and its shareholders, it is not playing fair by its workers.

So we are very pleased to have got the ‘home base’ definition in there, bringing it into line with other legislation to make it very clear to individuals exactly where it is that they are registered and therefore what rights they can expect. I think we have achieved a very good outcome, and we are very pleased to see it going through at first reading.

  Marina Yannakoudakis, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, in these difficult economic times, the EU should make it easier for companies to do business. As a former businesswoman, I know it is natural for companies and firms to want to cut their costs. However, it is also important that companies do not dodge their obligation to pay social security.

My constituency of London is the top destination for international investment in the European Union. Furthermore, foreign direct investment is a key driver to London’s success. When companies like Microsoft or Sony invest in London, it stands to reason that these companies should pay into the British social security system. The same is true of their employees who live and work in the United Kingdom. Unfortunately, a loophole has allowed airlines and their employees to avoid making social security payments in their country of operation. Some pilots and crew working in Belgium, France, Spain and other EU countries have actually been paying social security in Ireland, where the companies’ aircraft are registered.

This report puts an end to so-called ‘social dumping’ by obliging employers and employees to pay social security in their home base. I congratulate the rapporteur on this report and on closing a loophole which had been depriving Member States’ social security systems of much-needed revenue.

  Tadeusz Cymański, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (PL) Mr President, the report we are discussing is about the coordination of social security systems. We are in favour of measures which guarantee that people are treated on an equal basis, including in the labour market. Accordingly, changes to legislation should be directed towards enabling workers and unemployed people to be more mobile. They should not be tied artificially to the place of their last employment just to allow them to obtain social security benefits. Therefore, the measures proposed in the Cabrnoch report are worthy of our support. Moves towards better coordination of social security systems will also allow application of the principles of adequacy. In this work, it is very important to ensure a balance is maintained between the need to be competitive and the need to protect workers.

The subject we are discussing is also related to the European Commission’s proposal put forward in March on increasing the protection of workers temporarily posted abroad. This is a similar subject, one we are going to discuss in the future, and it concerns as many as around a million European Union citizens who work on postings in other countries. Achieving a balance between competition and protection for workers is, I think, a most difficult but most necessary objective today, during a crisis, when Europe is having to face competition on a global scale. Thank you.

  Inês Cristina Zuber, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (PT) Mr President, this report argues that a self-employed frontier worker who becomes unemployed is entitled to receive unemployment benefits in the competent Member State if no such benefits exist in the Member State of residence. We believe this measure is worthwhile in that it seeks to apply the more advanced of two countries’ social security legislations. Nonetheless, this measure should not legitimise the existence of the so-called false self-employed; in other words, workers who hold permanent jobs. Such illegal situations should definitely not be legitimised but, instead, eradicated by creating job contracts with rights. Inspections are extremely important for achieving that.

According to the second amendment, aircrew workers register with the social security system of their home base. We believe, however, that there should be some control over where businesses are registered, so that companies cannot register themselves in countries where social security payments are lower so as to cut costs.

Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to tell you something: at a time when we are witnessing an unprecedented attack on the social security system in my country, Portugal, we wish to make it clear that we will not agree with any attempt to harmonise social security in the European Union or with recommendations that the Commission has been imposing, such as the White Paper on pensions, which advocates raising the retirement age and paves the way for private insurance systems, so as to do away with the public social security system.

At a time when we are witnessing a pension freeze in Portugal, as well as wholesale cuts in holiday allowances and Christmas bonuses and a reduction in benefits, we wish to reaffirm that we will not accept the social security privatisation route and will defend a public social security system based on the principles of solidarity and universality.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this new arrangement provides clarity for all stakeholders, which means for businesses, for insurance companies and, above all, for the citizens affected. What is particularly important is that it takes account of the special situation of mobile and cross-border workers, who we need in Europe at this point in time. It is fairer from a social point of view and does not give rise to any additional costs, while providing more for the citizens in terms of social security, transparency and clarity.

For me, there are two aspects that are particularly important. The first of these is that we now have a clear definition of the term ‘substantial part’ in Article 13(1). The second is the precise specification of the term ‘home base’. This is particularly important for people such as airline flight crews. These proposals should provide legal certainty for the companies affected and predictability for employees, whilst having a preventive effect against social dumping, all of which were our aims. The rapporteur has my sincere thanks.

  Csaba Őry (PPE). – (HU) Mr President, a great many arguments have already been put forward in this debate; I would like to avoid repeating them, if at all possible. I would first of all like to thank Mr Cabrnoch for his excellent work, and what I would essentially like to point out is that as MEPs, we are often asked by citizens what it is we are actually working on here in Parliament. Well, if there is a good way to demonstrate that the Commission and Parliament can accomplish something useful together, then this seemingly technical issue we are debating right now is a very good demonstration that through sensible, useful cooperation, we are capable of assisting our fellow citizens who are making use of the freedom of movement and entrepreneurship in an expanded Europe in retaining the rights they acquired and in enjoying the benefits of those rights.

A particular merit of the current debate, consultation and joint work is that they are based on the proposals of the Commission’s expert committee, that they take into account relevant Member State experience, and that Parliament and the MEPs, too, are seeking to resolve these seemingly technical issues at first reading. It is as it has been mentioned multiple times. New forms of entrepreneurship, new types of contracts, and new, far more mobile employment opportunities have emerged in the EU. We are struggling in several fields to create a legal framework and legal rules to regulate and clearly address them. I believe that this matter stands as a truly good example that if we are willing, we are able to find appropriate solutions.

I find the new rules concerning self-employed people and aircrew members to be particularly positive. I, too, believe that the formulation of the concept of home base gives rise to new and creative opportunities. Once again, let me thank both the Commission and Mr Cabrnoch for their work; I hope that it will indeed prove to be useful. Coordination, by the way, is an issue that we will be discussing on many more occasions, as it is a matter that needs to be re-examined year after year.

  Jutta Steinruck (S&D). – (DE) Mr President, I, too, would like to thank the rapporteur and, like the previous speaker, I welcome this regulation, on which we will be voting today.

Europe’s internal market provides benefits for the workers, too, but sadly, in the past, loopholes in the law have been exploited in relation to cross-border mobility. One example of this – and this has been mentioned by a few of the previous speakers – concerns the airline business. Flight routes were often consciously chosen in such a way that airline staff were often socially insured in the Member State where social security was cheapest for the airline. This distorted competition, and it is an example of wage and social dumping, which takes place time and again at the expense of the workers. That is why we, as European Social Democrats, fought hard to ensure that airline staff are socially insured and have to pay their taxes where they are stationed. In a social Europe, there is no room for businesses that exploit the advantages of Europe’s single market while shirking the social responsibility that is the other side of the same coin.

  Ryszard Czarnecki (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, when a report is introduced by a member of one’s own political group, it should be praised as a matter of course, but fortunately, this time, there are substantive reasons for doing so, and I would therefore like to commend my colleague, Mr Cabrnoch, for this report. However, I would like to remind everyone in the Chamber of the Hippocratic oath and the Latin precept primum non nocere, or ‘first, do no harm’. I think that in the context of this debate, we should not just be talking about workers, but also about the firms which employ these workers. During the current crisis, we need to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and should ensure that all changes are beneficial both to employers and to workers. We need to find a happy medium on this. Otherwise, in caring for workers, we will ruin their employers, and because of this, businesses will start shedding staff.

  Jaroslav Paška (EFD). – (SK) Mr President, one of the basic prerequisites for the proper functioning of the free movement of labour within the EU was the creation of rules for the mutual coordination of the social security mechanisms of the individual Member States. The Administrative Commission for the Coordination of Social Security Systems proposes that the currently applicable coordination rules stemming from Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 be updated, taking into account changes in social reality and legal changes to regulations in some Member States. The most significant benefit of the proposed changes for our citizens will probably be the further specification of the application of the conditions for the carrying out of substantial activities under Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004, which will be applied in cases where people work in two or more Member States, and will also apply to citizens working for different employers. Likewise, the addition of a new provision to this regulation that ensures the protection of self-employed people if they lose their work represents a greater degree of protection against labour market turbulence. There is a certain risk that this provision could be abused, so it will need to be closely monitored.

  Franz Obermayr (NI). – (DE) Mr President, globalisation gives rise to new kinds of mobility. I am thinking, in particular, of aviation, where enterprises offer their services in various EU countries from what is known as their home base. Where this is the case, we must not allow air crews to run the risk, in the worst case scenario, of falling through the social security net simply because they operate in various countries. However, it is essential that we do not give foreigners a basic right to receive social security – such as emergency welfare payments – without making contributions. That happened in one case in Austria, where the Austrian State was forced by the European Court of Human Rights to grant emergency welfare payments to a French citizen in Austria. The Court subsumed the entitlement to emergency welfare payments and welfare benefits under property law, something that I find incomprehensible. This represents an invitation to a new kind of social tourism within Europe in which people travel to wherever they could expect to receive higher social security payments.

  Ole Christensen (S&D). – (DA) Mr President, if we are to have an effective single market with the free movement of goods, services, capital and workers, we must also have an effective market for social security. It is therefore good for the rules to be updated and coordinated on an ongoing basis. After all, it must not be problematic for workers to work and move between two different countries. These new rules mean that people will not need to turn down a job because they are not entirely sure of their social rights.

The rules are also changing for frontier workers to the effect that they will be covered by the social security system in the country that forms their primary place of work, but with the option, if they do 25% of their work in the country in which they live, of choosing to be covered by the social security system there instead.

I also think it is good that we have clarified the rules relating to aircrew members so that it is not possible for them to shop around and choose the country with the cheapest social security system.

Now, all we are actually missing is clearer rules for posted workers, and we will have these later this year.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). – (SK) Mr President, I would like to applaud the excellent work done by Dr Cabrnoch, who has united all political groupings, which is how it should be where such texts help citizens live in any country of the European Union, work there and be covered by social security. This is, after all, the role of Members of the European Parliament. This is something concrete we can present to our voters, our citizens. I am delighted that issues have been clarified that relate not only to workers living in border areas who work in a neighbouring country, but also to those working in a completely different country, not necessarily across the border – the job can even be in a distant country. The payment of social security benefits for air crews and pilots has also been clarified by specifying their home airport as the base where their social benefits will be paid. This will also contribute to the simplification and greater transparency of the means by which employers are to pay for their employees and how employees can enjoy these social benefits.

  Danuta Jazłowiecka (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, as the Commission rightly observes, in the last few years, huge changes have occurred not just in Member States’ legislation, but chiefly in patterns of social behaviour. We are increasingly having to deal with labour-related migration to other countries, cross-border employment, people working in several jobs at the same time in different firms which operate throughout the Union and other people carrying on a business in two or more Member States. It should, however, be stressed that these changes are not just the consequence of the economic crisis, but also of the greater changes taking place in the labour market. Therefore, it is essential to bring existing legislation up to date to take account of the new circumstances and make it easier for our citizens to be mobile and engage in business. We need, however, to be aware that the situation is extremely dynamic. We are not currently in a position to be able to anticipate the evolution which will take place in the EU labour market over the next few years. The changes made to Member States’ legislation in relation to the crisis, the transformations in businesses, the emergence of new occupations and the ever-increasing mobility of the EU’s citizens are certain to force further change in the near future. Therefore, we should think about how to achieve overall regulation of matters related to the coordination of social security systems, so that our approach to these matters will be relatively stable and not need to be changed too often.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D). – (LT) Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur and I welcome the part of the report aimed at carrying out adjustments, because they are inevitable as Member States change practices and their legislation. Of course, I also particularly welcome the necessary amendments to the content of European Union legislation, which are essential to effectively and fully implement the right of free movement of workers for our citizens. The situation where self-employed workers work in a country where they have the right to unemployment benefit, but lose that right simply because they go to live in another country whose legislation does not provide for such benefits, is unacceptable in a European Union that promotes the free movement of workers. In its case-law, the European Court of Justice has also confirmed that people who have become unemployed in one Member State have the right to go and live in another Member State to seek work there and to continue to receive the unemployment benefit to which they are entitled. Most importantly, the right to social benefits cannot be restricted where these benefits are made up of social security contributions that workers who were formerly self-employed paid themselves.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, I also support the amendment to the regulations on the coordination and implementation of social security systems. This will increase legal certainty. I welcome the fact that the proposal takes into account changes to national legislations as well as the most recent trends in cross-border mobility. It is more important than ever to ensure the free movement of labour for all EU citizens. Romanian and Bulgarian workers are affected more than the rest of Europe’s citizens due to an additional requirement which is imposed on them in what is already an excessively competitive labour market. The regulations need to be simplified, especially when it comes to the relevant unemployment benefits in order to protect citizens’ rights. On this point, I should stress the importance of the amendment to Article 65. The proposed amendments will help update and improve existing regulations in light of the changing social circumstances.

  Gerard Batten (EFD). – Mr President, the harmonisation of EU social security systems does not, of course, mean the harmonisation of the benefit systems themselves – that would be unachievable – but rather the harmonisation of access to those systems by all EU citizens. What this means is that many social security claimants will gravitate to those states with the most generous systems.

In Britain, nearly five million people are on the council house waiting list, with little prospect of getting a home, but in some London boroughs, almost 50% of social housing is given to people not born in the UK. Many of these people will never have paid a penny in tax and will be living on state benefits. Of course there is no point in homeless Londoners emigrating to other EU Member States to seek homes and income on their social security systems because the benefits will not be as reciprocal. No one should gain public housing or benefits in Britain until they have paid tax for a considerable period of time.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I particularly welcome the aim of simplifying matters intended by this proposal for a regulation. As you are aware, I have been urging right since the start of this mandate for the most accommodating, flexible and simple approach possible to be adopted in dealing with every aspect at European level so that the system operates as smoothly as possible in keeping with European citizens’ needs.

Therefore, I think that coordinating social security systems can only mark a step forward in light of the current need for jobs and, by extension, for encouraging labour mobility. Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 need to be adapted to the new circumstances. In addition to these efforts, it must also be the job of Member States and governments to continue to ensure that social security systems operate effectively and to cooperate in supporting those regulations at European level for the benefit of those working or no longer working in different states with different systems.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D). – (SK) Mr President, the aim of the proposals on the coordination of social security systems is, in particular, to improve and modernise the acquis, while they are also affected by changes in society. It is in order to react to these changes that improvements are proposed in the area of the determination of the applicable legal regulations and unemployment benefits. I would like it to be clarified that, in the case of work in two or more Member States, the condition of engaging in a substantial part of activities also relates to persons who work for different companies or employers. The diversity and evolution of the conditions under which professional activities are pursued make it necessary to take into account the situation of highly mobile workers in particular. I also consider it important to ensure that self-employed persons receive benefits in accordance with the laws of the competent Member State, and that they are offered the best prospects for reintegrating into the labour market when they return to their Member State of residence. I am of the view that the proposal before us should be amended accordingly to reflect these realities.

  Andrew Henry William Brons (NI). – Mr President, in this European Parliament, whatever the matter being debated, all roads lead to the same place: further and deeper political and economic integration. In the early days of what was the EEC, we were told that there was freedom of movement of labour: the right to work in other countries. If work could not be found, or if one’s job disappeared, people would come home.

We are now moving towards freedom of movement of claimants. This coordination is portrayed as a safety net for hard-working, enterprising, self-employed people who fall on hard times. In fact, its motivation is to support not people but a political objective: the maximisation of the movement of people to undermine national identities. In the words of the rapporteur, without such coordination, there would be a risk that freedom of movement would be inoperable. In this field, as in all others, the measures are not designed to satisfy an autonomous demand or the desire of self-employed people to work abroad. It is part of a long-term plan to create and empower that demand.

End of the catch-the-eye procedure

  László Andor, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I believe the proposal discussed today builds on the existing legislation with a view to guaranteeing EU citizens an entitlement to social security benefits when they move between Member States. Cross-border mobility indeed raises questions, and we have to find practical answers and solutions in a constructive atmosphere of this kind.

I believe the various references to other dossiers such as, for example, the posting of workers, were also relevant and very helpful, and I listened very carefully to what was said about the impact of social housing and homelessness, because this is also an important aspect of our work in the fight against poverty.

But the proposal that was discussed today makes provision for technical arrangements for effective social security coordination and does only what is necessary to make effective coordination a reality for citizens in their day-to-day lives. The Commission welcomes the agreement between the Council and Parliament and looks forward to the adoption of the proposal at first reading.

  Milan Cabrnoch, rapporteur. – (CS) Mr President, I would very briefly like to thank the staff from both the Commission and the Council for their broad support and cooperation. I very much appreciate the fact that only concurring views were voiced in the debate. I would like to say that the regulation under debate has not only a technical but also a very strong political side to it. It supports the legitimate completion of a genuinely functioning common market and it supports basic freedoms, as well as the movement of goods, services, workers and capital. It supports the mobility of workers, and not only employees, but also the self-employed, by introducing clearer, more comprehensible and simpler rules.

Our task is to create an environment and a legislative framework for business, and not to burden Member States, businesses and workers with ever increasing amounts of unnecessary legislation. I would like to emphasise that the regulation under debate preserves full Member State sovereignty in matters of social policy, places no additional demands on Member State budgets that are already under strain, and avoids creating false, unreasonable or unfounded expectations. It also avoids creating any imbalance between the rights and obligations of workers and their employers. The regulation therefore entirely supports the basic principles of the European Union as we think it ought to operate.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place today at 11.30.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Frédéric Daerden (S&D), in writing. – (FR) There is growing euroscepticism among employees in Europe and, as we know, the risk of falling into a spirit of ‘every man for himself’ is never far away. Some employers are taking advantage of legal vacuums in order to keep their wage costs to a minimum, to the detriment of employees. Employees feel they are the victims of unfair competition, which is having a clear impact on their social security provisions. Some low-cost airlines are experts in this kind of practice, and in its clear reference to home bases, the report that will be adopted today covers one of the legal vacuums they have been exploiting. The EU needs to send out more of these positive signals to Europe’s workers and this Parliament should be one of the principal vehicles. We must make it a priority to convey their demands, not only in this area, but in all those that affect them and in which they are afraid of being pitted against each other. Social dumping will secure neither the future of the Union nor economic revival.

  Thomas Mann (PPE), in writing. – (DE) I would like to congratulate Mr Cabrnoch for his excellent report, which was adopted by the lead committee, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, with one abstention. Mr Cabrnoch has mastered the art of bringing people together: even in the Council, there is broad support. Cross-border mobility is increasing in the internal market, and national legislation is still not keeping pace. The national social security systems need to be better coordinated. The report achieved clarification in respect of the law governing posted workers and in respect of unemployment insurance. A breakthrough has been achieved for flight attendants, something that is of particular importance for me as an MEP representing Frankfurt. My amendments have been adopted. This means that the home base will become the legal basis and thus the sole criterion for the application of social security law. An airline whose flight attendants are stationed in Germany must apply local social security law and cannot either change social security contributions or circumvent requirements for the establishment of works councils. Loopholes allowing the avoidance of higher social security standards are thus being closed. Time and practical experience will tell whether this warning shot from Strasbourg has been understood. A social market economy includes reasonable social standards. Competition on prices cannot be at the expense of the crews, who bear the hefty responsibility for the quality and safety of flights. The Cabrnoch report is thus also in the interests of passengers.

  Evelyn Regner (S&D), in writing. – (DE) People who habitually work in multiple Member States of the EU should be socially insured wherever the main focus of their life is. The new regulation on the coordination of social security systems aims to close current loopholes and take account of the changes in national legislation. The new rules are crucial, above all, for flight attendants and self-employed frontier workers. The social security system is, and remains, self-evidently the responsibility of individual Member States. However, we are ensuring that these systems can also be made use of by, and are fair to, those people who work in multiple EU countries as a result of the greater mobility that now exists. It should not be of decisive importance where the registered office of a company is. The decisive factor for social security is the home base, which is to say, the place where someone has the main focus of their life, from which they usually make their journeys. Low-cost airlines were responsible for wage and social dumping in the past, when, for example, Belgian stewardesses were registered with the less beneficial Irish social security system. We are now putting paid to such practices. This is a new regulation of Europe’s internal market that does not permit any dumping in relation to social security systems and ensures greater legal certainty. It takes us one step closer to a more social Europe.

IN THE CHAIR: EDWARD McMILLAN-SCOTT
Vice-President

4. Question Time (Commission)

  President. – The next item is Question Time and the topic is employment rights in a Europe of open borders. I will interpret this as widely as possible, but I should warn you that if your question is completely off topic, you will be cut off. I shall just remind you of the rules. Questions are taken exclusively on a catch-the-eye basis. Each Member has one minute to put his or her question and 30 seconds to put a supplementary. The Commission has two minutes to reply if only one Commissioner is to be responsible for answering. If more than one Commissioner is to reply, each Commissioner has one minute’s speaking time. Our experience, broadly speaking, is that we get through about 19 questions. We are, as you know, reviewing the new format of Question Time and I welcome any suggestions.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, we had a debate six months ago in this very House on the wave of redundancies in Europe in the wake of the economic crisis. We mentioned, in particular, the multinational Arcelor, which is present in nine EU Member States and is downsizing its production facilities due to subdued demand for steel.

After the shutdown of two blast furnaces in Belgium and Luxembourg and short-time working at a blast furnace in France, an estimated 6 000 direct jobs are reported to be under threat in 2012. In addition to unacceptable practices such as short-time working – a practice which ought to be better regulated – it is the wider issues affecting the European steel industry and adaptation to change that must be addressed as a matter of absolute urgency.

Six months ago, the Commission announced that, due to the economic crisis, a new consultation exercise on responsible management of downsizing operations needed to be carried out with both sides of industry and government authorities.

My question is quite simple: six months later, where have we got to on this?

  László Andor, Member of the Commission. – In January, the Commission launched a Green Paper on restructuring and I believe this is a very important debate. This discussion has a certain history, with strong involvement by the social partners – the trade unions and, on the other side, the employers having strong views – especially because in the crisis period there have been heavy implications as a result of corporate relocations inside Europe, but also from Europe to other continents. The example that was mentioned – Arcelor Mittal – has indeed experienced great job losses in the recent period, including in Belgium, as we discussed some months ago in this Chamber.

I think such examples provide lessons for how to develop this discussion. In this phase, the Commission is summarising the answers. We received more than 100 answers in this two-month consultation period. There was a reference in the forthcoming employment package to the continuing work on restructuring and we will soon – after evaluating these summaries – decide on what the next follow-up should be.

We will, of course, coordinate with the social partners about this decision, but let me just finally mention that there is also an important financial implication because in such situations, the governments can request the Globalisation Adjustment Fund if the conditions apply. I believe that has to be taken into account when the Parliament discusses the future of the Globalisation Adjustment Fund.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE). – (FR) Commissioner, I must stress the urgency of this debate, because more than 250 000 workers are directly employed in the metal industries and 370 000 in the steel industry, and I think we need a forward-looking vision for the steel industry that will support not only economic investment, but also workers and their right to job security.

  László Andor, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, the broader picture of the future of the steel industry and, more generally, of industrial manufacturing in Europe is, of course, primarily the responsibility of Vice-President Antonio Tajani. However, we do work together in view of the implications for jobs.

I think that it is with good reason that industrial policy is one of the flagship initiatives of the Europe 2020 strategy, and we have to take this very seriously. I fully agree with you.

  Evelyn Regner (S&D). – (DE) Mr President, I follow the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice closely. In the past, the Court has gradually hollowed out a number of national control measures and declared them incompatible with the freedom to provide services.

The new implementing directive is now laying down new control measures which the Member States cannot exceed. Minimum requirements are thus becoming maximum requirements. I will point out just a couple of examples. From now on, documents are only to be translated if they are not excessively long, or Member States need to ensure that the formalities of the posting enterprises are as easy as possible to comply with. Austria has already introduced a very efficient and effective law to combat wage and social dumping. Are measures like this that are actually well suited to combating wage and social dumping now to be put in jeopardy as a result of this new implementing directive which, although well meant, in certain cases is only good in its intentions and not its effect?

  László Andor, Member of the Commission. – The issue of social rights and social dumping has been mentioned in a question. I have been at the centre of discussions on the posting of workers, especially following a few famous Court rulings in this area. This is why the Commission wanted to address this problem through various proposals, but particularly as part of the posting of workers package amounting to a regulation. If adopted, it will help to address such situations in the future.

I should say again that we have discussed the structure and the content of this proposal with all the stakeholders over the past two years, and we have said on these occasions that the Commission will not reverse the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice, but rather that it will do as much as possible to prevent similar conflicts from occurring in the future. In the event that such conflicts do occur, it will facilitate a much faster solution. We take a practical view of this problem as opposed to various ideological approaches, and I think that the document which we adopted in March delivers much to improve the situation in a very concrete way on the ground.

  Evelyn Regner (S&D). – (DE) Mr Andor, I have another question of a practical nature that I would like to ask you, and to discuss a specific example where supervisory authorities come up against their limits.

Although there are cases in which the declared earnings correspond to a 40-hour working week, the truth is that posted workers work 50-60 hours or more. That is not uncommon, because posted construction workers, in particular, have relatively little interest in time off while they are posted abroad and like to have their working time en bloc as far as possible. The result is that the actual time worked is hard to monitor. Do you have any proposals for how to improve this?

  László Andor, Member of the Commission. – There are two key points which I would like to make in response to this very concrete question.

One of them is that, of course, in the judgment on this specific matter we have to see how the Working Time Directive is applied in the country concerned. It varies greatly across Member States, and that is why it is very important that in the current period, the social partners at European level are negotiating about the Working Time Directive and how to revise it.

But secondly, and most importantly, in this document, which we adopted in March, there are many points about improving administrative cooperation, and such differences in national regulations will be sorted out and addressed more easily in the future through this improved administrative cooperation.

  Danuta Jazłowiecka (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, my question is addressed to Mr Andor. There is no doubt that if people are to exercise their freedom of movement and take up work in another European Union Member State, workers’ rights must be safeguarded and respected. This objective also guided the Commission during work on the enforcement directive concerning the posting of workers within the framework of the provision of services.

An initial analysis of this directive prompts a number of questions. Is the Commission not afraid that the proposal to introduce a list of criteria for characterising both the existence of a genuine link between employers and their country of origin as well as the temporary nature of workers’ postings will not cause still greater difficulties in interpreting and implementing the directive than is currently the case? Many of the criteria proposed by the Commission do not take into account the diverse nature of businesses and services and may bring about the imposition of additional bureaucratic and financial burdens, particularly on small and medium-sized enterprises. Is the Commission not afraid that introduction of the principle of joint and several liability in all the Member States will lead indirectly to a reduction in the opportunities to provide services in the European Union construction sector, where this form of employment is the most popular? Fears over potential liability may cause employers to stop posting workers abroad.

  László Andor, Member of the Commission. – Ms Jazłowiecka, the intention and, in fact, the objective of the Commission with this work is to continue to facilitate cross-border services while, at the same time, fighting social dumping and protecting the posted workers better. I believe we delivered this. The particular elements in this proposal concerning the construction industry will help clarify and improve the situation and build confidence around posting practices.

The number of posted workers will not depend on this. Companies will enjoy the same opportunities to provide cross-border services as in the past, but there will be a greater clarity about how to implement the existing regulation and how to avoid the problematic cases of the past. Whether there is a demand and indeed a practice of posting depends on a variety of factors. It depends on the situation in the given industry and the markets and the needs for labour, geographic proximity, and various other economic factors. The fact that we now propose new practices to ensure and guarantee rights and improve administrative cooperation will, I believe, not undermine cross-border services. They will actually clarify the situation, build confidence and thus perhaps even facilitate more than in the past.

  Danuta Jazłowiecka (PPE). – (PL) Mr Andor, in the European Union, there are eight Member States which have introduced the principle of joint and several liability. Can you give me the name of one of them in which this principle is working well – so well that it could be introduced in the other Member States? Will the introduction of this principle really secure the protection of workers’ rights?

  László Andor, Member of the Commission. – For me, this is not an opportunity to name and shame as regards best practices or to state where there have been fewer cases because very often, the conflicts round the posting of workers have emerged because of differences in regulations: the lack of proper ground for a uniform interpretation of the European rules. We are acting to help the proper interpretation and to respond to the diversity of the European industrial relation systems in a better way through improved European practice.

  Sergio Gaetano Cofferati (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wanted to put my question to the Commissioner regarding the Monti II regulation on the exercise of the right to collective action. I believe that the proposal being made by the Commission is unacceptable because it infringes the fundamental rights of the individual and the collective rights of representatives, because when we assume mutual respect between freedom of establishment and exercise of rights, and when it says that the right to strike must be balanced with economic freedoms, this interferes in areas that should instead be left up to the parties involved.

I believe that a formula of this nature is contrary to the material interests of the people represented, but also infringes rights enshrined by international organisations and laws on workers’ rights as well as citizenship rights. I believe that this proposal should, for this reason, be profoundly changed or, even better, withdrawn, so that we can open a debate that envisages a balancing point, but one which is left up to the social representatives to decide.

  László Andor, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, this is indeed a sensitive point, but I believe that the correct interpretation will help to eliminate concerns and anxiety regarding Monti II.

To clarify: the draft regulation confirms that there is no primacy of the freedom to provide services or the establishment of the right to strike. It will not impose any additional obstacles on exercising the right to strike. In fact, the Monti II regulation aims – without reversing European Court of Justice case-law – to clarify the extent to which trade unions may exercise the right to strike in cases of cross-border operations, and to put forward rules for dealing with obstacles to the free provision of services or to the freedom of establishment created by the exercise of fundamental social rights.

The Monti II regulation recognises that Member States have limited possibilities to intervene in strikes and that the EU is not competent to legislate on the right to strike, as you can read in Article 153(5) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

I believe that the right interpretation of Monti II will help to eliminate misunderstandings on this issue, as was the case with Monti I.

  Sergio Gaetano Cofferati (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in truth, the regulation we are discussing infringes existing case-law. In some Member States, there are forms of self-regulation that have been decided freely by the workers’ representative organisations and are not imposed by law, and woe betide us if that were so.

I believe this is a sphere that is best handled in autonomy – where we need to define the relationship between a strike and its effects on the user – and should not be invaded by legislation in any form, whether it involves actions taking place within a single country, or actions that may affect cross-border workers and may thus involve more than one country.

  László Andor, Member of the Commission. – Again, I can say that this regulation respects the diversity of the industrial relations system and, for example, in the case of industrial conflict, highlights the role of the national courts, since they are the closest to the situation where the problems or disagreements might occur. I think it is very important to realise that this Monti II does not actually regulate on the right to strike and that the Member States are free to lay down the conditions for the existence and exercise of the social rights at issue.

However, when exercising their power, the Member States must comply with Union law, in particular, the provisions of the Treaty on the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services. The Court clearly stated that the right to strike does not fall outside the scope of the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services.

I can also add that the regulation lays down general principles with respect to the exercise of the right to strike within the context of the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services. It does not affect in any way the right to strike within the Member States.

  Renate Weber (ALDE). – (RO) Mr President, I am an ardent supporter of European integration, which is why I also understand the notion of a united front against the economic crisis. However, what I fail to understand is why solidarity means that Romanian and Bulgarian citizens are asked to give their support to joint crisis recovery plans while, at the same time, restrictions are being imposed on them, which shows that we are not European citizens enjoying equal rights. If we were equal, we would all have the unrestricted right to work, regardless of which country we would like to settle in, and we would all have the right to free movement. This is still not the case because Romania and Bulgaria have not received member status of the Schengen area, even though the technical criteria have been met long ago. Therefore, my fellow Romanian citizens have, first and foremost, obligations to Europe and fewer rights, an imbalance which goes against the quintessential idea of Europe. Is the Commission planning to persuade the Council and Member States to change these practices already this year?

  László Andor, Member of the Commission. – Perhaps the previous Commissioner for Enlargement will supplement what I am saying, but this is exactly the point: since the freedom of movement from new Member States is regulated within the enlargement agreements, the same rules in fact apply to those countries that joined the Union in 2004 and in 2007, and to Croatia, which will join next year.

There is no discrimination because these three stages have been defined in an identical way vis-à-vis these countries. Nevertheless, we do emphasise the merits of free movement and we have been inviting the older Member States to open their labour markets faster than has been laid down, and quite a few of them have actually done that. Quite a few opened very early, and some – Italy and the Czech Republic – abandoned the restrictions from 1 January. So they will not apply the restrictions vis-à-vis Romania and Bulgaria for the next two years.

I have been calling on all others to reconsider their decisions. I sent a letter to these governments in order to encourage them to reconsider their decisions, and in the forthcoming employment package, we also point to the importance of this.

  Renate Weber (ALDE). – Is the Commission satisfied with the explanation you received from the Member States which are still keeping the restrictions, claiming that our presence will distort the labour market?

  László Andor, Member of the Commission. – No, the Commission was not fully satisfied with the argumentation and, in my letter to the relevant ministers, I also pointed to the insufficient analytical support for maintenance of the restrictions. These governments will have to send additional analyses in the coming period in order to justify their decisions, which have taken effect since 1 January.

  Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, I would like to ask a question based on a specific example. In the major building site in the Berlin-Brandenburg region that is the airport, there is a rule according to which workers are only allowed to enter the building site on the basis of an individual ID, in order to make it possible to ensure that the Posting of Workers Directive and the corresponding German legislation really are complied with. The operator has made it possible for 300 of the 6 000 workers to enter the building site without obeying these rules. The result is that it is specifically in the case of these 300 workers where wage dumping has taken place. In other words, these 300 workers have not received their pay – they have not received any pay for their work!

This example shows that the restriction of Member States’ controls under your proposal will have exactly the opposite effect, which is to say, it will lead to social dumping. My question is, why do you not want to allow the Member States the freedom to carry out controls on building sites thoroughly themselves? Why do you want to limit that?

  László Andor, Member of the Commission. – Ms Schroedter, the Member States can build on the regulation which was proposed by the Commission and which would be established as a European standard. This was actually a very important point for Germany, as the principle of joint and several liability – a key element of the proposed legislation – has already been applied in that country. If there are still controversies – as in the one case in Berlin that you mentioned – then this is very unfortunate. If the problem remains unresolved, then I would be very happy to look into the case when I next go to Berlin on 5 June.

The point is that the construction industry has faced many adversities and problematic cases, and we have to establish greater accountability. There are various instruments for this. There are ‘avoid lists’, which help companies that want to use subcontractors, for example, to see which companies apply good practice and pay their taxes and social security. All of this is very important in creating a cleaner environment and better practices, and in improving confidence regarding cross-border services.

  Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Commissioner, I am afraid that I find your answer inadequate.

In Article 9 of your proposal, you listed what measures Member States may take. In other words, you are going further than the original regulation. The original regulation allows Member States the freedom to implement the controls in the best and most efficient possible way. As soon as you list the measures permissible, you are limiting the controls. When that happens, the result is exactly the kind of scenario that I related in connection with Berlin. This means that many workers in Europe are cheated of their pay. Surely you cannot allow yourself to be responsible for that? As far as I am concerned, the question is this: why are you interfering, via your Article 9, in the competence of the Member States to implement controls?

  László Andor, Member of the Commission. – Just two points: first of all, while I know that the government in Berlin is comfortable with this element of the proposed legislation, may I just reiterate that they can maintain more regulation and more controls if they so wish. However, the intention of the proposed European legislation is to create a level playing field at a minimum level, as the regulation in certain countries was indeed insufficient. This is not about the level of the wages: it is about guaranteeing that workers actually receive the wages that they are entitled to, especially in the context of the posting. It would be too ambitious, of course, and probably also inappropriate, to try to regulate the level of the wages. The point is that there are more guarantees that the workers will actually receive what they are entitled to, and this is very good.

  Cornelis de Jong (GUE/NGL). – (NL) Mr President, I believe that wage dumping is the focal issue of this matter and I also have a question about it. In international road transport, there are a lot of drivers in the Netherlands currently sending me dramatic letters about the fact that Dutch companies have opened a branch in, say, Romania, then recruited local staff – using the same lorries they had in service in their company in the Netherlands – and then telling their Dutch drivers that there is no more work for them, unless they accept the conditions of employment applicable to the Romanians.

I think that is a direct form of wage dumping. It means that, by simply relocating somewhere else in Europe, you can use the same company to suddenly reduce conditions of employment. In the Commission’s proposal for the Posting of Workers Directive, I do not see any guarantee whatsoever that this kind of bogus company relocation will be prevented. I would like to hear from the Commission about how we can do that and whether Europe is supposed to be about pushing wages down.

  László Andor, Member of the Commission. – I would like to make two points in response to this question. One of them is that there is indeed an important focus in this proposal on the so-called letterbox companies that simply move their centre of establishment to another country without having a relevant part of their economic activities in that country. It contains important provisions seeking to diminish – or even eliminate – such practices in the future. This is indeed a form of social dumping, and it does not help in maintaining fairness and a level playing field in the European economy.

The second point I would like to make is that in Europe the reality is that there are wage differences between various countries and various regions. There should be broader consideration of many policies – not simply a matter of legislation on one particular working practice – in order to see how convergence might be facilitated and the various tensions which are connected to these wage differences reduced in the future.

  Cornelis de Jong (GUE/NGL). – (NL) Thank you, Commissioner. I have, of course, seen that the Commission’s proposal mentions letterbox companies. My question, then, is: what does the Commission mean by significant or insignificant economic activity? The second question I would like to link in with this is: is the Commission prepared to make more proposals in the future for minimum agreements on social rights in different countries, for example, a minimum wage related to national income? That would then mean that this problem is resolved in a systematic way.

  László Andor, Member of the Commission. – What we judge to be a critical (minimum) level of economic activity should also depend on the sector and various other parameters which have to be looked at in the case of particular companies and countries.

The important thing is that within a sectoral context, it is possible to define and draw conclusions, if necessary, about improving the situation. The Enforcement Directive will, in fact, clarify the elements of the notion of posting, which will help to combat the use of temporary posting by so-called letterbox companies as a subterfuge to circumvent the applicable law. The letterbox company, may I remind you, has no genuine economic activity in the Member State of establishment, and this is what we have to look at.

Concerning further proposals, yes, we will also be looking at the question of a minimum wage and other important issues in the labour market in the forthcoming employment package.

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, combating youth unemployment is a priority of the European Commission and there are EUR 82 billion available, EUR 8 billion of which are for Italy. Obviously, as we know, these are not additional resources, but unspent Structural Funds; they are, however, significant resources.

In addition to these resources, the Commission has provided action teams to support the eight Member States with the highest youth unemployment rates, including Italy, where it has reached 31.9% according to the April data. Two months ago, the action team arrived in Italy, but there has been no public evidence of this meeting.

My question therefore is: what is happening? Is there any information; can the Commission provide information on the reprogramming of funds, on tangible actions implemented by the Italian Government?

  László Andor, Member of the Commission. – Yes indeed, this is a very important initiative and a very practical initiative of the European Commission. The eight action teams have been in the Member States where the youth unemployment rate is the highest, including Italy. I had an opportunity less than two weeks ago to give personal feedback to the Italian public because I was in Tuscany and attended an event on youth employment, together with the President of Tuscany, Mr Rossi. I did that because Tuscany has an excellent example: a programme which is supported by the European Social Fund called Giovanisì, which could also be seen as a model for other parts of Italy to provide public support to help young people launch their careers, launch their individual existence and have a better life. It supports hundreds of young people in that particular region and I am very proud that the ESF is playing a strong role in this.

The action teams came back. They summed up their conclusions and next week, in the formal EPSCO Council, I will discuss with Ministers the actual proposals. There are very concrete proposals for all eight countries regarding various aspects of youth employment and training. We shall then return in order to see what needs to be done in practice, whether it requires reallocation or not. Reallocation is possible within the European Social Fund but also in the broader context of EU funds if justified.

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, one question: why were the social partners not consulted, in particular youth organisations and young people, since the Commission, even in its communication on the Youth Opportunities Initiative, said it is important to consult and involve the social partners and therefore young people, specifically so as to ask them to be actively and tangibly involved in these initiatives?

  László Andor, Member of the Commission. – The social partners have been consulted, and I have to say that President Barroso has been personally involved in a dialogue with the representatives of the EU-level social partners, both Business Europe and the ETUC. Business Europe is also developing its own action programme – particularly focusing on apprenticeships, although not exclusively – in this area, and the ETUC is also working hard on this.

This subject was actually dealt with during our discussions at the tripartite social summit on 1 March at which – in addition to President Barroso – President Herman Van Rompuy was present. Youth employment, therefore, is indeed a key issue. Unfortunately, there are many problems in the area of the labour market: unemployment is at its peak at present and represents the greatest problem that Europe has faced at any time in the last 60 years. But we have to focus action where the situation is the most difficult, which is actually the employment of young people, especially in the so-called peripheral regions.

  Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (S&D). – (HU) Mr President, I have a question for Commissioner Andor. The number of posted workers stands at 1 million today, which does not even amount to one per cent of European employees; more precisely, it is 0.7% of the total number. Commissioner, how far do you think this low percentage of posted workers in Europe is due to EU regulatory deficiencies and the existing directive and regulation? Did the Commission undertake any impact studies to examine the extent to which the adoption of the amendment to the directive and of the Monti II regulation would create new jobs and facilitate economic growth, seeing as how the lack of economic growth is Europe’s most serious problem today? On a related note, what were the findings of the Commission’s impact assessment?

  László Andor, Member of the Commission. – (HU) Mr Tabajdi, the Commission’s proposal was indeed preceded by a very detailed impact analysis, which indicated that the new legislation to be adopted would help boost the number of employees who could find employment through such posting. This, however, is obviously not a goal in itself. That is, it is not a goal to have more workers employed abroad as opposed to their home environments, but these opportunities must be exploited. If we compare the European Union to, say, the United States, another single market, we find that mobility here in Europe is much more modest.

This, however, has a multitude of reasons, just as there is a multitude of reasons in the case of posting, and also in respect of the free movement of workers in general. The international movement of labour, whether in the form of free employment or posting, is impeded by linguistic and administrative barriers, housing situations, differences in the ease of finding accommodation, and a variety of other factors. We seek to eliminate these barriers, to ensure that there are as few of them as possible, because this is not just a right of freedom for European citizens, but also a critical economic opportunity for both the business sector and private individuals.

  Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (S&D). – (HU) Thank you, Commissioner, for your answer. When my fellow Members bring up the matter of social dumping, I often get the sense that there is a kind of isolationism on the part of the old Member States, and it would be most welcome if we did not have to go through the debate of the Polish Plumber or that of old and new Member States again, because if, in fact, I look at the percentage of posted workers, as I explained previously, I find that the issue of social dumping is being blown out of proportion. What could we do to prevent the emergence of a new fault line between Member States admitted after 2004 and their old counterparts?

  László Andor, Member of the Commission. – (HU) Mr Tabajdi, as your comment implies, this debate actually goes beyond the issue of the number of posted workers; it is a symbolic debate, if you will, the significance of which, however, can be understood if we take into consideration that these debates, especially as far as Court decisions are concerned, were about the essence of social rights. From this perspective, I believe that this is a very important debate and the legislation proposed by the Commission in March is important and relevant as well, but it is true that all this needs to be put in a far broader context which involves combating social inequalities and disadvantaged situations, and providing opportunities for catching up. There are individual strategies, which can be reflected in the freedom to take employment, and there are collective strategies which can be implemented through the cohesion of the various regions and countries. These aspects are therefore indeed interrelated, and to approach them in a broader context is definitely justified.

  Jaroslav Paška (EFD). – (SK) Mr President, my country is the biggest per capita producer of automobiles in the world. Close examination of the wage conditions of employees has shown us, however, that the wage level of employees in, say, the Bratislava plant, is only 50% of the wage paid by the vehicle manufacturer for the same work in its factory in its home country. I would like to ask whether such behaviour is not an abuse of dominant position by some major European multinationals through a wage policy that discriminates against EU partner countries where, due to high unemployment, people are willing to take jobs even if they are underpaid.

  László Andor, Member of the Commission. – On this matter, I speak under the guidance of the Vice-President, but I think that, if it is true that the wages in the car manufacturing sector in Bratislava are just half of the wages in some more advanced industrial countries, then it is a good result because normally, in terms of the average wages, there are much bigger differences between the countries of Western and Northern Europe and the so-called new Member States in Central Europe and the Balkans.

I think this should be seen as a factor of industrial development. The wage level clearly plays a role in attracting foreign investment – FDI – to Slovakia and we can only congratulate Slovakia on its very successful industrial development in the last ten to fifteen years. However, what we should also note is not simply the wage differences between Bratislava and some Western European locations, but also the differences between western and eastern Slovakia. We should also have the objective of ensuring that regional development helps catching up inside the country and that these differences become a bit more balanced in the future.

  Olli Rehn, Vice-President of the Commission. – Just to supplement what my colleague and friend, László Andor, has said, I think it is always difficult to define the right level of wages, if there is such a concept. Normally, it is advisable for wage development to reflect productivity developments and to help optimise employment and job creation in any given society or Member State.

Without taking any precise position, for these reasons, on the exact level of wages in Slovakia or any other Member State, I think it is clearly a fact that this wage development reflects the level of economic development. I would join László Andor in commending Slovakia for its formidable industrial development over the past two decades. In fact, the success of Slovakia – and many other countries of Central and Eastern Europe which are part of the overall production chains of Europe – are some of the success stories of the enlargement of the European Union. Despite the financial crisis and its aftermath and the social and economic consequences, it is a fact that the eastern enlargement of the European Union has been beneficial in economic terms for the whole of Europe in terms of competitiveness and the overall creation of jobs.

  Jaroslav Paška (EFD). – (SK) Mr President, elementary economic rules dictate that wages should reflect labour productivity. Labour productivity in the Bratislava plant is higher than in the parent company’s plant in its home country. I would like to ask how long we will tolerate such discrimination against the labour force in Eastern Europe according to the basic rules.

  László Andor, Member of the Commission. – There is definitely no discrimination as such in this. However, what I should highlight – which we did not mention in the answer to the previous question – is the importance of social dialogue in this. Of course, there is an economic rationale which helps define wages in the labour market, but from an institutional point of view – and this should be underlined in the Central European context as well – the social partners play a role – I would say a dominant role – in defining wages. Perhaps that dimension should be looked at in Slovakia and strengthened in the coming period. When I have an opportunity to meet officials of the new government, I will certainly raise this point.

  Ádám Kósa (PPE). – (HU) Mr President, the European Commission’s disability strategy published in late 2010 contained a figure concerning employment; that figure was 50%. The figure refers to a 50% rate of employment. In Central and Eastern Europe the rate of employment is only half of that figure, meaning that it is very low. There is, unfortunately, no figure to show whether employees with disabilities are able to find employment in other EU Member States. I believe it will come as no surprise when I say that a minuscule number of them take employment abroad. Why is this so? It is because accessibility and social services are not uniform across the various Member States. My question is this: what does the European Commission intend to do to further this goal? Considering, in particular, that the Commission intends to submit a European accessibility package this year.

  László Andor, Member of the Commission. – (HU) Mr Kósa, as you know, many aspects of this question and this topic fall within the competence of Vice-President Reding, in particular, as regards the fight against discrimination. However, the labour market implications of disabilities are indeed very important, and it was for this very reason that I recently attended a fair and conference in Bulgaria, organised for companies and cooperative societies employing people with disabilities, and it is of great significance that this decades-old Bulgarian tradition is now expanding to the European level. Some of the participants of this event were from Italy, Romania and other European countries, and they provided an example of sorts as to how companies, cooperative societies, and support to the social economy can help improve the situation of people with disabilities and provide them with job opportunities.

What we can do is help spread these good examples and best practices, and support them through the financial means of the Commission and the European Union. Again, I must first of all mention the Social Fund, which provides support to these programmes in Bulgaria, and when we were working on the next financial perspective, I paid particular attention, thanks in part to the discussions I had had with you, to specifically guaranteeing that in future, the Social Fund can serve as an even better means of supporting labour market integration and training of people with disabilities. Mobility is a separate issue, and I believe that the matter of its international coordination should primarily be discussed with Ms Reding.

  Ádám Kósa (PPE). – (HU) Thank you for your answer. The European Social Fund is, in fact, the subject of my second supplementary question. Over the past years, approximately 4% of the core funds was spent on improving the situation of people with disabilities, whereas the percentage of disabled citizens in Europe is approximately 10%. It is therefore a valid claim that at least 10% of the fund, 10% of the resources should be spent on people with disabilities. Does the Commission intend to follow this course of action?

  László Andor, Member of the Commission. – (HU) Mr Kósa, I definitely agree with you that it would be good to increase the proportion of funding to support the labour market integration of people with disabilities. However, it is difficult to formulate concrete targets in this case because Member States and the regions, who are the actors of development policies and of the implementation of cohesion policy, definitely have autonomy, leeway and rights in this respect, and it is they who formulate the plans and ideas that serve to improve the situation of people with disabilities. One of the reasons why we prefer this approach is that people with disabilities not only face unemployment or labour market disadvantages, but are also exposed to a significantly higher degree to the threat of poverty, in particular, at a time when tensions exist not only on the labour market, but also in fiscal policy. The restriction or regression of social services can, of course, be a potential problem, so we are definitely mindful of it, and I believe that in the future, this must therefore be considered an important task in social innovation as well.

  President. – We have about half an hour left and I have too many questions for that time. On the basis of people putting their hands up asking for the floor, and based on groups, I have the following people still on my list who are likely to get called, but I cannot guarantee it: Ms Ţicău, Mr Bennion, Ms Mazzoni, Ms Berès, Ms Turunen, Mr Papanikolaou, Mr Omarjee, Mr Obermayr and Mr Niculescu. I am sorry but it is unlikely that we will get to any other questions.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D). – (RO) Mr President, the free movement of persons is one of the basic freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty, which includes the right of EU citizens to live and work in another Member State.

Current barriers preventing the free movement of Romanian and Bulgarian workers can lead to undeclared work and social dumping. Lifting these barriers will equally protect both migrant and local workers. We call on the Commission and Member States to prevent the exploitation of Romanian and Bulgarian workers, prevent them from being recruited to work under precarious working and social welfare conditions, and ensure that their families have access to education, health care services and decent housing. What measures is the Commission intending to take to avoid situations where the basic social rights of Romanian and Bulgarian workers are not respected?

  László Andor, Member of the Commission. – As I have already answered with regard to a previous case, we have to apply what has been laid down in the accession agreements, and that does not constitute discrimination. But – at the same time – we have been advocating a more rapid opening of the labour markets of the older Member States.

Last year, we had many opportunities to discuss these questions with Austria and Germany, who eventually opened up for the eight Member States who joined in 2004. The problem of undeclared work was in the spotlight, as it has been empirically proven that undeclared work is an unfortunate consequence of the restrictions that have been maintained for too long. This is one of the key arguments that we use in order to try to encourage Member States to open up faster. But – as I have already said – the majority of Member States still have the right to maintain restrictions with regard to Bulgaria and Romania until the end of next year.

We nevertheless call on them to reconsider their decisions, as – from an economic and also social point of view – there are many benefits to free movement.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D). – (RO) Commissioner, I have mentioned the situation where Romanian and Bulgarian workers are employed, but under precarious working conditions. My second question concerns the following matter. The Commission’s intention behind the proposal tabled in March on the protection of posted workers is to encourage high-quality jobs while protecting workers’ rights. Current barriers preventing the free movement of Romanian and Bulgarian workers can lead to undeclared working and social dumping. Romania and Bulgaria do not feature among the Member States known for sending posted workers abroad, even though the latter are not entering the host country’s labour market. Does the Commission have hard data proving that Romanian and Bulgarian workers have had an adverse impact on the labour markets ...

(The President cut off the speaker)

  László Andor, Member of the Commission. – Very briefly, of course it is very important to ensure, under the existing arrangements, the free movement of workers and to fight undeclared work and other forms of abuse. However – and I should also highlight this in my reply – it is also very important to make efforts to create jobs and fight poverty at home.

In Romania and Bulgaria, it is also important to invest more in creating opportunities and more jobs, developing the economy, helping regional development and fighting against poverty in general. We have to see all the European aspects of this problem, because only if we act on all fronts can we succeed.

  Alejandro Cercas (S&D). – (ES) Mr President, I would briefly like to say that the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament has the impression that the number of speakers in this Commission Question Time is not in proportion with the number of Members from the various political groups.

We are probably mistaken, but that is the impression we are getting and we have been present since the beginning of Question Time. Many members of the S&D Group have not yet taken the floor. Most importantly, however, Mr President, some of our Members are going to be rapporteurs for specific legislative reports, but the floor is being given to people who are not part of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs or who have no direct relation to the dossiers mentioned.

Could this not also be taken into account when Members are being chosen, and would it not be possible to choose those who are most involved in the issues being addressed by the Commissioners?

  President. – We are not actually selecting on the basis of responsibilities or committees. It is basically a catch-the-eye procedure and it is based literally on that, plus the bias to allow for the groups. In fact, there will probably be five Socialist questions and only four from the EPP this time. You are getting your fair share. We have already heard from Mr Tabajdi, Mr Cofferati, Ms Ţicău and Ms Regner and they are, I believe, in your group.

  Phil Bennion (ALDE). – My concern is with the liability transfer proposals within the Posted Workers Directive. I would like to ask the Commissioner whether he does not think it is going a little bit too far to take this to European level, considering that most Member States do not have these provisions in their whole legal framework. This applies particularly to those Member States that have developed economies based on large numbers of very specialised contractors. In fact, these contractors are largely thought of as suppliers.

Would it not be true to say that there is a possibility here that we are moving towards a situation where customers will be held responsible for their suppliers’ actions? This is something that – in many Member States – would be thought of as contravening natural justice. Indeed, in some Member States with highly competitive economies based on many small contractors, would it not, in fact, hinder a move towards a more competitive economy?

  László Andor, Member of the Commission. – First of all, I believe that the proposal for joint and several liability in the construction industry is not excessive. It helps create a level playing field and focuses efforts where problems are the greatest.

I think it is also important to note that most of the famous – so-called controversial – cases in the history of the posting of workers in Europe come from countries or areas where this liability regime is not applied. In fact, where it is applied in various ways, there is already a better, cleaner, less ambiguous practice with regard to the posting of the workers. But I should also add that, under the proposal which we made, the joint and several liability will not be mandatory if there is a due diligence procedure. In the countries to which you refer – some of the so-called highly competitive countries, although some of them might currently be in recession or a very difficult situation – there are good due diligence practices. In such cases, the principle of joint and several liability would not apply. Nevertheless, I still believe that it is a very important and helpful proposal. It simply requires a company to look at who the subcontractor is and at the background and history of that business partner.

  Phil Bennion (ALDE). – Very quickly: I am probably not going to agree with the Commissioner on this one, but instead of a supplementary, I just want to point out that Ms Harkin actually thought she had been recognised from the panel by the Chair’s aides very early on in the debate – before I even arrived – and she has not been called.

I just wanted to point that out.

  President. – You are welcome to come and check the list I have in front of me, which will prove that we did it in this order.

  Erminia Mazzoni (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, unemployment figures are rising and the Commission has updated its employment strategy very clearly; the Commission has given indications to Member States in an attempt to balance the austerity and deficit reduction measures with the need to increase employment and promote growth.

These measures envisage greater flexibility, which does not, however, mean job instability, but lower labour taxation, more help for new professions in the fields of ecology, health and information technology, introduction of the minimum wage, more employment for women – because they represent an untapped or underused resource – and more youth employment given that the highest unemployment band is between the ages of 23 and 26.

Italy is a country under observation, as Ms Angelilli reminded us, or let us more correctly call it, a country under compulsory administration. Commissioner, do you consider that the reform that is being promoted – apart from the expenditure of resources that are available – meaning future measures accompanying the European Union’s strategy, do you consider that the reforms being promoted by the Italian Government are in line with the guidelines of the new European strategy?

  László Andor, Member of the Commission. – I do believe that this is a transformative time for Italy and that the labour market reforms are crucial in this effort.

Indeed, the objective is fully in line with the Commission’s belief that we have to create a dynamic and inclusive labour market. The point which was made by the honourable Member about the female employment rate is very striking. There are a few countries in Europe – and Italy is one of them – where the employment rate for women is below 50%.

At a time when we have to make some transformations for the sake of cohesion as well as for economic competitiveness – and when we have agreed at EU level to reach a 75% employment rate by 2020 – governments have to address these situations. They have to introduce reforms, and this is the focus of the Italian Government’s programme at this time.

  Erminia Mazzoni (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I must say, with regret, that in your response, I have heard no guidelines, because I am convinced that Italy’s present condition should lead the Commission to pay closer attention.

In July of last year, we received a letter giving precise guidelines; I do not believe those guidelines, especially the updating of the EU strategy for greater growth, are contained within the Italian Government’s reforms. It makes little sense to send an action team to Italy, if the basis for meeting European targets, such as an employment rate of 75% in 2020, is not then monitored in a timely fashion.

  László Andor, Member of the Commission. – I should briefly respond to the question regarding youth. If the Vice-President wants to comment on the broader questions of growth and the reforms, he should do so.

Of course, the action team has to focus on a particular group, namely young people. This is a critical question, especially in the south of Italy. There are huge imbalances inside the country, as you probably know very well. I hope this will produce very practical, concrete results in the coming year.

I think the Vice-President wants to address the issue of growth and the reforms in a broader context.

  Olli Rehn, Vice-President of the Commission. – Indeed, in the past few months, the Italian Government has shown very strong determination and, I must say, an impressive commitment to take up the twin challenge of fiscal consolidation and job-boosting reforms.

As regards fiscal consolidation, the effort made, in fact since 2010, is significant and has helped restore confidence in financial markets, not least thanks to the recent packages of fiscal consolidation that have been adopted by the government and supported by the parliament in Italy. At the same time, the sustainability of Italy’s public finances and, of course, the development of its employment depends on its growth prospects, especially in the context of recession, as is the case today.

The policy response to tackling the long-standing structural weaknesses and boosting the growth potential in Italy has been determined so far, and it is very comprehensive and wide-ranging. The rigorous implementation of the measures that have been adopted so far, especially to open up competition in product and services markets, to improve the business environment, and to make better use of Structural Funds for investment, will be crucial in delivering their full benefits.

The next crucial step is the adoption by parliament of the long-awaited reform of the labour market, which is necessary in the light of the important challenges of the Italian labour market. As recommended by the Council at its recent meeting, Italy should embrace reforms that tackle the segmentation of the labour market by reviewing its employment protection legislation and revising the unemployment benefits system, as well as enhancing the system of active labour market policies. These reforms are crucial, not least because of the unacceptable level of youth unemployment in Italy.

The reform recently adopted by the government following consultations with the social partners has the ambition to comprehensively address the rigidities and asymmetries of the labour market, while moving towards a more integrated unemployment benefit scheme. This should make it possible to find a better balance between flexibility of entry and exit from the labour market and should give rise to a more dynamic and cohesive labour market.

  Pervenche Berès (S&D). – (FR) Mr President, Mr Rehn, Commissioner, the fact that you are taking part with us in this debate on employment rights in a Europe of open borders implies, I imagine, that you have something to say on the subject in addition to your role of listening to the speeches.

I must tell you, Commissioner, that you and I are very different, because whereas I am a lay person, to hear you speak, I sometimes get the impression that you belong to some sect or church that preaches austerity as its dogma. As a lay person, I rely on evidence. When I look at the current situation in Spain – a country that has conscientiously followed the Stability and Growth Pact and implemented all the Commission’s prescriptions, even when President Zapatero was in power – six million people are unemployed in the country today.

Then I ask you, Commissioner: are the employment rights that we are talking about only valid during untroubled times, and in times of crisis must the Troika go to Greece to impose an austerity plan that totally ignores the strength of our social model and the important role of industrial relations in helping us come through the economic crisis?

  Olli Rehn, Vice-President of the Commission. – I will leave my philosophical and religious beliefs out of this debate, even though I have to say that in my studies of macro-economics, the books of John Maynard Keynes figured very strongly. They certainly have plenty of lessons for all of us about what went wrong in the 1930s and what we should avoid in the 21st century.

As regards Spain – which was the specific point you made – you are correct when you say that Spain faces formidable challenges, especially concerning youth unemployment following the end of the credit boom and the bursting of the real estate bubble. This adjustment started in the wake of the crisis with a rapid downsizing of the construction sector, a decrease in the external deficit and some improvement in cost competitiveness.

Unfortunately, I cannot agree with you when you say that last year, in Spain, everything was done perfectly, because there was a major fiscal slippage of over 2.5%, from 6 to 8.5%, which, in more numerical, concrete terms, is equivalent to a slippage of around EUR 25 billion. This slippage came mainly from the regional governments.

Therefore it is essential for Spain, as part of its reform efforts, to take concrete action to ensure better sustainability of the autonomous regions’ public finances. I have recommended to the Spanish Government that they start applying the new fiscal stability law on the autonomous regions without any delay, because that is clearly an area which creates uncertainty and reduces the credibility of public finances in Spain.

  Pervenche Berès (S&D). – (FR) Commissioner, my point is that at the time, Mr Sarkozy and Ms Merkel wanted to divide the socialists by using Mr Zapatero as an example against other socialist examples. Clearly, this is not the issue. The issue is whether or not healthy public finances can be restored in a country with no growth. The issue is not whether the problem is with the regions or with central government: the issue is growth for job creation.

Commissioner, do you think this recipe will succeed in Greece when basically, from the workers’ point of view and that of the Greek people themselves, what you are proposing is for investment plans to be implemented by large German companies, and that Greeks should take advantage of their freedom of movement. That is tantamount to an organised brain drain.

Do you really think that is the right way? Do you not think that, at the end of the day, there comes a time when one needs to admit that there has been a mistake?

  Olli Rehn, Vice-President of the Commission. – Firstly, on the subject of Spain: it is indeed essential that the fiscal policy stance of Spain, as recommended by the Commission and the Eurogroup, strikes the right balance between the necessary consolidation of public finances and concerns about growth in the country.

We are currently reviewing the economic and fiscal policy figures and stance of the whole euro area. We will present our spring forecast on 11 May and, on that basis, will make proposals for the economic and fiscal policy stance of the whole euro area and individual countries. I can see that we need to have further differentiation among the countries, depending on the business cycle they are in and on the economic and growth conditions they are experiencing, but it is too early to say today because we do not yet have the figures from Eurostat upon which we will base the spring forecast that we will present in May.

As regards Greece, I would suggest that you attend the afternoon session at 3 p.m. when President Barroso will speak about Greece. We will adopt today, in our college meeting before 3 p.m., a communication on promoting growth and jobs in Greece, which is a very important document outlining ways and means in all policy areas and how we can enhance growth and job creation in Greece on the basis of the EU-IMF programme.

I would like to make one point concerning growth which is important because I know, Ms Berès, that you are very concerned about this – as all of you and all of us are. I should like, if I may, to use my extra minute in this context because, to my mind, it is quite important. This point refers to the possibilities of reinforcing the capital base of the European Investment Bank.

With the EIB, the EU has a very powerful institution and instrument of its own for supporting growth and employment, not least in troubled times. The EIB, with a lending capacity several times the size of the World Bank, has been playing a key role in tackling the crisis since 2008, but it is reaching the limits of what it can do with its current capital base. To allow the EIB to do more for growth and jobs, its capital needs to be addressed and its capital base needs to be increased. In our view, this should be done by its shareholders, in other words, by the EU Member States. For instance, a capital increase of EUR 10 billion would allow the EIB to lend approximately EUR 60 billion, which, in turn, would attract other financing sources for a total investment of EUR 180 billion for new projects of infrastructure, innovation and so on.

In addition to this, the Commission and the EIB are currently looking at possible options for using the EU budget to leverage the EIB Group financing capacity through risk sharing schemes, building on schemes already developed for research and innovation with project bonds for infrastructure as well as for small and medium-sized enterprises with the help of the Structural Funds.

So we are doing our part to look for innovative solutions to reinforce the lending capacity of the European Investment Bank. However, let me send a clear and constructive message to all EU Member States, which I trust Parliament can support. For the sake of sustainable growth and job creation, we need more European cross-border and Community investment in infrastructure, energy and transport and in innovation, research and communications, and I therefore call on the EU Member States to provide, without any delay, additional capital to the European Investment Bank. I ask for your support for this very important objective.

  Emilie Turunen (Verts/ALE). – You will definitely have that support, I think.

Commissioner Andor, sometimes, the devil is in the detail, so please allow me to return to something very important that was raised by Ms Regner and Ms Schroedter that I do not think you answered sufficiently.

In Article 9 of the new Enforcement Directive – not in the directive as a whole but in Article 9 – there is a list of control measures that national authorities can use. There is also a small word preceding that list: it states that they can only use these control measures. This is a maximum list, an exhaustive list and a clear limitation.

So my question is, why do you want to make it an exhaustive list, and why do you not change the logic of the ECB instead of aligning with it when it comes to control measures?

  László Andor, Member of the Commission. – The Enforcement Directive recognises the importance of national control measures and inspections in guaranteeing applicable working conditions for posted workers. However, the freedom to provide services must also be respected.

The Court of Justice decided that certain national control measures were proportionate in view of companies’ freedom to provide services, while others were not. In order to provide for legal certainty, the Enforcement Directive indicates clearly which control measures are proportionate and justified. New European electronic tools will make cooperation between Member States’ enforcement bodies more rapid and efficient. This will facilitate and improve controls. I therefore believe that the provision to which you refer is in line with the agreed objective of this exercise, namely, improving the interpretation and the implementation of the existing directive without reversing Court of Justice case-law.

  Emilie Turunen (Verts/ALE). – Well, I think that we disagree on that interpretation, but we can probably discuss that in the future in a follow-up.

Another ambiguity in this proposal arises in connection with the principle of joint and several liability, a principle that the Greens very much support. One question is: how do you foresee the implementation of that in countries that have collective agreements and where wages are not set by law?

  László Andor, Member of the Commission. – I believe that the joint and several liability does not interfere with the question of collective agreements. This is about how various companies engage in cooperation by means of subcontracting. It is actually a way to guarantee that what is involved in various labour contracts will be delivered, even if the economic activity takes place in the form of posting in a Member State other than the home of the given company.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE). – (EL) Mr President, Commissioner, I listened to you very carefully and it is indeed very important that we support the mobility of workers in a bid to improve their skills, especially among young people. However, this reality is one thing and the reality that is forcing young people in certain countries with serious problems to abandon their country, because their country offers no opportunities for them to work and build a life, is another.

You said that Mr Barroso would be making announcements this afternoon. However, last December, the President of the Commission also made an announcement about opportunities for young people. You also announced action teams for young people. However, we have not seen any added value lately, in the four or five months since those announcements were made. What is the added value, Commissioners, what contribution are you making for young people seeking prospects and hope? Should they stay where they are, for example in Greece, or should they leave, because at the moment it is, unfortunately, impossible to offer new opportunities and new prospects for the young generation throughout Europe. There are five and a half million unemployed throughout Europe, as you know better than I.

  László Andor, Member of the Commission. – Emigration from the countries which felt the impact of the financial crisis is, of course, a problem, especially if this migration leads to other continents, because we very often find – in the case of Greece, and also Ireland and Portugal – that people prefer to go to other continents, despite the geographical proximity of many vacancies in the countries in the more dynamic part of Europe.

That is why our efforts, including in the forthcoming employment package, are to make the European labour market more transparent and the jobs and vacancies that exist in Europe more accessible. This would also be done by developing the EURES programme, which helps with finding and understanding what opportunities exist in the European labour market.

There are practical developments. The action teams went to Athens as well as to the other seven capitals. They came back with concrete findings. We had an opportunity in Brussels to hold discussions with Prime Minister Papademos. I also went to Athens at the end of March and held discussions with several members of the government. For example, there are very practical opportunities now to develop not just training and apprenticeships but also a new programme for start-ups, which I discussed with Minister Diamantopoulou, and also to develop the social economy, which I discussed with Minister Koutroumanis.

These are just examples of how refocusing the use of the Structural Funds – the ESF in particular, but not only the ESF – can very directly, concretely and urgently help the young people who are now unemployed or who just want to find new opportunities inside Greece.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE). – (EL) Mr President, Commissioner, this is the only point on which I want to be clear, because what you said was very specific. However, I would remind you that Greece is coming up to elections; we shall be holding elections in three weeks and what we are all wondering is this: why have all these instruments you have just described to us not been applied over the last two, two and a half years?

  László Andor, Member of the Commission. – Very serious work has been undertaken in the recent period. Greece has been lagging behind with the implementation of the Structural Funds, and a lot of progress has been made over the last year regarding the Social Fund, for example, not least because of the contribution of the task force which the Commission sent to Greece. I agree with you that this could have helped earlier. There was only about a 12% or 13% implementation rate up to next June and now it is about double that. So a lot of progress has been made, but, of course, we cannot change the situation overnight.

  President. – My thanks to the Commission and to colleagues. My apologies to those who were not called.

That concludes Question Time.

IN THE CHAIR: ANNI PODIMATA
Vice-President

5. Fish as a common good (written declaration)

  President. – Written declaration number 0047/2011 on fish as a common good was signed by a majority of Parliament’s component members.

Therefore, pursuant to Rule 123, it will be forwarded to the addressees and published with the texts adopted at the sitting, with a record in the minutes of the names of the signatories.

  Guido Milana (S&D). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I thank Mr Arsenis, Ms Patrão Neves and Mr Romeva i Rueda and their assistants for contributing substantially to the success of this initiative. Fish is a common good, as it provides 15% of the protein intake of more than 3 billion people, and the livelihoods of over 500 million people depend on fishing and aquaculture. This makes it a truly global common good.

By approving this statement, we are indicating a clear path to the Commission on the need to encourage responsible conduct, both among the fishing community and on the part of consumers. The debate on the common fisheries policy now has one more reason to support actions to broaden the scope of European policy from a narrow vision, concentrating on fishing methods and a policy of inward-looking rules.

Instead, we suggest a strategy which treats the sea as a privileged place so as to increase its function as a breeding ground, both within EU waters and through innovative fishing agreements with third countries. What is more, this is not only about protecting the environment and maintaining biodiversity, but also about responsible fisheries, economic and social sustainability, which is clearly in the interests of both fishermen and our economy.

6. Children with Down syndrome (written declaration)

  President. – Written declaration number 0052/2011 on Children with Down syndrome was signed by a majority of Parliament’s component members.

Therefore, pursuant to Rule 123, it will be forwarded to the addressees and published with the texts adopted at the sitting, with a record in the minutes of the names of the signatories.

  George Sabin Cutaş (S&D). – (RO) Madam President, I would like to begin by thanking all our colleagues who have supported us. I also want to thank the other authors: Ms Dăncilă, Ms Nicolai, Mr Tarabella and Mr Ulmer. Last but not least, I want to thank all the assistants who have been involved. I believe that the message we are conveying today, which is so simple yet also of great significance, highlights the European Parliament’s solidarity with these Down syndrome children and its defence of their right to be fully integrated into a Union of diversity.

7. Voting time

  President. – Τhe next item is the vote.

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

7.1. Coordination of social security systems (A7-0043/2012 - Milan Cabrnoch)

7.2. Accession of the European Union to the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia (A7-0139/2012 - Elmar Brok) (vote)

7.3. Draft Protocol on the concerns of the Irish people on the Treaty of Lisbon (consent) (A7-0065/2012 - Paulo Rangel) (vote)

7.4. Draft Protocol on the concerns of the Irish people on the Treaty of Lisbon (consultation) (A7-0064/2012 - Paulo Rangel) (vote)

7.5. The role of Cohesion Policy in the outermost regions of the European Union in the context of EU 2020 (A7-0084/2012 - Nuno Teixeira) (vote)

7.6. Human rights in the world and the European Union’s policy on the matter (A7-0086/2012 - Richard Howitt) (vote)

- After the vote on paragraph 101:

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, after paragraph 101, I call on the House to insert the following paragraph:

‘Takes the view that women’s rights also include motherhood, and notes that this right is often compromised by socio-economic conditions that induce the woman to terminate her pregnancy. Calls therefore for action by Member States to support motherhood by helping a woman to remove the causes that lead her to terminate a pregnancy, where these are of a socio-economic nature. Hopes for specific attention in the future to address the rights of the unborn’.

(Parliament rejected the oral amendment)

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, with all due respect to the House, I just wanted to note that anyone who stood up (to object to the proposed oral amendment) was also once an embryo.

  President. – The debate is already closed.

- Before the vote on paragraph 112:

  Rui Tavares (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, this is an addition to paragraph 112. I will read it in English:

‘Welcomes the fact that the EU has been very supportive of capacity-building activities for indigenous peoples at the UN; underlines that enhancing indigenous representatives’ efficiency during UN events is essential by supporting adequate logistics, documentation and information; calls on the EU to continue this support;’

(Parliament agreed to accept the oral amendment)

IN THE CHAIR: MARTIN SCHULZ
President

8. Formal sitting - Jordan

  President. – Your Majesty, on behalf of all the Members of the European Parliament, I would like to very warmly welcome you here to Strasbourg. It is clearly a great honour for us that you are visiting the European Parliament for a third time today. In so doing, you are showing us your friendship and your trust.

Your Majesty, a little over a year ago, the Arab Spring began in a mood of great hope. The desire for democracy, social justice, the rule of law and freedom of opinion proved itself, once again, to be a universal desire. Your Majesty, unlike others, you decided to listen to the calls of the Jordanian people. You have put your country on the road to political and economic reforms. We, the popular representatives of the people of Europe, would like to act as a friend and partner to the Jordanian people during this transformation phase. We will stand by you both in your profound economic reforms and in the true opening up of politics in your country.

In your address to the Jordanian people on 12 June of last year, you advocated the advent of parliamentary elections, with the participation of representative and active parties, from which a government is to be formed on the basis of the parliamentary majority. We welcome the fact that you have so clearly come out in favour of the principles of parliamentary democracy and the rule of law. That will act as a bulwark against desperation, against disappointment, against extremism and against violence.

Naturally, your speech raised major expectations among the citizens of your country. As friends and partners, we will support you in following up your words with action and fulfilling your promise of reform. For Europe, Jordan is a country with which we feel a deep bond of friendship. Your personal commitment – in the last few weeks – to mediate between the Israelis and the Palestinians, to bring both sides back to the negotiating table, gave concrete expression to our belief that, in you, we have a comrade in arms in the struggle for diplomacy and democracy, for peace and for freedom.

Your Majesty, we look forward to your address!

(Applause)

  Abdullah II, King of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. – Mr President, distinguished Members of the European Parliament, thank you all for your warm welcome. The ties between Jordan and Europe are anchored in rock. It is more than our mutual interest in the prosperity and security of our multi-regional neighbourhood. It is our shared belief in the kind of neighbourhood it should be – the kind of neighbourhood our people deserve, rich in human dignity and freedom, powered by opportunity and progress, and secured by peace. It is to talk about our neighbourhood and future that I join you today.

My friends, a long spring is unfolding in the Arab world. It will not be over in a season, not even in a year. Our societies are facing the challenge of moving from protests to programmes, from criticism to national strategies. Different countries will take different paths. In some countries, debate and consensus are in the air. Elsewhere, we are seeing the winds of division and reaction, bringing instability, violence and a region-wide cost. There are outside actors that seek to take advantage of discord. The risks and uncertainties are real.

But I speak for millions when I say the Arab world is awake, and positive challenge is on the move. The signs were already there for those who wanted to see them. For a decade or more, people across the region have been raising questions, nurturing aspirations, seeking meaningful reform and empowering civil society, especially women and our digitally-connected, globally-aware youth.

Events added to the urgency. Global crises in finance, food and energy seriously hurt our economies. Arab families who sacrificed to educate their children have seen their sons and daughters leave school, prepared for jobs that simply are not there. Today, my region faces the highest youth unemployment of any region. Some have called it a ‘generation in waiting’. It is 100 million strong, the largest youth cohort in our history. I know that youth concerns are important here in Europe as well. Our regions have different demographics, but in one statistic, they are the same: today’s young people are 100% of our future and we cannot afford to let a single young citizen wait in vain.

This reality drives Jordan’s approach to the Arab Spring. We have embraced it as an opportunity to push past road blocks that have slowed reform in the past. And last year, we took immediate steps to engage in a national dialogue to build consensus on concrete actions. An early focus has been the constitution, the foundation of our political system. Last September, after recommendations by a national committee, one third of the entire document was amended: new constitutional provisions, wider representation, strengthened political parties, protection of civil rights and freedoms, an enhanced separation of powers.

Other milestones include new laws on political parties and municipal and national elections as well as legislation for the new constitutional court and independent elections commission, and our next tests will be municipal and parliamentary elections. As guarantor of the political reform process, I have urged both government and parliament to keep to the agreed timeline and finalise the remaining legislation as quickly as possible, without sacrificing the inclusive nature of our process.

Only we, all Jordanians, can build Jordan’s future, and we must do so in such a way that our country remains a secure, safe haven in spite of a region becoming more turbulent around us, in spite of economic threats, in spite of neighbouring crises. This path demands consensus-based reform, based on structural, comprehensive change – political, legal, economic and social – respecting the rights and freedoms of all our citizens. In the process, Jordan can set a regional model of peaceful political evolution and democratisation.

I am confident that 2012 will be a year of key political reform in Jordan. Among the most important steps is building the robust political party life that parliamentary government requires. We know that it is not one election but the next and the next and all those that follow which show that a system is working.

We greatly value the EU’s recognition of our reform path. Just two months ago, the new EU-Jordan Task Force met in Amman to discuss key programmes which will support our reform priorities: democratic institutions, civil society, job creation, local economic development, human assistance and more. Next month marks ten years since our association agreement went into force, opening markets and job opportunities on both sides. I hope these opportunities, now strengthened by our advanced status partnership, will further blossom in the years ahead.

Jordan has pursued its domestic goals despite regional conflict but, my friends, peace must come if our region is to thrive and be secure. We cannot afford one more generation in waiting for a Palestinian state.

(Applause)

Ten years ago, the Arab states spoke in a united voice on behalf of a just peace. We made the decision to look forward, not back; to seek agreement and to offer acceptance. The Arab Peace Initiative has been recognised by every major friend of peace in the world, including the EU and other members of the Quartet. We need Israel to engage.

The Arab Peace Initiative is based on the only possible solution: two states, side by side, in dignity and self-determination – a sovereign, viable and independent Palestine on the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital …

(Applause)

and collective peace and security guarantees for Israel …

(Applause)

and a final settlement in accordance with UN resolutions, and the agreed resolution of all final status issues. This initiative went even beyond offering Israel peace and normal relations with all its Arab neighbours. The entire Muslim world endorsed it. What has been on the table for the past ten years is a 57-state solution.

Some political elements point to the change in the Arab world and tell the Israeli people that negotiations can wait. There is no time to wait. The Arab Spring is rooted in a profound call for human respect. No affront is felt more deeply than the Israeli occupation. The longer Palestinian suffering endures, the longer settlement-building continues, the greater the frustrations, dangers and unknowns. If we cross the line where the two-state solution is no longer possible, Israel will be further than ever from real security and it would take decades, even generations, for peace to regain the initiative.

Jordan sees an effective peace process as a moral duty and a strategic interest, and we continue to pursue results. This year in Amman, we succeeded in getting negotiators back to the table several times. We would not have been able to do so without the magnificent work of European diplomacy, energising contacts, mobilising support, keeping up the pressure for peace and, most important, keeping hope alive. Indeed, over the past two years, the European Union has been an invaluable friend to those on both sides working for peace in the Middle East.

The exploratory talks in Amman were baby steps, giving the parties an opportunity to resume bilateral contacts. Now, the process needs a quantum leap forward – and EU partnership is vital. The EU has taken a principled stand for a just, two-state solution, and against the settlement-building that is obstructing progress. You understand the global risks of continued conflict and the global benefits of peace. You have tremendous credibility for your experience in building democratic institutions, security and trust. I hope you can bring all this to bear in the days ahead.

My friends, many peoples, one neighbourhood – and one future. This is the challenge for Europe and the Middle East, and it is our strength. Together we face immense issues – economic, political, peace. The solutions are complex and the path forward difficult. But together, we have the will and the wisdom to reach the goals we seek. And together we can succeed.

(The House accorded the speaker a standing ovation)

  President. – Your Majesty, thank you very much for your address; many thanks for your words. I believe that the applause of the Members in Parliament today has shown that there is a major correlation between the line you take and the European Parliament’s views, not only in the framework of the cooperation between Jordan and the European Parliament, but also in connection with the role that your country can play throughout the region, which we believe is crucial. That also came across from your words, in particular, when you once again made reference to your role as mediator between Israel and Palestine. We thank you for being here today and we thank you for your words. I would just like to point out once again what was also clear from the applause, namely, that in fostering peaceful, economically sustainable, democratic and socially just development throughout the region as the basis for collaboration between Europe and the Middle East, we rely heavily on you and on your country. Thank you very much.

(Applause)

IN THE CHAIR: ANNI PODIMATA
Vice-President

9. Voting time (continuation)

Voting time (continuation)

9.1. Negotiations of the EU-Azerbaijan association agreement (A7-0071/2012 - Anneli Jäätteenmäki) (vote)

- Before the vote on Amendment 1:

  Vytautas Landsbergis (PPE). – Madam President, to avoid any equivocal misunderstanding, I propose inserting one word in the sentence on the withdrawal of armed forces from around Nagorno-Karabakh. That is to insert after ‘surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh’ the clarifying point ‘at first’. Please do not refuse transparency.

  Anneli Jäätteenmäki, rapporteur. – Madam President, I do not agree with Mr Landsbergis. I think that the normal text is correct.

(Parliament agreed to accept the oral amendment)

9.2. Negotiations of the EU-Armenia association agreement (A7-0079/2012 - Tomasz Piotr Poręba) (vote)

End of voting time

10. Explanations of vote

Oral explanations of vote

Report: Milan Cabrnoch (A7-0043/2012)

  Kay Swinburne (ECR). – Madam President, I have voted in favour of this report for the coordination of social security systems across the EU, as it introduces the necessary updates and amendments – ones that have already been introduced at national level – to the existing EU legislation. Whilst it is primarily a technical report, it clarifies the social security situation of those who pursue activities in different Member States. Similarly, it details how unemployment benefits would be distributed to self-employed individuals active in several Member States. These are both important measures that will facilitate the free movement of labour, which is an integral part of the single market.

  Adam Bielan (ECR). – (PL) Madam President, I support the report. Current social and economic realities in Europe demand that changes be made to the Member States’ social security legislation. Particularly in view of the citizens’ ever-greater cross-border mobility, national legislation ought to be coordinated. The definition of the ‘substantial part of the activity’ in relation to people who have two or more employers in different Member States is therefore an important provision. The report also discusses the question of unemployment benefits in relation to self-employed workers, and it gives attention to matters related to the work of aircrew members. On a procedural note, drafting the report and the amendments at the same time as holding negotiations with the Council was a good idea and has enabled an agreement to be reached at first reading.

  Marek Józef Gróbarczyk (ECR). – (PL) Madam President, I have endorsed this report because it is hugely important for securing the future of the people who live in the European Union. Attention has repeatedly been drawn to the situation of aircrew members, but a much greater problem is posed by seamen working at sea, who are often completely deprived of the benefits of social security. An example is the unacceptable way in which seamen are very often employed by EU ship-owners, often on conditions more usually associated with countries of the developing world. The lack of EU and compulsory regulation in this area has led to unhealthy situations which exclude seamen from the social security system. The occupation of seaman is of special importance because of its dangerous and extremely difficult nature, and it should be primarily protected by individual countries, but also by the European Parliament. The lack of measures to achieve this is an example of the unequal treatment of European Union citizens, and one which requires urgent intervention.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). – Madam President, the current scheme against the sovereignty of the democratic nation state comes not from armed revolutionaries but from well-intentioned liberals. Its inspiration is drawn not from Lenin but from Lennon. Imagine there’s no countries, it isn’t hard to do.

Well, here is one consequence that would come from there being no countries: there would be no welfare states. The whole basis of social security is discrimination on the basis of nationality. There are many more needy people in the world than even the most needy citizens of EU Member States. The only moral justification for not giving the whole of our tax revenues to more desperate populations in poorer parts of the world is that we discriminate on the basis of nationality. In this report, you have the basis of effacing that distinction and thereby doing away with the origin of national states in their recognised form.

  Csaba Sógor (PPE). – (HU) Madam President, the coordination of Member State social security systems greatly facilitates the free movement of citizens within the EU. Since the 1970s, it has been the means that made it a practical possibility for citizens to take employment or become established in other Member States. The principle of the aggregation of periods, for example, actually represents the recognition of the existence of a united Europe and the internal market. National laws, however, are subject to continuous change. Therefore, the continuous alignment of regulations to the needs and demands of citizens is unavoidable. We, as MEPs elected directly by the citizens, must pay great attention to the amendments proposed by the Commission, and must not hesitate to make appropriate supplementations whenever necessary. This is what happened just now, and I therefore welcome the report of Mr Cabrnoch, which correctly points out some problematic points of the Commission’s proposal.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). – Madam President, I voted in favour of this report on the coordination of social security. The report is a very technical one, but I believe that the outcome of the proposal put forward would be positive. I believe that the updates made to the regulation are worthwhile, given the constant changes to Member States’ national social security legislation and the huge increases in the cross-border mobility of our citizens.

The report ultimately gives clarification of the rules to those working across various Member States, including legislation for aircrew members and rules on unemployment benefits for cross-border self-employed workers. Clarification of these rules can only be a good thing for the single market. However, social security provision must ultimately remain a matter for the individual Member States.

  Peter Jahr (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, I, too, voted in favour of this report.

The subject of this report is the updating of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 987/2009, which are being implemented at regular intervals, in order to ensure a sensible coordination of national social security systems at EU level. The main basis for this constant updating is also the acceptance of EU citizenship by our citizens. One sign of this is increasing mobility. The citizens of the European Union perceive the Union to be their place of work and residence, and it is no longer unusual for people to switch between Member States for their work and residence. I view resolving these problems as a positive challenge and that is exactly what this report seeks to do. I also set store by the fact that this will not be the last time this report is updated.

  David Campbell Bannerman (ECR). – Madam President, I voted against this report because I do not believe that the EU should be involved in social security matters. I think it is trespassing on international responsibilities, and it seems to be a world away from the trade agreement that the EU is meant to be about.

I am particularly concerned about one aspect. I was self-employed myself: I ran a consultancy. This report refers to paying unemployment benefits to the self-employed throughout the EU. This again is undermining our flexible economy. In Britain, when you are self-employed, you do things your own way and it gives people a lot of freedom. I think that is undermining this freedom.

This report may be about technical matters but I am totally against it on principle. The EU should keep out of social security, pension and benefit matters.

  Syed Kamall (ECR). – Madam President, I think that many people across the House will welcome the parts of the report that refer to cross-border coordination and mobility with a view to enabling workers to work throughout the single market. However, I think we all have to look at our social security systems. Unfortunately, they have got to a stage where they are no longer a safety net to help those who – through no fault of their own – cannot help themselves, but in some ways, they are actually acting as a barrier to people getting back to work. This is because the salaries that they can command are sometimes actually less than what they can get on benefits. We have to make sure that social security systems return to a situation where they are really providing a hand up rather than a hand out.

I think that the other thing we have to be very careful about is to ensure that this is not a slippery slope for Member States to start funding deficits in other Member States and for workers who cannot get a job in one country to move to another country and simply claim benefits with no intention of ever working in that country. As long as we have those provisions, we can cautiously welcome this report.

  Gay Mitchell (PPE). – Madam President, in these times of austerity, I think we all have to be sensitive to the social security needs of citizens in many of our countries. For that reason, I could not bring myself to vote against this report, so I abstained.

The reason I abstained is that there are issues of concern to Ireland contained in this report which have not yet been addressed and, while they are outstanding, I think it would make it difficult in the light of subsidiarity to fully support this report in its current format.

That, in general, was the reservation which I wished to express, not that there should not be solidarity with people who are in need – I strongly support that sort of approach.

  Antonello Antinoro (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of this proposal because it seeks to update the 2004 and 2009 regulations to incorporate changes to Member State national legislation on social security and to keep pace with the changing social reality affecting the coordination of the security systems themselves.

The present proposal also incorporates proposals from the Administrative Commission for the Coordination of Social Security Systems, whose purpose is to improve, modernise and realise all of this, as set out in Article 72(f) of the previous regulation.

Indeed, the amendments in this proposal aim to ensure legal certainty for those concerned, as well as appropriate coordination at EU level between national social security systems. It also reflects the legislative changes that have occurred at national level, and had to be approved because it takes into account recent developments in cross-border mobility affecting the coordination of social security systems.

Recommendation: Elmar Brok (A7-0139/2012)

  Ewald Stadler (NI). – (DE) Madam President, I voted against this report simply because one element, already raised in this debate by Mr Silvestris, receives short shrift. First of all, we have the fact that the idea of the protection of the fundamental right to life – specifically from natural conception to a natural death – receives practically no mention at all in such a fundamental report on human rights. Then we have the fact that the issue of the fundamental right to freedom of religious expression, especially where this is under threat for Christians, is also given a raw deal in this report.

The most fundamental right that Europe has developed is the recognition of the right to live. This right to life begins with a natural conception and ends with a natural death. In between these two events, people have a right to be in the world, yet this fundamental right is not once mentioned in this report. Mr Silvestris raised what I believe to be a very sore point in this regard yesterday. As much as I share the other ideas expressed in this report as a matter of principle, this shortcoming in the report needs to be pointed out. I therefore voted against this report.

  Kay Swinburne (ECR). – Madam President, the report rightly recognises the important role that the EU could play in promoting respect for human rights across the world and through its various policies. Nevertheless, I have deep concerns about the references the report has made, particularly in accusing my Member State – the UK – of adopting an obstructionist attitude concerning the EU’s accession to the European Convention on Human Rights.

The UK’s main point is that, whilst we support the convention, we should make sure that we focus on real human rights abuses, as opposed to legal loopholes that many are exploiting.

Currently, the UK is being prevented from dealing with suspected terrorists and those inciting racial hatred as a result of the disproportionate emphasis in the ECHR on the right to family life. It seems a little illogical to be holding ourselves up as the global standard when we have not got the detail right in our own institutions.

Post-9/11, we have had to look carefully at the processes and mechanisms that we are using. We are still not there. We need to ensure that they really are fit for purpose, then we can look to influence human rights policy in the rest of the world. In the meantime, I have abstained.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). – Madam President, liberties, as Aldous Huxley wrote, are not given, they are taken. He was, of course, writing in the British political tradition where civic freedoms and political rights are seen as legal entitlements that come from specific moments and specific contracts – the Great Charter, the Bill of Rights, or whatever. They are not seen as imminent, inherent or universal.

The problem with that alternative vision is the lack of enforcement mechanisms. If rights are just assumed to be there for everybody rather than being enforced by elected representatives, they can be the finest and noblest principles in the world and, without the means to enforce them, they are meaningless. Look at the constitution of East Germany or the constitution of Czechoslovakia or the Soviet Union. There, you see all these fine, high-minded freedoms and yet, as the peoples of those unhappy states realised, without democratic accountability, it is not worth the paper it is written on.

I will close by quoting Benjamin Disraeli, one of the few times the old adventurer got something spot on, when he said, ‘To the liberalism they profess, I prefer the liberties we enjoy, to the Rights of Man, the rights of Englishmen’.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the way to the EU’s credibility at international level and the effectiveness of its policies on human rights is surely through the condemnation of violations and abuses committed within and outside of armed conflict, disregard for women, minors, and the weakest members of society in general, and persecutions based on religions or beliefs. However, it is also of absolute importance to avoid any double standards between the EU’s policy on human rights and its other foreign policies, thus promoting democratisation and supporting the fight against social inequalities, especially in times of economic crisis like the present.

  Paul Murphy (GUE/NGL). – Madam President, I think actions must now match the fine words of this Parliament if it is not to make a mockery of itself.

The report recommends that whenever a gross breach of human rights is committed by a partner country with which there is an international agreement, such as the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement, the EU should take bolder steps, including possible temporary suspension of the agreement.

Surely this is the case with Kazakhstan, where 37 oil workers are currently facing show trials for their alleged responsibility in the tragic events in Zhanaozen last year. Members of the Zhanaozen-2011 Committee have said that several defendants in that trial had given false testimony under torture and under threats to their families, including Rosa Tuletaeva, who says that police hung her up by her hair and threatened her family, and Tanatar Kaliev, who claims he was beaten while in KNB detention and that his son was threatened.

Finally, Vadim Kuramshin is currently before the court as we speak. He is one of the country’s foremost human rights defenders; he has already spent more than 10 years in jail as a result of his courageous defence of prisoners’ rights and struggle for social justice. He was arrested on trumped-up charges at the moment that he was going to a press conference to reveal corruption in the general prosecutor’s office. He and the others should be released immediately.

  Mitro Repo (S&D). – (FI) Madam President, hristós anésti. I voted in favour of this report. Democracy, the rule of law, justice and responsibility are the best guarantees of human rights, fundamental freedoms, tolerance and equality.

The European Union should try to become a more credible actor in third countries. This will require consistency between internal and external policy. I am calling for more careful avoidance of double standards. Every country must be seen as an entity unto itself, and so the European External Action Service should draw up a human rights strategy for each individual country.

I also demand that the EU’s human rights policy should be comprehensive. Free, honest elections are only the first step in the transition to democracy. Europe needs to support democratic development. We cannot, however, impose democracy from outside: it always has to be generated through the will of the people. Steps have to be taken in Europe to ensure that civil rights and fundamental freedoms are not endangered or weakened because of the economic crisis.

  Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR). – Madam President, promoting human rights is an essential part of British foreign policy. EU Member States must ensure that human rights and international law are respected throughout the world.

This report identifies a number of key challenges. It condemns prosecution on the basis of religion, nationality or membership of a minority, or sexual orientation, it raises crucial issues related to women, such as forced marriages and female genital mutilation, and it underlines the importance of supporting a free and fair media as well as standing up for human rights defenders.

Yet, in a report on some of the world’s worst human rights abuses, I am shocked at the two countries which the rapporteur has decided to name and shame. Does the report criticise Belarus, Burma, Cuba perhaps? No, it chooses instead to deplore the attitude of the UK and France on EU accession to the ECHR. Until the rapporteur gets his priorities straight on which countries are really obstacles to human rights, I cannot support this report.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). – (SK) Madam President, I note that human rights clauses in partnership agreements and free trade agreements are asserted by the EU only sparingly and unsystematically. I consider another disturbing trend in the world, against which the European Union must take clear action, to be the violation of freedom of religion and belief, which is closely related to the spread of intolerance followed by violence against members of religious communities and minorities. We should not be afraid to state out loud that the victims include Christians around the world. I would also like to point out the inconsistency of the EU’s approach to the protection of human life, as manifested, for example, by the fact that the EU condemns cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment, including forced abortions and forced sterilisations, and yet, at the same time, the EU financially supports programmes aimed at so-called sexual and reproductive health, which include the carrying out of abortions. Sadly, such programmes are a significant part of EU policy, and therefore I could not support this report.

  Ryszard Czarnecki (ECR). – (PL) Madam President, I could not endorse this report, although it does contain a number of interesting, important and necessary statements. We are all in favour of human rights, but the devil is in the detail, and some of the previous speakers are, of course, correct in pointing out that the report contains certain rather dangerous proposals and certain options which have been left open, and that, in the name of human rights, a move is, in fact, being made towards a downright curtailment of some people’s rights. I am afraid, too, of the double standards which appear in the report; I am afraid of a situation in which the European Union imposes certain measures while completely ignoring the cultural context and other aspects of the civilisation in which we live. I must warn against this. On pro-life and abortion issues, my position is similar to that of Mr Mikolášik.

  Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, following the approval of the EU Annual Report on Human Rights and Democracy in the World and the resolution on the EU’s support for the International Criminal Court, the European Parliament voted to act in a manner consistent and in conformity with EU obligations concerning the protection of human rights. Implementing national strategies already drawn up in recent months will be an important step in this direction.

I agree with Mr Howitt’s proposal to call on the Commission to insert a ‘torture end-use’ clause into the 2005 Council Regulation concerning trade in certain goods which could be used for capital punishment, torture, etc. This would enable Member States to acquire detailed information and decide whether or not to refuse the export of the goods and substances in question.

  Diane Dodds (NI). – Madam President, the United Kingdom has a strong record on the protection of human rights, but I want to focus on one aspect of human rights which I think is increasingly coming under threat, and that is freedom of religious expression.

We hear of Christians being punished by employers for expressing their faith, or Christian businesses being fined for holding to their Christian principles in how they conduct their affairs. It is quite clear that what is happening is a relentless orchestrated campaign to remove or at least to silence the manifestation of the Christian message in today’s society.

Last week, Lord Carey, a former Archbishop of Canterbury, said in a written submission to the European Court of Human Rights that Christians are being vilified by the British courts and driven underground. It is my hope that in September, when faced with the opportunity to stand up for Christian rights in landmark cases before the European Court, Europe’s judges will do just that.

Many judgments are based on the grounds of equality law, and equality seems to protect all minority groups except for Christians in what is sometimes a skewed and perverse interpretation of the term.

  Gay Mitchell (PPE). – Mr President, I wish to say that I voted against the second part of Amendment 93, although I normally vote for sexual and reproductive health and have already put an explanation on the record of this Parliament regarding where I draw the line between that and sexual and reproductive health and rights, including abortion. However, I abstained in this case because I did not think it was necessary to stress, in particular, the need to promote sexual and reproductive health, having already dealt in the first part with the need for adequate gynaecological and obstetric care, as defined by the WHO.

I did not understand why this was taken out in particular, but I would also have thought that anybody sensitive to human rights issues in this House would look at the genocidal destruction of women, one hundred million of whom are missing from the population as a result of gender-based abortion. Surely that is something we are all against. Are human rights only politically correct human rights, or are we against women being destroyed because they are women? Where is the socialist and liberal voice in this House on this gendercide? Why are people so quiet about this? Why are women being destroyed because they are women, and where are the voices of those who say that they are interested in human rights?

  Hannu Takkula (ALDE). – (FI) Madam President, it is very important that the European Union unequivocally stands by its own commitment and defends human rights in all situations and every person’s right to life. Unfortunately, the strongly pro-life point of view is not sufficiently apparent in this report. There were also many other aspects of it that do not specifically endorse the human rights dimension.

No matter: this report is better than nothing. It is good if, every now and then, we stop to consider these matters, which are so important to us, and try to see eye to eye on how to take human rights forward in countries that do not yet recognise them. Europe should also be more credible as far as its own actions are concerned. There are still many people here in the European Union who do not enjoy human rights. The Roma are one example of this, in many respects. We must therefore act more clearly and robustly to ensure that no violations of human rights take place within the European Union either.

Finally, I would like to say that religious minorities, Christians in particular, have been ignored. Many of them, especially in the Middle East, now feel that their human rights are being trampled on. The rapporteur could also have done more to take this into account.

  David Campbell Bannerman (ECR). – Madam President, I abstained on this report, not because I do not believe in human rights – I very much do – but because Conservative MEPs and I all feel that human rights are really about balance and getting the balance right. I have to say that my colleague who wrote this report, Richard Howitt, did not show much balance when he supported the rights of illegal travellers on illegal pitches at Dale Farm, whilst ignoring the rights of those local people who were so badly affected by them. That showed contempt for the rule of law.

I am concerned that there is also a lack of balance in this report over things such as the European Convention on Human Rights. Just yesterday, the British Government acted – quite rightly – to arrest Abu Qatada, who is an alleged terrorist and a man who has actually praised the hijackers of 9/11, after eight years. It took eight years to do that because of human rights legislation. This report supports that move towards the EU Convention on Human Rights and EU support for it.

So, let us get the balance right. Human rights are good, but if the balance is not correct, it weakens the whole case for them.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI). – (FR) Madam President, there is something irritating about Mr Howitt’s report, as some other speakers have pointed out. Aside from fundamental issues such as the right to life, it is the fact that we are promoting human rights everywhere around the world, almost as a substitute for putting our own house in order.

For example, in my own country of France, the freedom of expression that this report champions is greatly restricted. It is restricted in the field of history, on the grounds that it is forbidden to dispute crimes against humanity by virtue of judgments in which certain judges ought to have been among the accused. Freedom of historical research is practically non-existent when it comes to the Second World War and various other major events of modern history.

The same goes for politics. People no longer have the right to challenge immigration. If they say anything other than good about the subject, they lay themselves open to being prosecuted, judged, or sentenced with varying degrees of severity, on the pretext of incitement to racial hatred, which, of course, has nothing to do with speaking freely about the problem of immigration.

Lastly, it is the same situation with morality. Those who prefer a family consisting of a Mum and Dad to homosexual partnerships risk, like one French MP from the party currently in power, being summoned to court and heavily sentenced to boot.

I therefore think we would do better to put our own house in order, rather than thinking we can preach to the rest of the world.

Report: Anneli Jäätteenmäki (A7-0071/2012)

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). – Madam President, the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is sometimes spoken of as a frozen war, but I am not sure that is the right metaphor. It implies a stability that is not there. It would be better to think of it as some kind of infection under the skin that festers and poisons the surrounding region. It does not just prejudice relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan; it is also prejudicing relations between Armenia and Turkey – indeed also with Iran, with Russia and not least with the European Union. It is extraordinary that so many years have passed without this issue being resolved.

It is not for want of trying. Virtually every international organisation has tried to mediate some sort of settlement. I just wonder whether the reason that we have not been able to reach an equitable and lasting peace is because the international mediation, run as it is by international diplomats, is based around the idea of multinational states and existing territorial borders.

A while ago, the former President of Armenia, Mr Ter-Petrosyan, said that if there has been a ceding of some of the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh, there might have been peace in 1997.

800 000 Azeris and 400 000 Armenians have been displaced. Surely it is time to look at some alternative to the multinational state, with some territorial readjustment if that is the way to bring lasting peace.

  Kay Swinburne (ECR). – Madam President, I support this report and the negotiations between the EU and Azerbaijan as I believe it gives a fair and balanced account of the current state of play in that country. It currently recognises the urgent need for this country to make further progress on its respect for human rights, the rule of law and freedom of expression, in particular, in allowing political opponents to voice their opinions of the current government.

Despite these reservations, the report also recognises that the country has become a strategic partner for the EU in terms of energy supply and looks to build upon this mutually beneficial relationship to enhance the development of relations between the EU and Azerbaijan.

  Adam Bielan (ECR). – (PL) Madam President, Azerbaijan is an important partner for the countries of Europe in terms of energy security. The Nabucco project for a gas pipeline that will serve as an alternative to Russian sources of gas reflects the need to diversify supplies, something which is vital to the interests of the entire Union. It is certainly true to say that developing economic cooperation based on energy is a key element of European strategy towards our Eastern neighbours. The endeavours of the authorities in Baku to promote and complete this project require our full support.

Efforts to improve policy in the area of protecting human rights are another important issue, and particular attention needs to be paid here to the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh. Greater involvement of the Union in searching for a resolution to this conflict would seem to be necessary, and this includes calling on Turkey to play a constructive role in this process. Continued efforts within the framework of the Eastern Partnership to bring about political and economic rapprochement, coupled with influence in the sphere of European policy, will be of help to all those involved. This is why I support the report.

  Ryszard Czarnecki (ECR). – (PL) Madam President, Azerbaijan is an important country for Europe and the European Union, not just because of energy policy – although this is also very definitely the case, and the esteemed previous speaker has spoken about this – but it is also an important country from a geostrategic point of view. In other words, it is no secret that Russia is currently rebuilding its area of influence. Azerbaijan was formerly part of the Soviet Union, and if we do not want a kind of revival of the Russian Empire, we need to be active in the Southern Caucasus. Of course, the United States also wields an influence in the region, as do Iran and Turkey, but Europe must not be passive here. The closer the political and economic cooperation of the region with the European Union, the better – and I stress that it should be political cooperation and that it should include Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan has made progress on human rights, although I have to make clear that we should not impose 100% European standards on this region or other regions of the world, because it will turn out that this is, in fact, asking too much.

  Mitro Repo (S&D). – (FI) Madam President, my thanks go to Ms Jäätteenmäki for an excellent report. The negotiations of the EU-Azerbaijan association agreement are an important means to bring about change, reform and modernisation. In the long term, cooperation promotes economic integration and the convergence of legislation with the EU. At the same time, it is also important to develop cultural relations. In this way, we can have a more comprehensive influence on democratic development.

The Eurovision Song Contest is to be held in Azerbaijan, and that will bring the attention of the media to the country’s situation, at least for a while. The European Union, too, should take every advantage of that opportunity, by calling for improvements to the country’s human rights situation at the same time.

Azerbaijan has continued to imprison youth activists and journalists for no good reason or on trumped-up charges. Thousands were also driven from their homes when whole residential areas were razed to the ground by the state. The European External Action Service should systematically monitor the human rights situation in Azerbaijan, and continue to do so after the television cameras have left there, when the Eurovision Song Contest is over.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). – Madam President, I voted along with the ECR Group in favour of this report, as Azerbaijan is an important country and a major supplier of Caspian oil and gas to Europe.

I take a strong interest in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, and the fact that the wording, following the Landsbergis amendment, is no longer the same in both reports is, I think, rather regrettable.

I back the calls put forward for the de-escalation of tensions and the scaling back of military spending in the region as a whole. The recommendations put forward by the report in terms of improving the difficult human rights situation in Azerbaijan are also commendable.

It is particularly important that an improvement of relations through a DCFTA and an association agreement between the EU and Azerbaijan are dependent upon an improved human rights record in that country – which has a rather bad record in this respect – and especially on an improvement in the freedom of expression for political opponents of the government.

  Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, in recent years, we have witnessed fast economic growth on the part of Azerbaijan, whose economic potential is obvious to all. We must also recognise that there has been a strengthening of the strategic role of that country as an Eastern partner, in particular, in the energy sector.

However, we must remember here that the gap in terms of democracy and the rule of law, good governance and respect for human rights compared to the standards required by the European Union has not yet been completely bridged. I believe that these principles should be considered essential for the proper conduct of the negotiations and the stipulation of an association agreement with Azerbaijan.

I hope that the Council and the Commission will be urging the Azerbaijani authorities to adopt an anti-discriminatory legislation that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Meanwhile, we should welcome the reforms made by the Azerbaijani authorities in the judiciary in the last year, which should ensure greater independence of judges, and eliminate corruption in this area.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). – (SK) Madam President, we are talking about the association agreement with Azerbaijan. I think that there is no doubt that this country, which has undergone major democratic changes recently and has even become a member of the UN Security Council for the period 2012-2013, is progressing towards transparency in its public administration and the fight against corruption and, last but not least, the efforts of Europe as regards the Eastern Partnership and good neighbourly relations make Azerbaijan a good partner that could be of benefit to Europe, including, for example, from the perspective of European energy self-sufficiency. We know that Azerbaijan has energy resources, and sensible cooperation with this developing democracy should continue. However, the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh, where Azerbaijan and Armenia are still locked in an unfinished and unresolved conflict, still needs to be resolved with sensitivity, but I believe that a resolution will be found.

  Hannu Takkula (ALDE). – (FI) Madam President, I voted in favour of this report. There was a slight problem with it. There were 50 Members standing here, but it went ahead anyway. I expect we will return to this again. We are all human and such errors happen.

Regarding the situation in Azerbaijan, I wish to say that I supported this report. Ms Jäätteenmäki, the rapporteur, has done an excellent and thorough job. It is vitally important to raise the issue of the human rights situation. I myself believe that, by supporting the development of human rights and democracy in Azerbaijan, we can also strengthen that country and its status as an international actor.

Azerbaijan is known for its oil reserves. The Azerbaijani administration has shown a desire to become westernised and to reject the legacy of communism, a system they long endured as a former part of the Soviet Union. In any case, cooperation is needed and much also needs to be done to try to resolve peacefully the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh.

  Graham Watson (ALDE). – Madam President, I wish to seek closer relations between the Azeri people and those of the European Union, but this is increasingly frustrated by their government. Journalists, bloggers, politicians and others who dissent from the government’s opinion are regularly – indeed, almost routinely – harassed, imprisoned and maltreated.

Azerbaijan is bound by the European Convention on Human Rights, yet frequently violates its provisions. It participates in our Eastern Partnership programme, and yet its elections 18 months ago came nowhere near meeting our standards. In hosting the Eurovision Song Contest, it wishes to be seen as a modern democracy, yet fails to allow its own citizens the freedom to sing their own songs. Azerbaijan would score nul points for freedom. The imprisonment of members of the Liberal Musavat party, the fate of the Aliev brothers, the harassment of Leila Yunus: these are among thousands of cases of blatant injustice. That is why I supported the excellent report by Ms Jäätteenmäki insisting on improvements in the respect of fundamental freedoms before any association agreement can be signed.

Report: Tomasz Piotr Poręba (A7-0079/2012)

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). – Madam President, there is always a danger of being fixated on some evil aspect of our past. History is important, but it should not be something that stands in the way of good relations with our friends in the present.

We are in danger, when we look at our relations with Armenia, of seeing everything through the prism of the unhappy events of the First World War. They were tangled and tragic happenings. No one – not even the most blinkered Turkish nationalist – denies that many guiltless Armenians, including many civilians, were killed. Similarly, no one – not even the most vengeful Armenian diaspora reparationist – denies that some Armenians died in Russian uniforms.

But by emphasising, above all, whether we define these events as genocide, it seems to me we not only prejudice our relations with Armenia, we also poison those between Armenia and Turkey – and we do no favours to the cause of the truth.

The past should be disinterred gently and reverently, with all the patience of an archaeological dig – instead of which we are taking the shovel and we are slamming it through. The dead, I think, deserve better. They have suffered enough.

  Ewald Stadler (NI). – (DE) Madam President, Mr Hannan, we cannot sacrifice our morals because we have a strong interest in energy security. I voted in favour of the Poręba report because I am in favour of association agreements in principle.

I have reservations, however, particularly in respect of the expectation on Armenia to unilaterally withdraw from Nagorno-Karabakh. The result of this would be to leave the Armenian majority population there unprotected. All this is against the backdrop of the historical debt that Europe actually has to bear. In 1915, Europe looked on as the first organised genocide was carried out by a state against a people, specifically the Armenian people. Given this backdrop, the principle of self-determination – the fundamental right of self-determination – must be weighed higher than Azerbaijan’s interest in territorial integrity. I am therefore in favour of us handling this issue considerably more sensitively and considerably more strongly, acknowledging Europe’s debt to the Armenian people, who were left high and dry by the whole of Europe in 1915. I therefore call on this House not to expect the unexpectable of the Armenians.

  Kay Swinburne (ECR). – Madam President, the report on the negotiations on the EU-Armenia agreement is timely given that parliamentary elections are due to be held in a couple of weeks’ time. The report highlights the significant progress that still needs to be made in a number of areas, particularly stressing the pressing need to continue to fight corruption. Moreover it emphasises the need for Armenia to resolve the conflict and the land disputes that it is involved in so that it can work towards ensuring regional stability.

I sincerely hope that Armenia fulfils its pledge to hold free and fair elections for the benefit of all its citizens and that EU-Armenian relations can develop on a positive path over the coming years.

  Adam Bielan (ECR). – (PL) Madam President, the imminent parliamentary elections in Armenia are considered by European observers to be crucial. With this in mind, I hope the planned mission of Parliament will be fruitful and that it will result in a strengthening of democratic values and the application of international electoral standards. Much depends on the Armenians themselves, whose awareness and commitment can greatly help to prevent possible electoral violations. So it is all the more important that they are sure they have our full support.

I agree with the many recommendations, including, in particular, the need to support political, judicial and economic reforms. Another priority is action to fight corruption. The process of negotiating the association agreement should take account of the fundamental expectations of society and non-governmental organisations, agreed during extensive consultations.

As in the case of Azerbaijan, we must pursue a constructive policy on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

  Mitro Repo (S&D). – (FI) Madam President, the European Union’s objective must be stability and democratic development everywhere in the South Caucasus region. The multilateral partnership offered by the EU should be developed at the same time as the negotiations of the association agreements take place. The Eastern Partnership will strengthen multilateral relations and offer excellent tools for the development of democracy, the rule of law and civil society.

Armenia is committed to the values and principles of the European Union. These include democracy, the rule of law, good governance and a respect for human rights. The unresolved conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, however, is impairing stability and security in Armenia and the whole of the South Caucasus region, and is weakening development there.

The EU’s new strategy as regards our neighbouring countries which are in a state of change is an important step towards more predictive conflict resolution. In addition to the new models for solutions, action must be stepped up and there must also be support for the current forms of negotiation. The EU Special Representative for the South Caucasus has a vital role in the promotion of a peaceful solution to the conflict in the region.

  Ryszard Czarnecki (ECR). – (PL) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to remind the House, for which I have great respect, that Armenia is the oldest Christian country in the world, older even than Georgia. However – and we need to say this clearly – of all the countries of the Southern Caucasus, it is in Armenia that Russia currently wields its greatest military, political and economic influence. All the same, we should keep our fingers crossed for this country, which is moving along the rough, hard, rugged and sometimes uphill road to democracy. Let us hope the forthcoming parliamentary elections become a kind of watershed on that road. The European Union should support these efforts. In terms of its culture and other aspects of its civilisation, Armenia is part of our European heritage. This is all the more reason for us to support this country.

  Mario Pirillo (S&D). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Armenia is fundamental and strategic for strengthening bilateral relations in the South Caucasus. The renewal of the association agreements with the EU will be crucial in order to pave the way for strengthened regional cooperation. With the EURONEST delegation, I have had the opportunity to visit Armenia and to see for myself the progress that has begun to take place in democratically building the rule of law and respecting human rights on the basis of the partnership agreements initiated in 1999.

The participation of Armenia in parliamentary cooperation with EURONEST is an excellent indication of their willingness to adhere to European values and principles, for which there is broad consensus in civil society. I voted in favour of the association agreement and I feel that Armenia should commit itself to resolving the conflict in the south so as to avoid undermining the stability of the country.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). – Madam President, stability in the south Caucasus is a major concern for the European Union, as it is a region that has had a series of armed conflicts in the past and is today a major energy corridor linking Europe to the Caspian Sea. These conflicts have involved outside parties such as Russia and Turkey, and any escalation or return to hostilities between Armenia and Azerbaijan would be catastrophic.

Therefore, improved bilateral relations, via an association agreement and a DCFTA between the EU and both Armenia and Azerbaijan, are much in the European Union’s interests. It is also to be hoped that this will give the EU more leverage with the Minsk group of the OSCE to find a lasting solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh question.

I am confident that the forthcoming Armenian parliamentary elections will be free and fair, and it is essential that all EU assistance be provided to this small, land-locked country. It is also to be hoped that Turkey will reopen its border with Armenia, which has now been unjustifiably shut by Turkey for more than 20 years.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Madam President, I voted for this report because the negotiation of the association agreement provides us with the opportunity to develop relations with Armenia based on the commitment to democratic values. I, too, stress the need for the parliamentary elections on 6 May to be free, fair and transparent. I am confident that the authorities in Yerevan will make every effort necessary to achieve this. The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict needs to be resolved to ensure the security of Armenia and Azerbaijan, as well as of the whole region. In fact, the EU must be more involved in settling unresolved conflicts.

I should mention that the Black Sea Rotational Force exercise is going on at the moment, involving soldiers from several countries, including the US, Romania, Armenia and Azerbaijan. Its aim is to increase the level of interoperability. However, it also offers a means of increasing trust between the Caucasus states.

Written explanations of vote

Report: Milan Cabrnoch (A7-0043/2012)

  Damien Abad (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of new rules that will improve the coordination of social security systems in Europe. As the internal market becomes increasingly integrated, workers’ welfare must be guaranteed, especially that of mobile workers. For example, the introduction of the ‘home base’ concept for aircrew members (airline pilots, air stewards and hostesses) will guarantee them social security benefits. The new rules will also clarify the situation for self-employed frontier workers.

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this proposal, since Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 need to be adapted in order to keep up with changes in national legislation and developments in society that influence the coordination of social security systems. Moreover, the competent committee has put forward significant proposals for improving the coordination system. Those proposals, together with other technical adaptations of the text, are incorporated in this proposal for a regulation.

Another positive point is that this proposal also updates and amends the references to national legislation in certain annexes to the regulations. Although the proposal focuses on cross-border issues as regards social security for the self-employed and for commercial aviation, it represents not only an essential step towards coordinating the national social security systems, but also a first step towards a single system of justice for workers throughout the European Union, who currently have to contend with major differences between Member States. I believe it is important to call for greater harmonisation in this area.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for this report, which aims to guarantee adequate coordination of national social security systems at EU level and thus strengthen workers’ welfare. This means, for example, supporting provisions on unemployment benefit for self-employed workers and provisions on aircrew members. The report by Milan Cabrnoch also widens the scope of coordination of social security systems to include people who are unemployed, not yet working or no longer working. The proposal supports the introduction, in Member States that wish to introduce them, of new benefits such as paternity and early retirement allowances. Milan Cabrnoch, a member of the European Conservatives and Reformists Group, was responsible for this report, and once again this shows us that the socialists do not have the monopoly over social measures for citizens.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report. Member States frequently amend their national social security legislation. As a consequence, the references in EU legislation coordinating social security schemes become outdated and create legal uncertainty for stakeholders. I welcomed the updating of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 on the coordination of social security systems to include amendments in national legislation and the latest case-law of the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Trying to exercise one’s rights as a mobile worker within the European Union is often an obstacle course, even though free movement of persons and the right to work anywhere in the EU are enshrined as fundamental rights of all European citizens. I therefore consider the adoption of new EU rules on the coordination of social security systems to be a good thing, provided that they genuinely guarantee nationals of a given country and EU citizens travelling to that country to work equal access to social security systems. There are two new provisions that I feel are a step in the right direction. The concept of ‘home base’ has been introduced in order to give aircrew members social security rights. Air stewards and hostesses will now come under the social security system of the country in which they start and end their duty period. In addition, access for self-employed frontier workers to unemployment benefits has finally been clarified, something for which we have been calling for a long time. This means that self-employed workers will now be able to claim unemployment benefits in the country in which they have been working if no such system exists in their frontier Member State of residence.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I abstained on this report.

On the one hand, at this particularly difficult time for European society, we definitely need to improve the functioning of the worker protection systems; however, on the other hand, considering how profoundly different the social and labour situation is in each Member State, the various social security systems should remain separate, thus avoiding any transnational interference such as the measures suggested by the report in question.

Any overlap between European systems, especially on specific issues such as unemployment benefits, is inadvisable. For these reasons, I abstained.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The key factor is the closest and most efficient possible cooperation between Europe’s social security institutions. The quickest and most reliable way for Member States’ institutions to exchange data is through electronic communications. All these procedures should be speeded up for the benefit of all those concerned. At the same time, I think that those affected must benefit from all the guarantees provided for by the EU provisions on protecting natural persons with regard to their personal data being processed and freely distributed. The actual aim of the measures and procedures envisaged in this regulation is to increase transparency with regard to the criteria which Member States’ institutions need to apply, on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – I voted against these proposals as I believe it is a matter for the airlines and nation states concerned rather than an issue that needs to be addressed by the EU. Despite the proposals making sense, I fear that the encroachment by EU legislation into the coordination of social security systems will establish a case-based incentive to homogenise social security systems in other fields of work throughout the EU. The legislation is also designed to cover cross-border self-employed workers. Social security systems are often idiomatic to the country in which they are drawn up and it is vital that this distinction is able to remain intact, especially concerning unemployment benefits. For example, the welfare payments in one Member State may be significantly higher than in another EU country, enabling legal loopholes allowing welfare tourism to be exploited. For example, I am particularly concerned by the part of the proposal that states that, if a self-employed person who works in another EU country returns to his or her home country which does not have unemployment insurance for the self-employed, then the country where he or she last worked should pay the unemployment benefits.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Member States are responsible for organising and funding their own social security systems. Coordination of social security therefore applies to cross-border situations in which no Member State can act alone. EU legislation has been adopted to simplify such coordination by replacing the various bilateral agreements that existed. However, since the Member States tend to introduce changes to their social security legislation quite often, the references to national legislation in the EU legislation that coordinates the social security systems – namely, Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 – naturally can become out of date, resulting in legal uncertainty for stakeholders when they implement the regulations. I therefore support this initiative, which seeks to update the regulations to take account of the national legislative changes and social transformations that affect the coordination of social security systems, as is the case with the recent development of cross-border mobility. The amendments proposed by the Administrative Commission to update, clarify and complete the meaning of certain provisions are equally important in my view, because that is the only way to ensure greater transparency and certainty for stakeholders and to provide citizens who have opted for mobility with more complete protection.

  Lara Comi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The free movement of persons within the boundaries of the European Union is one of the four fundamental freedoms guaranteed to citizens. In order to make this freedom effective, we must prevent, as far as possible, the decision of a European worker to move to another Member State from leading to a loss of acquired rights in their country of origin. To this end, in 2004, the European Parliament adopted a regulation aimed at improving the coordination of Member State social security systems. In order to reflect changes in legislative conditions and in the labour market, this regulation needs to be amended. I therefore voted in favour of this proposed amendment, which, amongst other things, clarifies the position of self-employed workers who receive unemployment benefit, and airline employees who work in several countries, who, as established by the new legislation, will be subject to the law of the State where the airline parent company is resident.

  Andrea Cozzolino (S&D), in writing. – (IT) The updating of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 987/2009, which we are approving at first reading today, thanks to the agreement already reached with the Danish Presidency – needed to reflect the changes in the legislation of Member States on social security and coordination of social security systems – is a text that is widely supported by this House as it has succeeded in accommodating the positive needs of the sector trade unions. The clarifications regarding some fundamental concepts in the aviation sector will help and will protect airline employees against the risk of frequent changes of legislation applicable to their contract due to work patterns in the industry and seasonal demand.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I think that special provisions must be granted for wholly unemployed self-employed frontier workers where no unemployment benefits system covering self-employed persons exists in the Member State of residence.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D), in writing. – I voted in favour of the draft European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems and Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004, because it adds important innovations to the regulation of work in the EU, with a focus on trans-border and frontier workers. It is clear that the changes in the current socio-economic realities and the new challenges deriving from the opening up of borders and the globalised market of services requires an adaptation of the provision on social security and working conditions. This legislative resolution adjusts social security provisions for workers going abroad through the coordination of certain key measures. A timely act, given the importance transport services and cross-borders workers hold for the European economy and society.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The aim of this proposal is to ensure adequate coordination of national social security systems at EU level by seeking to adapt to the latest developments in cross-border mobility and free movement of workers. It seeks to guarantee the right of self-employed frontier workers to unemployment protection and the rights of air crews to receive the benefits due in the country where the registered office or branch office of the relevant airline is located. I feel these measures are appropriate and proportional, especially in the current crisis affecting Europe, which has left hundreds of thousands of Europeans out of work and in added difficulties.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The geographical enlargement of the European Union, especially to include the countries of Eastern Europe, has helped increase the movement of people and goods, thereby consolidating a genuine European single market. The movement of people, particularly workers, has raised a number of issues concerning recognition of their social security rights. The situation therefore needs clarifying urgently.

The report in question, by Mr Cabrnoch, deals with the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems and Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004.

I welcome the adoption of this report, which recognises one of the basic rights of the EU: the right to live and/or work in any Member State. All cross-border workers, particularly those in aviation or maritime services and the self-employed, have their social rights safeguarded, even if they did not have them in their country of origin. The same treatment is thereby guaranteed for the same work, regardless of the Member State involved.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The aim of this legislative report is to amend Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 so as to incorporate recent changes to national social security in certain Member States. Another aim is to consider certain provisions of the regulation that have been amended, particularly the ‘portability’ of unemployment benefit for self-employed workers and the introduction of a special provision for air crew members. The report argues that a self-employed frontier worker who becomes unemployed is entitled to receive unemployment benefits in the competent Member State if no such benefits exist in the Member State of residence. This is an important and sensible measure. It is important, however, not to ignore the problem of false self-employed workers, who are, in fact, covertly employed. This is a sizeable problem in some Member States. Air crew members should be registered with social security in the area of their ‘home base’. We believe it is imperative to have some control over where businesses are registered, so that companies cannot register themselves in countries where social security costs are lower.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The Administrative Commission for the Coordination of Social Security has put forward proposals for the coordination of social security systems aimed at improving and modernising the acquis. The agreed proposals have been incorporated into the text of the regulation presented. Changes in society can have an effect on the coordination of social security systems. In order to react to these changes, amendments have been proposed in the area of the determination of the applicable legal regulations and unemployment benefits. The diversity and evolution of the conditions under which professional activities are pursued make it necessary to take into account the situation of highly mobile workers. New labour supply structures have become evident, amongst others, in the air transport sector. Creating a linking between the applicable legislation for aircrew members and the Member State where the registered office or place of business of the undertaking or employer employing him/her is situated is effective only if there is a sufficiently close connection to the registered office or place of business. I similarly believe that it is necessary to ensure that self-employed persons receive benefits in accordance with the laws of the competent Member State, and that they are offered the best prospects of reintegrating into the labour market when they return to their Member State of residence. Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 should therefore be amended accordingly.

  Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), in writing. – (IT) Whereas, on the one hand, protection against unemployment for self-employed frontier workers is a goal many would support, on the other hand, the proposal raises an issue of particular sensitivity regarding the social security system of each Member State. In order to protect frontier workers, the proposal is to harmonise and coordinate the social security systems of Member States, forgetting, however, that social policies also include the thorny issue of unemployment benefits and minimum income support on which the various legislations differ significantly. These are issues that are being hotly debated, especially in the current economic climate. For these reasons, I thought it appropriate to abstain.

  Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for this report, which makes two noteworthy improvements to the coordination of social security systems within the European Union. The first is the clarification concerning access to unemployment benefits, enabling self-employed frontier workers to receive unemployment benefits in the country in which they have been working if they are resident in another Member State where there is no unemployment benefit system. The second is the introduction of the ‘home base’ concept for aircrew members (pilots, air hostesses, etc.), which will put an end to the social dumping that low-cost airlines practise against their personnel and thus guarantee fair social security for all aircrew personnel. As a native of a very ‘cross-border’ region, I fully support any initiative that strengthens the mobility of European citizens within the European Union, so that they can travel, move and work throughout the EU without administrative barriers.

  Mathieu Grosch (PPE), in writing. – (DE) I very much welcome this report, as it takes account of the most recent developments in cross-border mobility that have an impact on the coordination of social security systems. The report relates to the updating of existing regulations on the basis of changes to legal provisions in individual Member States and of changes to mobility patterns.

It makes clear, amongst other things, that posted workers cannot be replaced by other posted workers once the period for which the first worker is posted abroad comes to an end.

In addition, self-employed cross-border workers will have better protection in the event of unemployment. If they were insured against unemployment in the Member State in which they were last working and then move back to their Member State of residence, where they are not insured against unemployment, they will still be able to claim benefits, specifically in the Member State in which they last carried out their self-employed work. I very much welcome this strengthening of the rights of cross-border self-employed workers. This will benefit EU citizens, especially in border areas.

  Françoise Grossetête (PPE), in writing. – (FR) This proposal is one of the regular updates to Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 987/2009, aimed at guaranteeing adequate coordination of national social security systems at EU level.

I voted for these amendments, which will solve the problems that some of our fellow citizens encounter. The diversity and evolution of the conditions under which professional activities are pursued do indeed make it necessary to take into account the situation of highly mobile workers.

New labour supply structures have become evident, in the air transport sector among others. In order to facilitate the application of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 for this group of persons, it is justified to create a special rule by using the notion of ‘home base’ as the criterion for determining the applicable legislation for aircrew members. According to these new rules, aircrew members such as air hostesses and stewards will therefore be governed by the social security system of the country in which ‘they start and end their duty period’.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. – Parliament has today voted to end the dubious practice whereby airlines were able to register their staff, for social security purposes, in countries offering the least level of protection. The closing of this loophole is a welcome step and will give the workers increased rights.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this document because it is aimed at carrying out adjustments to EU social security legislation, i.e. harmonising and adjusting concepts and definitions. This should bring greater clarity and certainty. I also welcome the provision that people who have become unemployed in one Member State have the right to go and live in another Member State and to continue to receive the unemployment benefit to which they are entitled.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported this report aimed at guaranteeing proper coordination of social security systems at EU level, which was adopted by a wide majority in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. This is an update of the existing regulations and takes into account changes in the legislation in Member States and in the law on cross-border mobility.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The amendment to Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 has become necessary for a more correct and appropriate treatment of social security systems for self-employed frontier workers. Indeed, the text aims to provide some guarantees for these workers who often find themselves caught up in events in which the legislative framework is not always clear, given that they work in a Member State that is not their country of origin, with different social security legislation that, in some cases, does not provide social welfare benefits or subsidies for self-employed workers. Managing to coordinate the social safety net for self-employed frontier workers by amending existing EU regulations bears witness to the attention we pay to the ever-changing variety of conditions in which European workers find themselves.

  Agnès Le Brun (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I welcome the adoption of this report, which strengthens and adjusts coordination of national social security systems within the EU. It takes into account changes in the social security systems of individual Member States and increased cross-border mobility. It makes it possible, for example, to recognise the rights of unemployed workers who completed periods of unemployment insurance in the Member State of their last activity.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I welcome this report. The new rules will improve the functioning of the single market by enhancing the social protection of a high number of mobile workers in the EU, such as aircrew members and cross-border self-employed workers. The new regulation introduces the concept of a ‘home base’ for granting aircrew members access to social security rights. The home base is where pilots and cabin crews ‘normally start and end a duty period’ and ‘where the operator is not responsible for the accommodation of the crew member’. Legal loopholes in European legislation have, in the past, allowed a few low-cost airlines to apply social security systems that are deemed to be the least onerous, irrespective of the crew member’s home base.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for the report aimed at updating two EU regulations and thereby modernising cross-border coordination of social security systems. This report concerns self-employed cross-border workers, who will be able to benefit from unemployment insurance in the Member State of their last activity. Similarly, aircrew members, such as air stewards and hostesses, will be governed by the social security system of the country in which ‘they start and end their duty period’.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. – In light of the current economic context, it is incumbent on us all to be sensitive to the social security needs of citizens across the EU. However, there are issues of concern to Ireland contained in this report which have not yet been addressed. I abstained from the final vote.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report because it seeks to ensure that the various social security systems are coordinated at EU level, as is necessary. It updates the existing regulations, namely Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 987/2009, taking account of legal developments in the Member States and cross-border mobility.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The present update focuses mainly on the social security of self-employed workers and aircrew members. We have ensured that the applicable legislation for aircrew members will remain stable and that the ‘home base’ principle will not result in frequent changes of applicable legislation due to the industry’s work patterns or seasonal demands. I voted in favour.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) Social security may be defined as any programme of social protection established by legislation, or any other mandatory arrangement, that provides individuals with a degree of income security when faced with the contingencies of old age, survivorship, incapacity, disability, unemployment or rearing children. It may also offer access to curative or preventive medical care. As defined by the International Social Security Association, social security can include social insurance programmes, social assistance programmes, universal programmes, mutual benefit schemes, national provident funds, and other arrangements including market-oriented approaches that, in accordance with national law or practice, form part of a country’s social security system. Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 on the coordination of social security systems have been applied in all Member States since 1 May 2010. In order to ensure a sensible coordination of the national social security systems at EU level, this regulation needs to be adapted. I abstained from voting because the report does not make clear what improvement could be achieved by amending the regulation.

  Elisabeth Morin-Chartier (PPE), in writing. – (FR) In voting for this resolution, I am supporting the important step of guaranteeing adequate coordination of national social security systems at EU level. It reflects changes in national legal frameworks and in cross-border mobility. Furthermore, I consider this an important resolution as it also governs the rights of unemployed people who have completed periods of unemployment insurance in the Member State of their last activity. The rights of aircrew members are also covered by recognising the company’s ‘registered office or place of business’ as the ‘home base’.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) The free movement of persons is one of the principles of the functioning of the EU. This right is also an integral part of social guarantees relating to labour relations or which arise when these relations come to an end. Therefore, while welcoming this report, which ensures social guarantees in cases involving more than one Member State, at the same time, I wish to point out that in future, we will inevitably face the need to fundamentally review the current social welfare model due to the ageing EU population.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. – (DE) Globalisation gives rise to new kinds of mobility. I am thinking, in particular, of aviation, where enterprises offer their services in various EU countries from what is known as their home base. Where this is the case, we must not allow air crews to run the risk, in the worst case, of falling through the net when it comes to social security simply because they operate in various countries. However, it is essential that we do not give foreigners a basic right to receive social security – such as social benefits – without making contributions, because that would be an invitation to engage in a new kind of European social tourism in which people travelled to wherever they could expect to receive higher social security payments. I abstained from voting because the report does not define clearly what specific improvements are to be expected from amending the regulation.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed this resolution because proper coordination of national social security systems will be guaranteed throughout the EU. It should be noted that the common rules will only regulate those aspects of national legislation that may have a negative impact on people who have used the right of free movement of workers and have faced differences in the social security systems of several Member States. By cooperating and, if necessary, acting together, the Member States would solve common problems more effectively. Furthermore, this will facilitate more effective application of EU legislation, will simplify the coordination of social security systems in the Member States, and will contribute to the protection of citizens migrating within the EU.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because I agree that the coordination of social security systems in different Member States is essential for achieving one of the EU’s key objectives – the free movement of workers. Until now, there have been cases where self-employed workers in one country pay taxes and have the right to unemployment benefit, but lose this right if they leave to seek work in another EU Member State. Such a practice demonstrates deficiencies in the legislation of individual EU countries, which should be eliminated as soon as possible. I therefore support the wish expressed by the rapporteur, the European Commission and the European Council to reach an agreement on the regulation at first reading. Then, the legislative provisions that are so needed would come into force in the near future.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I am in favour of the report presented here. The fact that new social security systems must be set up to coordinate with the needs of new types of jobs that could be described as atypical requires us to study and propose criteria that are different from those usually followed. These criteria must, of course, be respected by all Member States and thus be drawn up in detail, in order to come up with a joint plan. This revision must provide employees with a sense of security that they can be reintegrated into the labour market of their country, even after a prolonged absence.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) This technical report on the coordination of social security systems, which I voted in favour of, comes at a time when social benefits and insurance systems in numerous Member States, especially Greece, are coming under pressure. Despite the fact that this particular report deals mainly with the procedure and practical application of the requirements of the regulation that existed before 2004, it contains important amendments of interest to Greece, such as arrangements concerning the safety and work of border workers and civil aviation workers; at the same time, it will help to create a more precise, fairer and more effective insurance plan in the event of accidents at work.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report on a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council seeks to update the regulation on the coordination of social security systems. The latest amendment to this regulation, which came into force on 1 May 2010, ensured coordination of the social security systems in all Member States. Over time, with the changes that the Member States have made to their national social security systems, the references made in the regulations to national legislation have resulted in this legal instrument becoming outdated and in potential legal uncertainty for stakeholders regarding the implementation of the regulations.

The present amendment seeks to reflect those legal changes at national level, as well as changes in society. I voted in favour of this report, since the changes will make it easier to implement EU legislation on social security coordination effectively and to improve protection for people who move within the Union.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The aim of this proposal is to update Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 so as to guarantee adequate coordination of national social security systems at EU level. The proposal reflects changes in national legislation and takes account of the latest developments in cross-border mobility. It thereby seeks to improve and modernise Union law, taking account of the constant changes in society.

The purpose of the proposal is essentially two-fold. First, it seeks to ensure that a self-employed frontier worker who becomes unemployed receives benefits, if he/she has completed periods of insurance as a self-employed person recognised for the purposes of granting unemployment benefits in the competent Member State and if no unemployment benefits system covering self-employed persons exists in the Member State of residence. Secondly, it seeks to protect the rights of air crew members.

I voted for this report for the aforementioned reasons.

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Today, during the plenary session in Strasbourg, we voted on Mr Cabrnoch’s report.

This report will improve the functioning of the single market by strengthening social protection for many mobile workers in the EU, such as airline crews and self-employed frontier workers. The regulation also focuses on the situation of self-employed frontier workers (an employee who returns to his home country at least once a week) regarding access to unemployment benefits.

In Italy, there is no provision for unemployment benefit for self-employed workers. However, according to the text, a self-employed worker working in an EU country other than their own, who pays the contributions needed for unemployment benefit, and who returns to his country, where such financial support does not exist, would also have the right to receive the subsidy, to be paid by the last country where he/she worked. This measure would, therefore, apply to Italy.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. Among other things, the revised text establishes that: Annex III to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 of 16 December 1991 on the harmonisation of technical requirements and administrative procedures in the field of civil aviation defines the concept of ‘home base’ for aircrew members under Union law. In order to facilitate the application of Title II of the Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 for this group of persons, it is justified to create a special rule by using this notion of ‘home base’ as the criterion for determining the applicable legislation for aircrew members. On the other hand, the applicable legislation for aircrew members should remain stable and the ‘home base’ principle should not result in frequent changes of applicable legislation due to the industry’s work patterns or seasonal demands.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. – (IT) The text of the report aims to update the changes made by the national legislations of Member States relating to social security.

One of the most significant aspects of the proposal is the issue of self-employed frontier workers, for whom greater protection is required, as well as guarantees against the risk of unemployment in the Member State in which he/she last worked.

The part which we do not support concerns the management of social policies, as we believe that harmonisation is difficult to achieve in the short term. Member States with a greater number of immigrants run the risk of having to provide guaranteed minimum incomes. If Italy were to go down that road, it would become a magnet for all of the desperate people in North Africa. Due to these concerns, I abstained.

  Amalia Sartori (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I support Mr Cabrnoch’s report on the coordination of social security systems because I believe that a revision, an update and a clarification of the social security conditions in the various EU Member States were absolutely necessary.

These are historic times, in which cross-border mobility has become an increasingly significant phenomenon and we really need coordination in this field in order to ensure security for our citizens and their future, and, of course, legal certainty for those concerned.

I therefore support the need to develop standard solutions so as to prevent discrimination from arising among EU citizens.

  Andreas Schwab (PPE), in writing. – (DE) I welcome the further development and the harmonisation achieved by this legal text, because improving cross-border mobility of workers is very much in the interests of the internal market.

Those affected need clear rules that they can rely on, and a lack of red tape – but, at the same time, it is also good that it is being made clear that posted workers cannot be replaced by other posted workers after the first worker’s posting is complete; there must be no jobs merry-go-round.

It is also a good thing that self-employed cross-border workers are being given better protection from unemployment.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) As professional working conditions have diversified and evolved, we must take into account the situation of highly mobile workers.

The coordination of social security systems has ensured that all workers with Member State citizenship enjoy equal treatment as well as social security benefits, regardless of their occupation or place of residence.

I voted in favour, since this report provides a necessary update that transposes the content of national laws, bringing their individual amendments into European legislation. It also clarifies the conditions ensuring social security for those working in the various Member States. All this falls within the principle of freedom of movement for workers, which is an integral part of the internal market.

  Monika Smolková (S&D), in writing. – (SK) One of the greatest achievements of common Europe is, without doubt, the free movement of people. Related to this is frequent labour migration. Today, it is not exceptional for a person to work in two or more Member States for different companies and employers. For this reason, it is essential that the coordination of individual Member States’ social systems be amended and updated. I realise that there will continue to be cases of working and unemployed people whose complex conditions will not be covered by the legislation of a given State. I supported the draft resolution because it responds to the diversity and evolution of the conditions under which professional activities are pursued and takes the situation of highly mobile workers into account.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report is purely technical and seeks to update European legislation in terms of guaranteeing appropriate coordination among the Member States’ social security systems. According to Article 153 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the EU shall support the Member States in the field of social security with a view to achieving harmonisation of the social systems that safeguard the protection of European citizens.

This proposal for an amendment specifically concerns self-employed frontier workers and civil aviation crew members as regards the ‘home base’ rule. It seeks to guarantee that self-employed workers in border regions are covered by the country in which they last worked, even if they no longer live there. They will thus be entitled to unemployment benefit if the Member State in which they reside does not provide it.

I think it is important for this legislation to be reviewed in two years’ time in order to adapt it to the changes that the Member States carry out. We have to ensure that European citizens’ rights are safeguarded, regardless of their nationality.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of the report on the coordination of social security systems. The purpose of the proposal is to update Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 on a regular basis, with the aim of ensuring appropriate coordination of national social security systems at EU level. At a time when Member States are frequently amending their social security legislation, measures for coordinating social security systems are needed so that the freedom of movement enshrined in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) can be fully exercised. The diverse and changing nature of the conditions in which professional activities are carried out make it necessary to take into account the situation of highly mobile workers. New labour supply models have appeared, such as those in the air transport sector. The coordination of social security systems is aimed at cross-border situations where a Member State cannot act on its own. I think it is important that this regulation should facilitate the coordination of social security systems by Member States, and that those moving around the EU receive better protection in order to remove the risk of losing the social security rights already acquired in another Member State. This action is in keeping with the spirit of Article 48 TFEU, which stipulates that the European Parliament and Council must adopt the measures needed to provide freedom of movement for workers.

  Viktor Uspaskich (ALDE), in writing. – (LT) I agree with the rapporteur that we urgently need common rules that would guarantee access to social benefits without penalising European workers who take advantage of the right of free movement. This issue is particularly important for the majority of Lithuanians. I believe that self-employed Lithuanians who have the right to receive unemployment benefit in the country where they are working should also receive it when they have returned to Lithuania. This is essential for encouraging young and talented Lithuanians to return home. The report also mentions a greater problem that is currently affecting Lithuania. The Lithuanian State Social Insurance Fund Board (SODRA) urgently needs to be completely restructured. Like the majority of Lithuanian state institutions, unprofitable spending has also weakened SODRA. This is a serious problem because last year, SODRA accounted for almost 70% of Lithuania’s national budget. According to media reports, nine out of ten SODRA branches in Lithuania are formally bankrupt. Analysis of the regional branches has revealed that 90% of the regions have more pensioners than working people. Revenue received in the poorest regions of Lithuania represents less than 40% of the amount needed to pay pensions.

  Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. – I wholeheartedly support this report, which calls for better social protection for cross-border workers and those working in the aviation industry. So called ‘mobile’ workers will see their social protection enhanced by the introduction of the ‘home base’ concept. This measure means that airline staff will not have a different legal status every time their shift pattern moves to a new country. I welcome moves to improve the situation of unemployment benefits for self-employed workers who perform cross-border work on a regular basis. If a self-employed person working in an EU country and contributing to its unemployment schemes then moves to another country which does not have the same unemployment benefits for self-employed workers, the country in which he or she last worked should pay unemployment benefits. This measure will protect those who work abroad or who need to relocate and work in another EU country.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – The modernised social security regulations resulting especially from the increase in negotiations between Member States are of high importance to the European Union and its citizens and therefore, this report has to be supported, which I did by my vote in favour. The need for modernisation came, among other things, from changes in national legislation and from the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Member States frequently amend their national social security legislation. As a consequence, the references made to national legislation in EU legislation coordinating social security systems can become outdated; this will create legal uncertainty for stakeholders when applying the regulations. The references in the regulations therefore need to be updated so that they correctly reflect legal changes at national level and changes in social reality.

  Anna Záborská (PPE), in writing. – (SK) The free movement of people is one of the basic pillars underpinning the idea of European integration. The possibility of working in any Member State of the European Union enables EU citizens to react more flexibly to developments in labour markets. It also gives people the opportunity to seek the best use of their education and skills, regardless of borders. On the other hand, it also creates a healthy pressure on employers in the smaller Member States because it exposes them to wider competition. The issue of social security is closely related to work. If a single labour market is to work in Europe, we need to coordinate the social security systems in the individual Member States at European level. This harmonisation of systems must, however, respond flexibly to changes in pension and social rules. The presented update to the regulation on the coordination of social security systems is based, above all, on comments raised by Member States, and therefore I supported it with a clear conscience. I understand the concerns of some of my colleagues about the abuse of social systems in their countries, but I firmly believe that the rejection of European harmonisation will not resolve this problem. Generous social support systems are not sustainable in the long term.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The primary aim of this report is to amend Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 so as to incorporate recent changes to national social security in certain Member States. A second aim concerns certain provisions in the regulation that have been amended: namely, the portability of unemployment benefit for self-employed workers and the introduction of a special provision for air crew members, which specifies that their ‘home base’ should be regarded as the registered office of their employers or their place of business, for the purpose of identifying the Member State in which they should pay their social security contributions. The report argues that a self-employed frontier worker who becomes unemployed is entitled to receive unemployment benefits in the competent Member State if no such benefits exist in the Member State of residence. This can be an important measure provided it is not applied to ‘false’ self-employed workers as a means of legitimising their use. According to the second amendment, workers register with the social security system of their home base. We believe, however, that there should be some control over where businesses are registered, so that companies cannot register themselves in countries where social security costs are lower.

Recommendation: Elmar Brok (A7-0139/2012)

  Damien Abad (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I support the accession of the European Union to the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia. Accession to this treaty will enhance the EU’s presence and visibility in the region.

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this proposal for the European Union to accede to the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia, an area that includes the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand, since the purpose is cooperation with a view to promoting peace, stability and cooperation in the region.

The signing of this treaty on behalf of the European Union is an important step, since signing as the Union means that all Europeans will be able to benefit from this cooperation protocol. Given that economic growth is tending to become increasingly concentrated in Asia, this protocol also allows for economic cooperation whereby the European Union will be able to benefit from effective cooperation with the ‘Asian Tigers’, which may make us more competitive in this thriving market.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia was signed by the original members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations in 1976. Its purpose was to promote peace, stability and cooperation in Southeast Asia. While the treaty was originally designed to apply only to states within the Southeast Asian region, it was amended in 1987 to allow for states outside the region to accede to it. In July 2006, EU Member States agreed to initiate proceedings towards the accession of the EU to the treaty. I naturally voted, therefore, in favour of our accession to this treaty of friendship between our two regions.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this resolution because I welcome the fact that the European Union’s accession to the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia will enable relations to be strengthened and cooperation increased with countries in the area, as well as the EU’s profile to be raised in the region. Given that, apart from the ASEAN states, other countries (Papua New Guinea, China, India, Japan, Pakistan, South Korea, Russia, New Zealand, Mongolia, Australia, France, East Timor, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, North Korea and United States) have also acceded to the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia, this has created the conditions for inclusive cooperation involving all stakeholders. The EU’s accession will expand this format even more, thereby making the proposed framework more relevant, for the benefit of not only the Southeast Asia region, but also of all the parties to the treaty. I must say that I am pleased about the vote on this resolution during Parliament’s session in April, so that the instruments for the EU’s accession to the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia can be signed during the ASEAN-EU ministerial meeting on 26-27 April 2012.

  Phil Bennion (ALDE), in writing. – I am happy to vote in favour of the EU accession to the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia.

The EU has many common interests with the ASEAN countries, with strong economic ties including large diaspora communities in European Member States and regions such as my own West Midlands constituency in the UK.

I welcome closer cooperation between the EU and Southeast Asia and am delighted to support the accession to a treaty which is so closely in line with the social and economic objectives of the European Union in promoting peace, stability and cooperation in the region through settlement of disputes by peaceful means. I also welcome the enhanced cooperation in economic, trade, social, technical and scientific fields and the expansion of trade and economic infrastructure which is of significant mutual benefit in the context of the current economic crisis.

  Adam Bielan (ECR), in writing. – (PL) ASEAN is an extremely important international organisation. Its furtherance of the objectives of cooperation on economic growth and social progress, coupled with the promotion of peace and stability, make it a centre of power and influence in Southeast Asia. It is also currently a very good trading partner for the Union.

I think accession to the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation is in our vital interests if our ambition is to reach our potential for a political role in this part of the world. Countries which unquestionably already are world powers are parties to the Treaty – the United States, China, Russia and Japan – and this very clearly shows how much their interests are at stake in this region. On the initiative of Brussels, the signatories have introduced a key change which enables an international organisation such as the European Union as a whole to accede to the Treaty.

In view of these points, I am absolutely sure that this is the right move and very hopeful that we will achieve tangible political and economic benefits, and I consent to the accession of the European Union to this Treaty.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of the European Parliament recommendation on the draft Council decision on the accession of the European Union to the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia because the purpose of this treaty is to promote peace, stability and cooperation in Southeast Asia. The non-controversial nature of this accession will enhance the EU’s presence and visibility in this region. The Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia (TAC) was signed by the members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in 1976, and, in July 2006, the European Union Member States agreed to initiate proceedings towards the accession of the EU to the TAC. This European Parliament recommendation is important because once Parliament has consented to the draft decision on the accession of the European Union to the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia, it will be possible for the HR/VP to sign the EU’s accession instruments on the occasion of the ASEAN-EU Ministerial Meeting of 26/27 April 2012.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – I voted against this report as the EU should not, in my opinion, have a unified presence in foreign affairs. The current signatories to the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia (TAC) are all nation states. Indeed, the treaty must be amended in order to allow the accession of non-state entities. Whilst I fully support the aims of the treaty, it is for the United Kingdom to sign independently and not the preserve of the EU to become a signatory on behalf of the 27 Member States to any international agreements.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report on the accession of the European Union to the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia, since the purpose of the treaty is to promote peace, stability and cooperation in the region. Moreover, this accession will strengthen the EU’s presence and visibility in Southeast Asia.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I cannot fail to support the accession of the European Union to the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia. The region has become increasingly important on the international scene. Therefore, as the treaty has been amended to allow partners from other parts of the world to join, it would make no sense for the European Union not to follow the example of powers such as the United States and China and forego the chance to develop closer relations with the countries of Southeast Asia. I hope that the Union can soon accede to the treaty and that the treaty will benefit all concerned.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Union tries to take its values of upholding human rights, freedom and democracy to every corner of the world. Throughout its existence, it has concluded a number of protocols and signed treaties with many states and organisations that share these principles.

In July 2006, the Member States decided to initiate proceedings towards the accession of the EU to the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC) with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). These proceedings were significantly delayed because of the need to amend the TAC to allow for the accession of non-state entities. As the ASEAN ministerial meeting is due to take place on 26/27 April, I agree with the urgency request by the Council to hold the vote on this recommendation today so as to enable the High Representative/Vice-President of the Commission, Baroness Ashton, to sign the accession instruments during that meeting.

I voted for this recommendation because I believe that signing this treaty will enhance the EU’s visibility in the region, promote social and cultural exchange between the EU and Southeast Asian countries and thereby help to consolidate peace and stability in that part of Asia.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The treaty to which this report refers – the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia (TAC), which was signed into force by the original members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in 1976 – lays down principles that we value highly, such as mutual respect for the independence, sovereignty, equality, territorial integrity and national identity of all nations, and the right of every state to lead its national existence free from external interference, subversion or coercion. The state signatories to the treaty set up a free trade zone in 1992, which was concluded in 2008. The ASEAN countries have a population of 600 million people. ASEAN collectively generates a GDP of some USD 1 500 billion and is our third largest trading partner outside the EU, with trade in goods and services worth over EUR 206 billion. While we support the signing of this treaty on account of the principles it enshrines, the truth is that we neither hold nor encourage any illusions as to the reasons why the EU is signing it. It is a political and diplomatic manoeuvre aimed at creating more favourable conditions for its goal of setting up a free trade zone between the EU and ASEAN.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia was signed in February 1976 by Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand. Since the date of signing, many other countries have also become signatories, including the United States of America, Turkey and Canada. The Treaty aims to promote peace, stability and cooperation in the region. To that end, it calls for disputes to be settled by peaceful means, peace to be maintained, conflicts to be prevented, and security to be strengthened in Southeast Asia. The rules and principles laid down in the treaty correspond to the objectives of the European Union as regards the common foreign and security policy. I think that, just as it does in matters concerning joint efforts towards international peace and stability in the region, the treaty should also promote active cooperation in the economic, social, technical, scientific and administrative fields, the acceleration of economic growth in the region, the expansion of trade, and the improvement of the economic infrastructure, so that all these efforts lead to the mutual benefit of the countries concerned.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. – Article 2 of the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation outlines the fundamental principles within which it operates and, of these, the first is a ‘mutual respect for the independence, sovereignty, equality, territorial integrity and national identity of all nations’. I wholeheartedly endorse that principle and welcome this House’s overwhelming decision to do likewise.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this European Parliament recommendation on the draft Council decision on the accession of the European Union to the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia (TAC) because its purpose is to promote peace, stability and cooperation in the region. In view of the non-controversial nature of this accession, which will enhance the EU’s presence and visibility in the region, the Committee on Foreign Affairs invites the European Parliament to consent to the decision authorising the Union to join the TAC. Furthermore, it supports the urgent request by the Council to have the vote during the April 2012 part-session to make it possible for the HR/VP to sign the EU’s accession instruments on the occasion of the ASEAN-EU Ministerial Meeting of 26/27 April 2012.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – The Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia (TAC) was signed into force by the original members of ASEAN in 1976. Its purpose is to promote peace, stability and cooperation in Southeast Asia. While the TAC was originally designed to apply only to states within the Southeast Asian region, it was amended in 1987 to allow for states outside the region to accede to it. Besides the Member States of the ASEAN, the following countries are parties to the treaty (in chronological order of accession): Papua New Guinea, China, India, Japan, Pakistan, South Korea, Russia, New Zealand, Mongolia, Australia, France, East Timor, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, North Korea, United States. In July 2006, EU Member States agreed to initiate proceedings towards the accession of the EU to the TAC. However, the TAC first had to be amended further to allow for the accession of non-state entities. Given the non-controversial nature of this accession, which will enhance the EU’s presence and visibility in the region, I supported this report.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia (TAC) was signed into force by the original members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in 1976. Its purpose is to promote peace, stability and cooperation in Southeast Asia. In July 2006, EU Member States agreed to initiate proceedings towards the accession of the EU to the TAC. However, the TAC first had to be amended further to allow for the accession of non-state entities. In view of the benefit of acceding to this treaty to increase the EU’s visibility in Southeast Asia, I voted in favour.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – Member States agreed to start proceedings paving the way for accession of the EU to the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia in July 2006. However, the treaty should first be amended in order to allow the accession of non-state entities. I consider it to be controversial so I abstained.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) Southeast Asia is a market of the future. The goal of promoting peace, stability and cooperation with this part of the world is a good one. It is to be hoped that in future, we will hear many positive things about stronger economic relations between the EU and Southeast Asia. Formula 1 is represented in Southeast Asia, for example, and is happy with this market. This shows that in this region, there is a willingness to open up and make itself heard. The vote in the relevant committee makes it all too clear that people want this treaty and take a positive view of it. The Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia is therefore to be welcomed, which is why I am voting in favour of this report.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. – (DE) The purpose of the EU’s treaty with Southeast Asia is to promote peace, stability and cooperation, and to demonstrate the EU’s greater economic engagement with this market of the future. The vote in the relevant committee clearly shows that the EU is continuing its intensive efforts in respect of Southeast Asia, pursuing its aims of strengthening its economic presence, promoting stability, promoting the economic development of poorer regions, and promoting the development and consolidation of democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. I welcome the treaty, which is why I am voting in favour of the report.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I believe that it is advisable to join the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia, the purpose of which is to spread peace, stability and cooperation. The treaty promotes economic, financial and technical cooperation with developing countries and countries that are not signatories to the treaty. It should be noted that accession to this agreement will enhance the EU’s presence and visibility in the Southeast Asian region. It will also create a favourable environment for the EU to be more actively involved in the dialogue on the security of East and Southeast Asia.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The foreign policy of the European Union plays a role of fundamental importance, especially as regards trade agreements that can be entered into with other parts of the world. The Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia is principally intended to promote cooperation and development between the Association of Southeast Nations (ASEAN countries) and third countries acceding to the treaty. I believe it is very important that Parliament has succeeded in speeding up the bureaucratic procedures for the approval of the text so as to allow for accession to the treaty as quickly as possible. This is a treaty to which the EU will be the first signatory that is a non-state entity.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the recommendation on the draft Council decision on the accession of the European Union to the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia, the purpose of which is to promote peace, stability and cooperation in the region. In view of the non-controversial nature of this accession, Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs has invited Parliament to consent to the decision, which will enhance the EU’s presence and visibility in the region.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia (TAC) came into force in 1976 with the aim of promoting peace, stability and cooperation in that region. While the TAC was originally designed to apply only to states within the Southeast Asian region, it was amended in 1987 to allow for states outside the region to accede to it.

In July 2006, EU Member States agreed to initiate proceedings towards the accession of the EU to the TAC. This became possible because the TAC was first amended to allow for the accession of non-state entities. Since I believe this accession will enhance the EU’s presence and visibility in the region, I voted for the decision authorising the Union to accede to the TAC.

  Teresa Riera Madurell (S&D), in writing. – (ES) In 2006, the Member States of the European Union decided to initiate proceedings towards the accession of the EU to the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia (TAC). In this plenary session, Parliament has authorised the EU to join the TAC. This is an important event, because the purpose of the TAC, signed by the original members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in 1976, is to promote peace, stability and cooperation in Southeast Asia. By consenting, Parliament has paved the way for the EU to join a treaty that calls for the prevention and peaceful resolution of conflicts, and maintaining peace. Furthermore, the treaty defends stepping up economic, trade and social cooperation. I therefore voted in favour because we are talking about values and principles that are very much a part of our own experience of European integration. In addition, accession would allow the EU to strengthen its relations with a regional organisation with which it shares principles and goals. Parliament’s consent will make it possible for Baroness Ashton to sign the EU’s accession instruments on the occasion of the ASEAN-EU Ministerial Meeting of 26-27 April 2012.

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Today, in the plenary session in Strasbourg, we have voted in favour of the recommendation by Mr Brok on the draft Council decision on the accession of the European Union to the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia (TAC).

The TAC, originally designed to apply only to the Association of Southeast Nations (ASEAN countries) of the Southeast Asian region, with the aim of promoting stability and cooperation between them, was amended in 1987 so as to allow for the accession of other states and, in July 2006, Member States of the European Union also initiated accession procedures, although the treaty had not been amended further to allow for the accession of non-state entities.

Nevertheless, with the view that accession could only enhance the EU’s presence and visibility in the Asian region, the Committee on Foreign Affairs has invited the European Parliament to consent to the decision authorising the Union to join the TAC.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. The Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia (TAC) was signed into force by the original members of ASEAN in 1976. Its purpose is to promote peace, stability and cooperation in Southeast Asia. In view of the non-controversial nature of this accession, which will enhance the EU’s presence and visibility in the region, the Committee on Foreign Affairs invites the European Parliament to consent to the decision authorising the Union to join the TAC. Furthermore, it supports the urgency request by the Council to have the vote during the April 2012 part-session so as to make it possible for the HR/VP to sign the EU’s accession instruments on the occasion of the ASEAN-EU Ministerial Meeting of 26/27 April 2012.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The first parliamentary contacts between the European Parliament and the ASEAN countries took place in 1976, but it was only in 1979 that regular meetings between Parliament and the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Organisation were inaugurated. They now take place annually, alternating in location between the EU and an ASEAN country.

The Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia, on which we are voting today, is designed to promote peace, stability and cooperation in the region, and provides for the peaceful resolution of disputes, the preservation of peace, conflict prevention and the development of security in Southeast Asia. In July 2007, ASEAN opened trade negotiations between the European Union and seven member countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). In December 2009, the European Commission decided to conduct the negotiations on a bilateral basis.

Currently, negotiations are being held with Singapore and Malaysia, but Vietnam has also signalled that it wishes to open a dialogue on this issue. Given the importance of this region for the EU, this morning’s signature is extremely important and formally confirms Europe’s desire for friendly relations with ASEAN.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia was signed into force by the original members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in 1976. Its purpose is to promote peace, stability and cooperation in the region. In July 2006, EU Member States agreed to initiate proceedings towards the accession of the EU to the treaty. Accession will enhance the EU’s presence and visibility in the region, and I voted for the decision of Parliament approving it.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of the decision on the accession of the European Union to the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC) in Southeast Asia. The purpose of the TAC signed by the original members of ASEAN in 1976 is to promote peace, stability and cooperation in the region. The treaty was originally designed to apply only to states in the region, but it was amended in 1987 to allow states outside the region to accede to it. Apart from ASEAN Member States, the other countries which are party to this treaty include China, India, Japan, Russia, Australia, France and the US. In July 2006, Member States agreed to initiate proceedings towards the accession of the EU to the TAC. With this in mind, the TAC was modified considerably to allow the accession of non-state entities. The treaty supports the peaceful settlement of disagreements, peacekeeping, conflict prevention and the consolidation of security in Southeast Asia. The regulations and principles enshrined in the treaty are in keeping with the objectives of the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy. At the same time, the contracting parties make every effort to cooperate as closely as possible and to offer each other assistance in the form of training and research facilities in the social, cultural, scientific, technical and administrative spheres.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – The Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia is very important for the economic and political cooperation between Southeast Asia and the EU, including the ASEAN Member States. It would strengthen their trade partnership and improve their diplomatic relations as a whole. Therefore, I voted in favour of it and I underline the necessity of new partnerships in this period of economic crisis and recession.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia was signed in 1976, with the aim of promoting peace and political stability.

Originally reserved for countries in that geographical area, it was subsequently extended to other nations (including France, Russia, Australia and the United States), helping to secure and develop political and commercial cooperation at the international level. I therefore welcome the European Union’s accession to the treaty and I am certain that this will further enhance Europe’s presence and visibility in that region.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia (TAC), which was signed into force by the original members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in 1976, lays down very important principles, such as mutual respect for the independence, sovereignty, equality, territorial integrity and national identity of all nations, and the right of every state to lead its national existence free from external interference, subversion or coercion. The state signatories to the treaty set up a free trade zone in 1992, which was concluded in 2008. The ASEAN countries have a population of 600 million people. ASEAN collectively generates a GDP of some USD 1 500 billion and is our third largest trading partner outside the EU, with trade in goods and services worth over EUR 206 billion. We support the signing of this treaty on account of the principles it enshrines, but we neither hold nor encourage any illusions as to the reasons why the EU is signing it. It is a political and diplomatic manoeuvre aimed at creating more favourable conditions for its goal of setting up a free trade zone between the EU and ASEAN. The EU demonstrates every day, and in everything it does, that it treats these principles as dead letters.

Report: Paulo Rangel (A7-0065/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I have voted for this recommendation on the European Council’s proposal not to convene a convention for the addition of a protocol on the concerns of the Irish people regarding the Treaty of Lisbon to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

This is due to the fact that the Heads of State or Government had already reached an agreement at the June 2009 European Council to provide reassurance and to respond to the concerns of the Irish people regarding the Treaty of Lisbon. Since the Heads of State or Government have already agreed on the substance of the provisions proposed in the draft protocol and the issue has already been politically settled, this decision does not seem to justify signing a convention.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Ireland faced tremendous trouble in its ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon: the first referendum produced an overwhelming ‘no’, whereas the second only authorised ratification provided that certain conditions imposed by the Irish Government were accepted on subjects such as the right to life. As the European Union is also about being united in diversity and respecting each other’s cultural differences, it was agreed that at the time of the conclusion of the next accession Treaty, they would set out the provisions of the decision in a protocol to be attached to the Treaties.

  Liam Aylward (ALDE), in writing. – (GA) I welcome this report that attempts to respond to the concerns of the Irish people on the right to life, family and education, on taxation, and on security and defence matters. It recognises an Irish petition to implement ‘appropriate legal guarantees’ in terms of the Treaty of Lisbon.

It is clear that these guarantees are explanatory, that they aim to address the concerns of the Irish people and that they do not change in any way the main content of the Treaties. However, official recognition in writing must be given to Irish concerns and I welcome the compact on signing and ratifying the protocol in relation to the concerns of the Irish people regarding the Treaty of Lisbon alongside the Croatian Accession Treaty.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed the European Parliament recommendation on the European Council’s proposal not to convene a convention for the addition of a protocol on the concerns of the Irish people regarding the Treaty of Lisbon to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. At the European Council on 19 June 2009, the Heads of State or Government agreed to take a decision in order to provide reassurance and to respond to the concerns of the Irish people regarding the Treaty of Lisbon in relation to the right to life, family and education, taxation, as well as security and defence. As it was decided that the provisions of the decision would be set out in a protocol at the time of the conclusion of the next accession Treaty, I welcomed the European Parliament recommendation not to convene a separate convention on this issue.

  Adam Bielan (ECR), in writing. – (PL) A decision of the European Council made three years ago provided the Irish people with legal guarantees in response to their concerns in relation to the right to life, family and education, taxation and, in particular, security and defence. In view of the fact that the Heads of State or Government also declared that the decision was legally binding and would take effect on the date of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, and that they had also agreed the substance of the provisions proposed in the draft protocol, the Council’s proposal not to convene a convention seems justified. The provisions of the protocol provide clear regulation of the most important issues covered in the understandings, so I welcome the decision in favour of examining the amendments to the Treaties.

I endorsed the recommendation on consent to the proposal not to convene a convention, and also the report on consultations concerning the draft protocol. I think that all political understandings reached in Council in relation to ratification of the Lisbon Treaty must be respected.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Ireland’s position, following the negative outcomes of previous referendums in the Republic, presents a delicate problem from a political, institutional, cultural and governance point of view.

Moreover, it presents a challenge that many have long deceived themselves could be put off indefinitely, as regards developing models of governance that, in the context of institutional cohesion, could show themselves capable of valuing the cultures of Member States, respecting each European people’s sensitivities and responding to their legitimate concerns, whenever these might arise, on individual issues of a political, social or cultural nature.

In this sense, the choice made by the Heads of State or Government to acknowledge the concerns of the Irish people regarding the Treaty of Lisbon in relation to the right to life, family and education, taxation, and security and defence by means of a legally binding decision embodied in a subsequent and specific protocol must be seen as responsible and courageous. This assumption of political responsibility enables us to adopt a tailor-made approach as an alternative to a special convention. I am therefore voting in favour of the draft decision under scrutiny today.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – I have abstained from this vote as voting against the convention would amount to consenting to the decision to not convene on a draft protocol. I am in favour of an open democratic event such as this. However, there are elements of the protocol such as Article II covering taxation which I find hard to believe. The article states that ‘nothing in the Treaty of Lisbon makes any change of any kind, for any Member State, to the extent or operation of the competence of the European Union’.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Council of 19 June 2009 registered the various concerns of the Irish people, including those relating to taxation policy, the right to life, family and education, and the traditional policy of military neutrality. In this context, and in order to provide reassurance and give the Irish people guarantees, the European Council adopted three annexes to the Treaty, Annex 1 consisting of a legally binding decision of the Heads of State or Government that would take effect on the date when the Treaty of Lisbon enters into force. It was also agreed that the provisions of the decision would be set out in a protocol to be attached to the Treaties at the time of the conclusion of the next accession treaty. The signing of the Croatian accession treaty on 9 December 2011 made it necessary to add the planned protocol. Since the substance of the provisions proposed in the draft protocol has already been debated, resulting in political agreement at the European Council in 2009, I see no need to convene a convention for the addition of this protocol to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. I therefore support the recommendation to consent to the European Council’s proposal not to convene a convention.

  Emer Costello (S&D), in writing. – Almost three years ago, the European Council gave a commitment to the Irish people that they would address their concerns regarding the Lisbon Treaty to safeguard the right to life, family, education, taxation and security and defence. This proposal represents the culmination of that promise. I therefore welcome its adoption, and its eventual ratification alongside the Croatian accession treaty.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this protocol, having regard to the agreement reached at the European Council on 19 June 2009 responding to the concerns of the Irish people in relation to the right to life, family and education, taxation, and security and defence. Since the Heads of State or Government have already agreed on the substance of the provisions proposed in the protocol, so that the issue has already been politically settled, I do not think it is justifiable to convene a convention.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This recommendation, drafted by Mr Rangel, proposes adopting the European Council’s proposal not to convene a convention for the addition of a protocol on the concerns of the Irish people regarding the Treaty of Lisbon to the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

On 20 July 2011, the Irish Government sent a letter to the Council on a proposal for the addition of a draft protocol on the concerns of the Irish people regarding the Treaty of Lisbon to the TEU and TFEU. The Heads of State or Government of the 27 Member States had already made a decision on this subject with the necessary legal guarantees on 19 June 2009, in order to provide assurance and respond to the concerns of the Irish people in relation to the right to life, family and education, taxation, and security and defence.

Since the issue has already been politically settled, and in view of the request for consent not to convene a convention submitted by the European Council and the recommendation of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, I am voting for this report.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The adoption of this report comes in the wake of the shameful blackmailing and manipulation of the Irish people in order to impose the Treaty of Lisbon by anti-democratic means. The approval of what has been termed an ‘additional protocol responding to the concerns of the Irish people’ is nothing more than an attempt to legitimise something that, according to the most basic democratic principles, cannot be legitimised. The Irish were the only people not to be prevented from expressing their views in a referendum, due to a constitutional requirement. Their rejection of the Treaty of Lisbon was undeniably an obstacle to the attempt – involving unacceptable chicanery and flagrant trickery – to impose a draft treaty that had previously been rejected, thereby disrespecting and seeking to bypass the will of the peoples of France and the Netherlands. No amount of manoeuvring can legitimise a treaty that results from an anti-democratic process and that, as circumstances have shown, has created the conditions for stepping up the attack on national sovereignties and reversing the rights and victories of the common people.

This and previous treaties need to be rescinded in order to safeguard democracy and uphold the effective participation of citizens. It is essential to defend national sovereignty and the role of national institutions so as to promote effective democracy instead of devaluing it.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) At a session of the European Council in June 2009, Heads of State or Government agreed to take a decision in order to provide reassurance and to respond to the concerns of the Irish people regarding the Treaty of Lisbon in relation to the right to life, family and education, taxation, and security and defence. They also declared that the decision was legally binding and would take effect on the date of entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. They further declared that, at the time of the conclusion of the next accession treaty and in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements, they would set out the provisions of the decision in a protocol to be attached to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. As a matter of fact, the Heads of State or Government, at the June session of the European Council referred to above, had already agreed on the substance of the provisions proposed in the draft protocol, so that the issue has already been politically settled and does not justify convening a convention. I therefore agree with Parliament’s proposal not to convene a convention.

  Brice Hortefeux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Not surprisingly, Parliament has approved, through its consent procedure, the proposal for the addition of a protocol on the concerns of the Irish people. This protocol is a result of the agreement entered into at the European Council on 18 and 19 June 2009. It covers various areas: the right to life, protection of family and education, taxation, security and defence, as well as workers’ rights and social policy. Parliament has also decided not to convene a convention since the protocol’s provisions do not warrant it.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this recommendation on the European Council’s proposal not to convene a convention for the addition of a protocol on the concerns of the Irish people regarding the Treaty of Lisbon to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. This matter has been referred to Parliament for approval purposes. The report was adopted by an overwhelming majority within Parliament’s Committee on Constitutional Affairs (AFCO).

  Agnès Le Brun (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this recommendation supporting the European Council’s proposal not to convene a convention for the addition of a protocol on the concerns of the Irish people regarding the Treaty of Lisbon to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. As the amendments to the Treaties are really quite minor, a simplified revision procedure that provides more flexibility and saves time should be used.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I supported this report, which decided against the calling of a convention. The Heads of State or Government at the European Council on 19 June 2009 have already agreed on the substance of the provisions proposed in the draft protocol, so the issue has already been politically settled and does not justify convening a convention.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) On 19 June 2009, the European Council considered the concerns of the Irish people, including those relating to taxation policy, the right to life, family and education, and the traditional policy of military neutrality. In this context, and in order to restore the Irish people’s confidence in the Treaty of Lisbon, the European Council adopted three annexes to the Treaty, Annex 1 consisting of a legally binding decision of the Heads of State or Government that would take effect on the date of entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon.

Since the provisions proposed in the draft protocol have already been amply debated, resulting in political agreement at the European Council in 2009, I see no need to convene a convention for the addition of this protocol to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. I therefore agree with the approval of the European Council’s recommendation not to convene a convention.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The Heads of State or Government agreed to take a decision in the European Council in June 2009 in order to provide reassurance and to respond to the concerns of the Irish people on the Treaty of Lisbon concerning the right to life, family and education, taxation, and security and defence. The Heads of State or Government had already agreed on the substance of the provisions proposed in the draft protocol, meaning the issue has already been politically settled. Therefore, this decision does not seem to justify convening a convention. I abstained.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) The Heads of State or Government of the 27 EU Member States have agreed that the concerns of the Irish people expressed in the context of the amendment of the Treaty of Lisbon will be taken into account through the addition of a protocol to the Treaty. These concerns are in relation to the right to life, family and education, taxation, and security and defence. The matter has already been dealt with at a political level in the agreement reached at the meeting of the European Council on 19 June 2009. There is thus no need to convene an extra convention in respect of this. For that reason, I am voting in favour of this report. In my opinion, a convention on the Treaty of Lisbon should have been convened in any case, as was the case in connection with the planned constitution for Europe – but that was not what this report was about.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. – (DE) I support the proposal by the European Council not to convene a convention to consult on Ireland’s concerns in relation to the Treaty of Lisbon. In this case, there is absolutely no need to do so, since the Heads of State or Government have already reached agreement at the European Council, and thus a political resolution has already been achieved. I therefore voted in favour of the report.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) My approval of this draft protocol on the concerns of the Irish people is in line with one of the fundamental rules of our Union, that is, respect for all the peoples that belong to it. The position taken by the Heads of State or Government in response to the concerns of the Irish people in relation to family, education, taxation, security and defence – subjects dealt with in the Treaty of Lisbon – is correct. A convention will nevertheless be called to reassure those who are still sceptical, although the proposed measures have already been adopted as from the Treaty’s entry into force in 2009.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) The ‘no’ vote in the Irish referendum on the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon in June 2008 highlighted the concerns of the Irish people about a series of issues which were not provided for or adequately protected in the new European Treaty. As unanimity is required before a new Treaty can enter into force, the decision by the European Council to examine the proposed amendments to subsequent Treaties, in the form of new clarifications, in order to include the references requested by the Irish, such as the right to life, family, taxation, security and defence, are a welcome political compromise by the European Parliament. Consequently, I voted in favour of this recommendation.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Parliament, through its Committee on Constitutional Affairs, adopted the recommendation on the European Council’s proposal not to convene a convention for the addition of a protocol on the concerns of the Irish people regarding the Treaty of Lisbon to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

Parliament thereby consents to the European Council’s proposal not to convene a convention. In view of the fact that the Heads of State or Government at the European Council on 19 June 2009 had already agreed on the substance of the provisions proposed in the draft protocol, so that the issue has already been politically settled, I am voting for this decision as I do not believe there is any justification for convening a convention.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I welcome the adoption of my report, which came about as a result of the agreement of the Heads of State or Government at the European Council of 19 June 2009 regarding the concerns of the Irish people in relation to the right to life, family and education, taxation, and security and defence.

At that time, it was envisaged that the provisions of that decision would be set out in a protocol to be attached to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union at the time of the conclusion of the next accession treaty. That is precisely the amendment that is now being considered. Therefore, and since the substance of the provisions proposed in the draft protocol had already been politically settled, we have reached the conclusion that there is no justification for convening a convention.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. At the European Council on 19 June 2009, the Heads of State or Government agreed to take a decision in order to provide reassurance and to respond to the concerns of the Irish people on the Treaty of Lisbon in relation to the right to life, family and education, taxation, and security and defence. Then, they declared that the decision was legally binding and would take effect on the date of entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. They also declared that, at the time of the conclusion of the next accession treaty and in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements, they would set out the provisions of the decision in a protocol to be attached to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. As a matter of fact, the Heads of State or Government at the European Council on 19 June 2009 had already agreed on the substance of the provisions proposed in the draft protocol, so that the issue has already been politically settled and does not seem to justify convening a convention.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) When the Irish people vetoed the Treaty of Lisbon in the referendum on its ratification, the Heads of State or Government agreed to take account of Ireland’s concerns on issues such as the right to life, family and education, taxation, and security and defence, by attaching a protocol to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, to be included at the time of the next accession treaty. This draft report, which is purely technical, does not require the convening of a convention because agreement on the provisions proposed in the draft protocol was reached at the June 2009 European Council. That is why I am voting for this recommendation.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of the decision of the European Parliament on the European Council’s proposal not to convene a convention for the addition of a protocol on the concerns of the Irish people regarding the Treaty of Lisbon to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. At the European Council on 19 June 2009, the Heads of State or Government agreed to make a decision in order to provide guarantees and address the concerns of the Irish people regarding the Treaty of Lisbon in relation to the right to life, family and education, taxation, and security and defence. The Heads of State or Government also declared that the decision was legally binding and would take effect on the date when the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force. At the time of the conclusion of the next accession treaty and in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements, they were to include the provisions of the decision in a protocol to be attached to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. As the Heads of State or Government at the European Council on 19 June 2009 had already agreed on the substance of the provisions proposed in the draft protocol, we think that the issue has already been settled politically and does not seem to justify calling a convention.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This recommendation claims that the addition of a protocol to the Treaty of Lisbon ‘has already been politically settled and does not seem to justify convening a convention’. It thereby seeks a swift conclusion to the tortuous and anti-democratic process that led to the Irish referendum being re-held after the victory of the ‘No’ camp, a process that effectively blackmailed the Irish people. In contrast to this process, we assert and uphold the right of every people to hold an informed debate on the content and objectives of the EU Treaties and to express a decision thereon through a referendum.

Report: Paulo Rangel (A7-0064/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I support this draft protocol and am in favour of the European Council decision to examine the proposed amendments to the Treaties. Since the Heads of State or Government have already come to a political decision within the European Council, and since the protocol already explains the areas that are of concern to the Irish, everything seems to be settled. There remains, however, the issue of the country’s military neutrality, which is more complicated because of the powers conferred by the Union.

Nonetheless, it is important to consider the position adopted by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, which holds that the obligation to provide mutual assistance under the Treaty of Lisbon can be safeguarded, as each Member State can choose what kind of assistance to deploy.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) As recommended in the report, we felt that there was no need to convene a convention for the addition of a protocol on the concerns of the Irish people regarding the Treaty of Lisbon to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of the European Parliament’s consent to the European Council’s decision to examine the proposed amendments to the Treaties as requested by Ireland. At the European Council on 19 June 2009, the Heads of State or Government agreed to take a decision in order to provide necessary legal guarantees responding to the concerns of the Irish people in relation to the right to life, family and education, taxation, security and defence, and agreed that they would, at the time of the conclusion of the next accession treaty and in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements, set out the provisions of the decision in a protocol, and attach clarifications of certain provisions to the existing Treaty of Lisbon so that it would not need to be reviewed.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The report expresses a positive opinion on the European Council decision under discussion on the proposed amendments to the Treaties to be made by way of this protocol.

The concerns of the Irish, which were not without influence in the outcome of the 2008 referendum, will be answered in the document annexed to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. At that time, progress will be made on the difficult terrain represented by compliance with the respective constitutional requirements and the specific concerns expressed by the Irish Government, from which the request for a new protocol derives. I am therefore fully in agreement with the thrust of the report.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In view of the negative result of the referendum held on 12 June 2008, Ireland was not in a position to ratify the Treaty of Lisbon. The European Council of June 2009 highlighted the importance of adopting the Treaty, since it provides a better framework for EU action in a large number of areas, so that the necessary decisions can be taken to tackle swiftly and effectively the wide range of challenges imposed by the deepest global recession since the Second World War. Given the unanimity requirement for the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, agreement was reached on legal guarantees responding to the concerns of the Irish people, thus paving the way for the Irish to be consulted once again. Reflected in a legally binding decision (Annex 1), they guarantee that certain concerns of the Irish people, relating, for example, to taxation policy, the right to life, family and education, and military neutrality, will not be affected by the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. It was agreed that, at the time of the conclusion of the next accession treaty, which took place in December 2011, the provisions of the decision would be set out in a protocol to be attached to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. I therefore support this draft protocol, which reflects the political agreement reached in 2009.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report in view of the agreement of the Heads of State or Government at the European Council of June 2009 responding to the concerns of the Irish people regarding the Treaty of Lisbon in relation to the right to life, family and education, taxation, and security and defence. The report also approves of the European Council’s decision.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report by Mr Rangel deals with the draft protocol on the concerns of the Irish people regarding the Treaty of Lisbon (Article 48(3) of the Treaty on European Union). In order to restore confidence and respond to the concerns of the Irish people in relation to the right to life, family and education, taxation, and security and defence, the Heads of State or Government of the 27 Member States made a decision at the European Council on 19 June 2009 to provide the necessary legal guarantees to safeguard these areas of concern.

On 20 July 2011, the Irish Government sent a letter to the Council on a proposal for the addition of a protocol on the concerns of the Irish people regarding the Treaty of Lisbon to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Bearing in mind the report of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, and having regard to the need to respect the previous political understandings between countries and the European Council decision in favour of examining the proposed amendments, even though the draft protocol refers only to the situation of Ireland, I am voting for this proposal.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The adoption of this report comes in the wake of the shameful blackmailing and manipulation of the Irish people in order to impose the Treaty of Lisbon by anti-democratic means. The approval of what has been termed an ‘additional protocol responding to the concerns of the Irish people’ is nothing more than an attempt to legitimise something that, according to the most basic democratic principles, cannot be legitimised. The Irish were the only people not to be prevented from expressing their views in a referendum, due to a constitutional requirement. Their rejection of the Treaty of Lisbon was undeniably an obstacle to the attempt – involving unacceptable chicanery and flagrant trickery – to impose a draft treaty that had previously been rejected, thereby disrespecting and seeking to bypass the will of the peoples of France and the Netherlands. No amount of manoeuvring can legitimise a treaty that results from an anti-democratic process and that, as circumstances have shown, has created the conditions for stepping up the attack on national sovereignties and reversing the rights and victories of the common people. This and previous Treaties need to be rescinded in order to safeguard democracy and uphold the effective participation of citizens. It is essential to defend national sovereignty and the role of national institutions so as to promote effective democracy instead of devaluing it.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) In 2008, the Irish Government decided to hold a referendum on ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon. Given the negative result of the referendum held in June 2008, however, Ireland was unable to ratify the Treaty of Lisbon. Given the requirement of unanimity for the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the Irish Government was expected to find a solution to the situation that was brought about by the decision to hold a referendum and its subsequent rejection. At a session of the European Council on 19 June 2009, Heads of State or Government agreed to take a decision in order to provide the Irish people with the necessary legal guarantees and thus to respond to their concerns in relation to the right to life, family and education, taxation, and security and defence. They agreed that they would, at the time of the conclusion of the next accession treaty and in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements, set out the provisions of the decision in a protocol to be attached to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union as clarifications of the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon with respect to the Irish concerns. Although the content of the draft protocol refers only to the situation of Ireland, I believe it would be appropriate to review the proposed draft amendments to the Treaties. It is equally important to respect the previous political understandings between the governments.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report on the draft protocol on the concerns of the Irish people regarding the Treaty of Lisbon as it supports the European Council’s decision to examine the proposed amendments to the Treaties and provides for the addition of a protocol to the Treaties advocating the ratification of the accession treaty of Croatia to the European Union.

  Agnès Le Brun (PPE), in writing. – (FR) During ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon, the Irish people had expressed a number of concerns about how some of their own specific circumstances were being called into question. In order to reassure them, it was agreed that a protocol offering assurances to the Irish people on matters such as the right to life, taxation, and safety and defence would be added to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. On the strength of this undertaking, I supported the adoption of this report, which paves the way for adding the protocol to the Treaties, while welcoming the decision of the European Council to examine the amendments to the Treaties.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report, which points out that Article 1 of the draft protocol – when stipulating that nothing in the Treaty of Lisbon affects the scope and applicability of the protection of the right of life, the protection of the family and the protection of the rights in respect of education provided by the constitution of Ireland – refers to matters which do not constitute areas of Union competence under Articles 4 and 5 of the Treaty on European Union and Articles 2 to 6 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, or for which the Union has only a complementary role (Article 6 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union).

  Clemente Mastella (PPE), in writing. – (IT) During the European Council meeting of 19 June 2009, the Heads of State or Government of the 27 Member States decided to provide the necessary legal guarantees in response to the concerns of the Irish people on certain specific issues, such as the right to life, family and education, taxation, and security and defence, and agreed on the possibility of concluding a future ad hoc protocol to be annexed to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

We therefore welcome the preparation of the text of this protocol, in the belief that it is necessary to comply with previous political intergovernmental agreements and that the contents of the draft protocol refer exclusively to the situation in Ireland.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. – In June 2009, the European Council adopted a decision on the concerns of the Irish people on the Treaty of Lisbon, which included guarantees and assurances on the questions of the right to life, family and education, taxation, and security and defence. These guarantees were intended to be for clarification and explanatory purposes, and did not change the substance of the Treaties. The objective of the Irish Protocol is that it would be ratified alongside the Croatian accession treaty, though it is a separate legal instrument. In substance, the protocol would simply restate, without modification, the language of the June 2009 guarantees. I welcome the clarification of these guarantees and voted in favour of the report.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In view of the result of the Irish referendum in 2009, the European Council deemed it necessary to draft three annexes to the Treaty of Lisbon. Thus, on 19 June 2009, the European Council considered the concerns of the Irish people, including those relating to taxation policy, the right to life, family and education, and the traditional policy of military neutrality. In this context, and in order to restore the Irish people’s confidence in the Treaty of Lisbon, the European Council adopted three annexes to the Treaty, Annex 1 consisting of a legally binding decision of the Heads of State or Government that would take effect on the date of entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon.

Since the provisions proposed in the draft protocol have already been amply debated, resulting in political agreement at the European Council in 2009, I see no need to convene a convention for the addition of this protocol to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. I therefore agree with the approval of the European Council’s recommendation not to convene a convention.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The report expresses a positive opinion with regard to a European Council decision in favour of examining the proposed amendments to the Treaties. I abstained from voting on that issue since I believe that more analysis is needed.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) The Heads of State or Government of the 27 EU Member States have agreed that the concerns of the Irish people expressed in the context of the amendment of the Treaty of Lisbon will be taken into account through the addition of a protocol to the Treaty. These concerns are in relation to the right to life, family and education, taxation, and security and defence. I see no objections to this, which is why I am in favour of the addition of the protocol. However, certain wording has been quite skilfully incorporated into the report – wording which, in my opinion, is not correct, and which I do not want. For example, it states that nothing in the Treaty of Lisbon makes any change as regards tax matters, but then says that further progress towards enhanced economic coordination in the Union is not ruled out. That, however, is contrary to the Treaty and represents clear interference with the budgetary authority of the Member States, which is something I reject. I was therefore unable to vote in favour of the report, although I am happy to allow the Irish their derogations.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) On 19 June 2009, the Heads of State or Government of the 27 Member States, meeting within the European Council, adopted a decision on the concerns of the Irish people regarding the Treaty of Lisbon in relation to the right to family life, education, taxation, and security and defence.

The inclusion of a protocol on the concerns of the Irish people regarding the Treaty of Lisbon requires a revision of the Treaties. However, the Heads of State or Government also declared that that would only take place at the time of the conclusion of the next accession treaty. In accordance with that decision, on 20 July 2011, the Irish Government sent the Council a draft revision of the Treaties in respect of the addition of a protocol on the concerns of the Irish people regarding the Treaty of Lisbon. It may be concluded from the content of that protocol that none of the concerns expressed in the protocol conflicts with the text of the Treaty of Lisbon and that they refer solely to Ireland.

For these reasons, I voted for the European Council’s decision in favour of examining this proposed amendment to the Treaties.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I am extremely pleased to see this report on the concerns of the Irish people regarding the Treaty of Lisbon adopted by a large majority. The Irish Protocol is a document containing the concerns voiced by Ireland on issues regarding the right to life, family and education, taxation, and also security and defence policy.

This protocol, however, is simply a clarification of the Treaty of Lisbon and refers only to the situation of Ireland. It was previously negotiated at the European Council of 19 June 2009 so as to provide the necessary legal guarantees to respond to the Irish people’s concerns following the ‘No’ in the 2008 referendum. Consequently, I believe that Parliament should agree with a European Council decision in favour of examining the proposed amendments to the Treaties.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. In 2008, the Irish Government decided to hold a referendum on ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon. Because of the negative result of the referendum of 12 June 2008, Ireland was not in a position to ratify the Treaty of Lisbon. The European Council, at its meeting on 11 to 12 December 2008, upon the request of the Irish Government, agreed that a decision would be taken to the effect that the Commission will continue to include one national of each Member State after 2014. The EP agrees with a European Council decision in favour of examining the proposed amendments to the Treaties.

  József Szájer (PPE), in writing. – (HU) I voted in favour of the approval of the protocol on the concerns of the Irish people because it serves as an explanation to the Treaty of Lisbon in view of these concerns. The document explains that the Treaty of Lisbon does not concern the effect and applicability of the protection of the right to life, family and education, as provided for in the Irish constitution, in any way, because, according to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, these areas do not fall within EU competence. It is welcome that in adopting this protocol, the European Parliament finally made a clear statement that within the EU, the regulation of abortion belongs to the Member States’ national competence.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Since the negative outcome of the Treaty of Lisbon ratification process in Ireland meant that the requirement of unanimity for the entry into force of the new Treaty was not met, it was decided to add a protocol to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. I am voting for this report since I believe the content of the protocol does not affect the areas of Union competence or the values of solidarity that the Member States agree to adopt.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – After signing the accession treaty with Croatia, the European Parliament asks for the political commitments adopted by the European Council to be respected, including the guarantees given to Ireland through the addition of a protocol to the Treaties, while pointing out that this protocol only concerns this country. I voted in favour of this report because its purpose is to revise the Treaties with respect to the inclusion of a protocol on the concerns of the Irish people on the Treaty of Lisbon.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) It is clear that the Irish people’s rejection of the Treaty of Lisbon was an obstacle to the attempt to impose a draft treaty that had previously been rejected, thereby disrespecting and seeking to bypass the will of the peoples of France and the Netherlands, who had rejected this Treaty in referendums. Adopting this report now is going to endorse the anti-democratic imposition of the Treaty of Lisbon. The so-called ‘added protocol to respond to the concerns of the Irish people’ seeks to legitimise a procedure packed with anti-democratic tricks. In stark contrast to this whole procedure, we defend the inalienable principle of national sovereignty and the role of national institutions in promoting true democracy.

Report: Paulo Rangel (A7-0064/2012, A7-0065/2012)

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) After France and the Netherlands rejected the EU constitution by referendum in 2005, the Irish rejection of the Treaty of Lisbon by referendum in 2008 was another major setback for the European Union. Rather than respect the people’s decision, once again, our leaders decided to force it through with no concern for democratic legitimacy, this time conceding to the Irish people a few meagre legal guarantees regarding the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon which, in their eyes, were inadequate. As far as I am concerned, the failure to respect the European people’s vote is something that only goes to increase the EU’s democratic deficit and has only widened the gap between citizens and Brussels. This amounts to ignoring their vote and a pick-and-mix Union acquis, as some countries have been made exempt, through a protocol, from complying with certain provisions. So yes, we are voting to add this protocol to the existing Treaties negotiated in 2009 but no, we are definitely not fooled into thinking that this will alter the Irish people’s perception of the EU.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Irish Government’s ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon was a delicate matter, involving a referendum in June 2008, in which the Treaty was shot down, followed by another referendum, which approved a constitutional change that finally enabled ratification to take place. Moreover, at the European Council on 19 June 2009, the Heads of State or Government agreed to provide Ireland with the necessary legal guarantees to safeguard the right to life, family and education, as well as taxation, security and defence. This agreement with Ireland thus means concluding a protocol stipulating that nothing in the Treaty of Lisbon affects the scope and applicability of the protection of the right to life, the protection of the family and the protection of the rights in respect of education provided by the constitution of Ireland, as well as provisions in relation to taxation and the independence of the security and defence policy of the Irish State.

  Pat the Cope Gallagher (ALDE), in writing. – (GA) I welcome the European Parliament’s decision to ratify the protocol on the concerns of the Irish people regarding the Treaty of Lisbon. The protocol is a legal instrument covering issues such as the right to life, the family and education, along with taxation, security and defence matters. This decision is the wish of the people of Ireland. It is clearly stated in the protocol that the Treaty of Lisbon has no impact on what is laid down in the Irish constitution in relation to the family and the right to life. The protocol recognises the Member States’ competence in terms of taxation. It is particularly important due to the ongoing issue of corporation tax. On top of that, Irish military neutrality is protected in the protocol. All Member States will ratify the protocol when Croatia accedes to the European Union on 1 July 2013.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. – (FR) Of the two reports written by Mr Rangel, I voted against the one calling for no European convention to be convened to discuss the protocol on the concerns of the Irish people regarding the Treaty of Lisbon, but not against his report on the approval of the protocol itself.

The reason for this is that we would then have to have a convention to discuss the legitimate concerns of all citizens faced with European integration as it currently stands. We would then have to discuss the ultra-liberal and anti-social merits of the European policies set in stone in this Treaty. We would then have to discuss the role of the European Central Bank and the state of the euro. We would then have to obtain justice for the French and Dutch ‘No’ campaigns, whose concerns leaders did not see fit to consider, imposing on them a copy of the European constitution. Ireland has successfully safeguarded its family law, its tax system and its military neutrality.

We would have liked Nicolas Sarkozy to have taken this opportunity to begin to implement reforms of those things he criticises in Europe. He did not. This is clear proof that his campaign promises are, as they were in 2007, essentially demagogic.

  Vital Moreira (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the Rangel reports on the protocol on Ireland, not only because this protocol confines itself to incorporating into EU constitutional law the political commitment that the other Member States made to the Irish Government prior to the referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon, but also because the report states explicitly that the protocol has no effect other than on Ireland’s rights and obligations within the Union context. I would stress, therefore, that although the protocol may mean a one-off derogation from the Treaties for Ireland, it does not imply any kind of restrictive interpretation of the Treaties, particularly where security and defence policy is concerned, as is made clear in the reasoning included in the draft protocol. Therefore, no other Member State can make use of the special treatment that the protocol grants to Ireland as if it were a straightforward interpretation of the Treaties. Since its effects are restricted to Ireland, the protocol leaves the interpretation and implementation of the Treaties completely open with regard to the other Member States.

  Paul Murphy (GUE/NGL), in writing. – I abstained on the two reports on the insertion of the so called Irish ‘guarantees’ into the EU Treaties. I could not vote in favour as these ‘guarantees’ were nothing more than a cynical attempt to deceive the Irish people. These ‘guarantees’ were put together in an attempt to give some political cover to the Irish and EU establishment, to undemocratically cast aside the will of the Irish people and re-arrange a second referendum to force the Treaty through. These ‘guarantees’ were also used to give the impression that the concerns of the Irish people were listened to and the Treaty’s content was changed in some way. This was a lie. The content of the Lisbon Treaty is completely unchanged. The Treaty remained a treaty that undermines workers’ rights, supports privatisation, erodes democracy and further militarises the EU. The political establishment also lied in saying that Lisbon ratification will create jobs and economic recovery. Since the referendum, we have seen the continued haemorrhaging of jobs, with 80 000 jobs being lost and continued destruction of the economy and people’s lives due to the implementation of neoliberal austerity policies which the Lisbon Treaty supports.

Report: Nuno Teixeira (A7-0084/2012)

  Damien Abad (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Due to their specific characteristics (remoteness, insularity and so on), European rules and programmes cannot be applied to the so-called ‘outermost’ regions (ORs) in the same way as they are for the rest of Europe. They therefore enjoy a special status allowing them to adopt a ‘territorial’ approach.

This own-initiative report aims to analyse the role of the future cohesion policy in the ORs within the framework of the Europe 2020 strategy. By voting for this report, I reiterate my support for the ORs and strongly condemn the European Commission’s proposal to reduce the specific additional allocation awarded to the ORs by 40%.

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this proposal, since I consider it essential and a priority to take into account the uniqueness of the outermost regions when drafting future cohesion policy, since these regions are subject to permanent constraints derived essentially from being isolated and distant, which justifies European Union measures.

We should remember that Article 349 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union enshrines the specific situation of these regions and the need to adapt European policy to their specificities; if not, they will be distanced even further from EU economic and social cohesion. The Europe 2020 strategy is an opportunity to pay attention to the outermost regions in terms of priority areas and to make use of the advantages they have to offer.

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The report on the role of cohesion policy in the outermost regions of the European Union in the context of the Europe 2020 strategy highlights the need for these regions to be approached differently within the EU cohesion policy, and supports the implementation of European policies being adapted in priority sectors which can contribute to smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. It is of paramount importance that these regions are supported in keeping with their specific needs so that they can help meet the Europe 2020 strategy objectives. Indeed, this can only happen by making the cohesion policy instruments more flexible. I believe that the potential of these regions must be leveraged so that they truly become an asset to Europe. I voted in favour of this report.

  Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The principal aim of cohesion policy and of the policy on the internal market is to organise policy initiatives directed towards smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, encouraging an economy with a high rate of employment that favours social and territorial cohesion.

Nevertheless, the initial conditions in which the outermost regions (ORs) find themselves present an obstacle to, and a brake on, achieving the objectives that have been set, in particular, in the Europe 2020 strategy. As the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) provides, the ORs have a right to be treated differently, which enables them to benefit from the maximum level of aid, irrespective of their level of development.

In this sense, I welcome the Commission’s plan to include a budget line for ‘Outermost regions and regions with a very low population density’ in the multiannual financial framework 2014-2020. I fully agree with the advisability of outermost regions pursuing the main objectives defined in the Europe 2020 strategy. However, I consider that we must emphasise the need to modulate the objectives in accordance with each outermost region’s own situation, taking into account their regional diversity, their structural conditions and their potential benefits.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The outermost regions of the European Union (the Canary Islands, the Azores, Madeira, Martinique, Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Réunion and Saint Martin) benefit from a special allocation under cohesion policy because of their specific situation. Yet, the European Commission is currently establishing a new plan for these regions and plans to cut the funds allocated to them. We have therefore pointed out that it is essential to compensate for the structural handicaps of the outermost regions as we do for those of other regions in Europe. Thanks to my experience with cohesion policy funds, I can confirm that the subsidies in favour of the economic diversification of these regions are necessary and that it is just as important to support the European citizens living in these regions.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report aimed at examining how the EU 2020 objectives of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth can be achieved in the European Union’s outermost regions (ORs). The ORs of the European Union comprise a set of regions which, due to the specific characteristics associated with their physical and structural conditions and resulting from their remoteness, insular locations, difficult topography and climate, constitute a specific group of regions recognised by the Treaty of Lisbon. The EU’s ORs currently consist of Madeira, the Azores, the Canary Islands, Martinique, Guadeloupe, Réunion, French Guiana and Saint Martin. These regions possess a special status enshrined in the Treaty, which permits a derogation from the rules of the Treaty and the adjustment of these rules to the ORs, by virtue of their particular characteristics and conditions. I welcomed the proposals set out in the report to take due account of these regions’ uniqueness, with special emphasis on cohesion policy as the main instrument for action on their small economies, to adjust the application of EU policies in the ORs, which would better achieve the objectives of economic, social and territorial cohesion in these regions and would contribute towards the accomplishment of the EU 2020 objectives, and to facilitate better integration of these regions into the European Union.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this report because I think that the future cohesion policy must take into account the special status of the outermost regions in order to attain the EU 2020 strategy objectives. To achieve smart, inclusive growth, we need to bear in mind these regions’ small area, difficult climate and relief, as well as their economic dependence on a small number of products. I should highlight the importance of respecting fundamental principles when it comes to the actions the EU carries out in relation to the outermost regions. A balance needs to be maintained between the internal and external aspects of the EU’s policies, as well as between adapting their implementation and adopting new, specific instruments. I should mention the important role played by the cohesion policy in the proposal on a new European strategy for the outermost regions, as well as the need to make cohesion policy instruments more flexible with a view to securing significant investment.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The outermost regions (ORs) of the EU suffer from serious economic disadvantages, due to their small size, remoteness and difficult topography and climate. They possess a special status enshrined in the Treaty. As these regions’ constraints and difficulties are permanent and distinguish them from other European regions, the EU rules and programmes cannot be applied in the same way as in the rest of the EU territory. Their implementation has to be guided by a territorial approach. The Teixeira own-initiative report, which I supported, underlines the need to examine, in relation to the future cohesion policy of the outermost regions, how the EU 2020 objectives of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth can be achieved in these European regions, which possess permanent characteristics and constraints arising mainly from their remoteness from the heart of Europe. However, this differentiation does not merely mean paying special attention to compensation, but also, and above all, including them in an appropriate strategy that provides a development model capable of taking advantage of their strengths, in the interest of greater competitiveness, increased growth and job creation.

  Adam Bielan (ECR), in writing. – (PL) I voted against. The outermost regions recognised by the Treaty are overseas territories of three Member States: France, Spain and Portugal. This is not, therefore, an area which directly concerns the whole Union. So I do not think it has become necessary to accord these regions a privileged status in relation to the many other regions of continental Europe which have a much lower economic status.

One does not have to be an expert in economics to see a difference in the economic potential of the Canary Islands and the Polish region of Mazowsze. In relation to this, the proposal to strengthen agricultural support measures, which will lead to a rise in expenditure under the first pillar, is, to say the least, highly inappropriate. I do not agree with the proposal to open a special budget line for these regions in the next programming period.

I am definitely against using the provisions of the Treaties on outermost regions because I support equal and solidarity-based treatment of all regions with lower GDP and think we should ensure they benefit from fairer implementation of cohesion policy.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I wanted to support Mr Teixeira’s report because I am convinced that cohesion policy in the context of the Europe 2020 strategy, focused on the outermost regions (ORs) of the European Union, can only be effective if structured into tailor-made programmes taking into account the specific characteristics of such areas and territories.

The ORs differ from other regions of Europe due to constraints in terms of their environment, logistics, social characteristics or permanent problems. At the same time, these can be turned into strengths due to their reduced economies of scale. In particular, I believe that the historic relations that ORs have developed and consolidated with non-EU countries over the years should not be underestimated, as these can act as a source of ideas and good practice for the development of new opportunities in the future.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because cohesion policy should be aligned with the Europe 2020 strategy and the outermost regions (ORs) are prepared to cooperate in the implementation of the five goals with regard to employment, innovation, education, social inclusion, climate and energy to be achieved by 2020. The ORs rightly have a special status enshrined in the Treaty because there are specific difficulties in these regions associated with their physical and structural circumstances, mostly resulting from their remoteness, insular locations, difficult topography and climate. The starting conditions in the ORs to achieve the cohesion policy objectives are more severe than in some regions and the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy need to be directed towards exploiting their potential and the growth of sectors of excellence. Cohesion policy must remain one of the main instruments of European Union action to reduce disparities in all European regions, particularly ORs, in terms of the internal market and with a view to achieving the EU 2020 goals, because European funds are key instruments for achieving these objectives. They are not just assistance but compensation for the disadvantages of the region. However, we should not forget that this European policy cannot, by itself, resolve all of the difficulties facing the ORs.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – I voted against this report as, sensu largo, I oppose affording legislative intrusion on the EU’s outermost colonies. Whilst it is important many smaller colonies of the 27 Member States are protected and helped to develop, it is the symbiotic responsibility of political agreement between the nation state and the colony on how legislative power is devolved and which policies would best suit the colony concerned.

  Ole Christensen, Dan Jørgensen, Christel Schaldemose and Britta Thomsen (S&D), in writing. – (DA) We, the Danish Social Democrats in the European Parliament, have voted in favour of the Teixeira report on the role of cohesion policy in the outermost regions of the European Union in the context of EU 2020.

The report contains an array of good initiatives with a view to achieving intelligent, sustainable and inclusive growth in the EU’s outermost regions, as described in the Europe 2020 strategy. However, we do not support paragraph 10, which concerns the need, among other things, to adjust European taxation policies with a view to enhancing the competitiveness of the outermost regions’ economies. The wording of this paragraph is vague and could be interpreted as meaning that the EU can enact legislation concerning countries’ taxation policies. However, the Treaty sets clear limits for the EU’s competence in the area of taxation, and we believe these limits should be respected.

The Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament does not support paragraph 14, either. This paragraph proposes that the special arrangements for the outermost regions in connection with the common agricultural policy (CAP) be retained. We believe that improving conditions for the EU’s outermost regions is not the purpose of the CAP as established by the Treaty. In practice, this means that agricultural policy funds are being used for general regional development, including the promotion of general employment, which is not the primary purpose of the CAP.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The specific legal status of the outermost regions enshrined in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union clearly states that they must be treated in a differentiated way, in order to take into account their geography and their unique structures. The consequences of the economic, social and financial crisis have affected all EU regions, but have hit the outermost regions particularly hard, thereby accentuating even further the structural shortcomings of their economies and their dependence on the outside.

European investment in these regions does not only involve a policy of recovering from backwardness and of compensation: it also seeks to create the added value necessary to address the sustainable development and competitiveness challenges facing this region in particular, and Europe in general. I am therefore voting for Mr Teixeira’s excellent report, which is intended to contribute actively to finding a more balanced European response to the challenges facing the outermost regions in the context of the Europe 2020 strategy. To this end, there is a need to pay particular attention to setting out and implementing cohesion policy, as well as to establishing a renewed EU strategy for the outermost regions.

  Andrea Cozzolino (S&D), in writing. – (IT) The report deserves to be supported, especially because it underlines the fact that cohesion policy – by its very nature – has to take into account the specific characteristics of regions and of outermost regions, but, more generally, that it has to take into account all specific features. The very existence of funding for the ‘cohesion’ of regions with different levels of development in fact presupposes the need to operate in situations that are structurally diverse, in terms of their geographic features or socio-economic gap. To deny this basic fact would be to deny the very aims of cohesion policy, and the report also needs to represent a reminder when the regulations for the future 2014-2020 cohesion policy are being defined. Alongside the need to focus efforts on objectives that are considered to be fundamental, it is important to remember that, in order to achieve these very objectives, the different starting conditions of the areas in which the instruments are actually operating have to be borne in mind. If this is not done, efforts could be not only in vain, but even counter-productive. In addition, the report is also an opportunity to reiterate that future funding must absolutely not be less than at present. We can only get through the crisis by revitalising investment and, even more so in disadvantaged areas, the EU institutions have a duty to prepare the ground in order to make this possible.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The European Union must take into account the importance of the fishing sector to the inhabitants of the outermost regions, both in terms of regional development and employment for local populations. Fishing is the main gainful economic activity for all the inhabitants in these regions, which is why the potential of these regions should be reflected in concrete measures promoting a genuine marine economy. On the other hand, the potential of the tourist sector must not be overlooked, which can supplement the incomes of the region and ordinary citizens who can promote specific traditions, including local cuisine.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), in writing. – (HU) The outermost regions form a distinct group in a particular situation within the European Union, and require increased attention not only due to their remote location, but also because their integration into their own geographical surroundings must represent a common interest for the entire European Community.

I note with regret that in its proposal for the multiannual financial framework for 2014-2020, the Commission envisages cuts that also concern supplementary funding to the outermost regions.

At the same time, I believe that the flexibility of cohesion policy instruments must be improved so as to allow the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy to be fulfilled even under special geographical and population circumstances, and that it should be a cohesion policy goal to establish a sustainable economy that aims at inclusive growth and is characterised by regional cohesion.

Cohesion policy must continue to serve as one of the primary means of European action, and must therefore also play a key role in reducing inequalities among European regions, and specifically the outermost regions.

I am pleased to note that the Commission intends to allocate a separate line in the budget to ‘Outermost regions and regions with a very low population density’ under the multiannual financial framework for 2014-2020, as this will clarify the connection between the support foreseen for these regions and the objectives of such support.

It is important to stress that there is a need for regional cooperation in respect of the outermost regions, and for the continuation of relevant projects of common interest, as well as for better utilisation of available support in this regard.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D), in writing. – I voted in favour of the motion for a European Parliament resolution on the role of cohesion policy in the outermost regions of the European Union in the context of EU 2020 because I believe that reducing any form of existing disparities in the regions of Europe should be a top priority of the EU. This report, by addressing the issue of the outermost regions (OR) of the Union, represents one of the many important steps forward that we must progressively undertake in order to achieve both the goals of Europe 2020 and a territorially and socially cohesive Europe. In particular, I positively welcome the integration of the suggestions presented by the ITRE opinion concerning the need to overcome the structural and infrastructural gap which is detrimental to the economic growth of these areas. It is fundamental that stress is put on the development of small and medium enterprises, on the need to connect the achievement of 2020 goals with research and innovation programmes and, in particular, by showing the importance of a flexible approach.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report ‘on the role of cohesion policy in the outermost regions of the European Union in the context of EU 2020’ because I believe there is a need to take the uniqueness of the outermost regions duly into account when drafting future cohesion policy, so that these regions might be able to respond to the challenges they face and achieve the Europe 2020 strategy objectives.

  Göran Färm, Anna Hedh, Olle Ludvigsson, Jens Nilsson, Marita Ulvskog and Åsa Westlund (S&D), in writing. – (SV) We Swedish Social Democrats in the European Parliament support the report on the role of cohesion policy in the outermost regions of the European Union in the context of Europe 2020 and the important issues for consideration that it discusses. However, we do not support the passages concerning an increase in agricultural aid through POSEI for EU producers in the outermost regions of the European Union. We believe that the EU’s agricultural aid should be phased out.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The outermost regions suffer from geographic isolation and have to work extra hard to keep up with development on the mainland. The Europe 2020 strategy is, therefore, an opportunity to shorten distances and work on differentiated polices suited to the outermost regions’ characteristics, particularly as regards cohesion policy. Finally, I should like to congratulate my colleague, Mr Teixeira, who has worked so hard and fruitfully on this brief relating to the outermost regions.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Article 349 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union states that ‘the Council, on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament, shall adopt specific measures aimed, in particular, at laying down the conditions of application of the Treaties to those regions, including common policies’. This constitutes provision for the special status of what are known as the outermost regions, whose geography – isolation, difficult terrain and climate, and insularity – means they comprise a specific group. This report analyses what the role of European Union cohesion policy should be in the outermost regions, in the context of the Europe 2020 strategy; that is, how these regions will be able to meet the established objectives of ‘smart, sustainable and inclusive growth’. I voted for this report, since I agree with the priorities mentioned by the rapporteur: positive discrimination towards these regions and development strategies geared towards increased competitiveness, more growth and higher employment; particular attention for specific areas like fishing, agriculture, renewable energies, information technologies, tourism, etc.; and emphasis on these regions in the context of the European Neighbourhood Policy, fostering their relationships with third countries through more effective governance and increased integration with the EU.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) If we are talking about the future cohesion policy of the outermost regions, it is necessary and desirable to analyse how the EU 2020 objectives of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth can be achieved in these European regions, which possess characteristics and permanent constraints arising mainly from their remoteness. These special characteristics justify the adoption of specific measures by the European Union. The Cayenne Principles of 1999 are the foundations of the EU measures benefiting the outermost regions and, according to these principles – the principle of equal opportunities, the principle of value in potential, the cohesion principle and the partnership principle – the European approach must ensure the conversion of the potentials of the outermost regions into real economic growth factors. I support the differentiated and holistic treatment for the outermost regions by the EU. This differentiation does not merely mean paying special attention to compensation for the effects of their remoteness, but also including an appropriate strategy providing a development model capable of taking advantage of their strengths in the interest of greater competitiveness, increased growth and job creation. Last but not least, I consider it important to adjust the application of European policies in these regions, since it is only through the specific framework of EU policies that these regions will be able to better achieve the objectives of economic, social and territorial cohesion and contribute towards the accomplishment of the EU 2020 objectives.

  Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE), in writing. – (HU) I voted for this report because I find it crucial that we treat the EU’s outermost regions with the same priority as the core Member States. EU policy, especially when it comes to cohesion policy, can only be successful if it is applied consequently and without discrimination, continuously supporting the small and the needy, and follows the principle of solidarity. Just as the new Member States needed help at the time of their accession, and many of their regions require the support of the common funds to this day, so must we promote the various opportunities for the development of the outermost regions, whether it is about any part of the Europe 2020 strategy or more complete Community coherence in respect of this programme. It is an important step forward that a separate line is planned to be allocated to these outermost regions in the new budgetary cycle, and it is also appropriate to always bear in mind that they play a particularly important role in the protection of the EU’s borders, in the maintenance of economic and cultural relations with third countries, and in the geographical continuity of the implementation of the single market.

  Elisabetta Gardini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The European Union is one of the richest regions in the world, but there are considerable differences in levels of prosperity between and within the various Member States.

The enlargement that took place in 2004 further reinforced this phenomenon. It is no coincidence that almost all the funding from the Cohesion Fund goes to the 12 most recent EU Member States.

In addition to these countries, the European Union also has eight outermost regions (ORs), regions that are geographically remote from the European Union but an integral part of the Member States to which they belong. Very often, however, the starting conditions in these regions are well behind those of other European regions. This makes it difficult for them to achieve the objectives of EU programmes.

Therefore, the application of European policies needs to include an adjustment for the specific conditions of the outermost regions of the EU, since it is only through a programme that takes their specific characteristics into account that these regions will be able to achieve the objectives of economic, social and territorial cohesion and contribute towards the accomplishment of the EU 2020 objectives.

  Estelle Grelier (S&D), in writing. – (FR) While the debates on the future of the post-2014 cohesion policy have just begun in the European Parliament, which has been granted power of codecision on this matter under the Treaty of Lisbon, Parliament wanted to point out the specific nature of the outermost regions (ORs) – including the French overseas departments and territories – and the need to grant them adequate resources for their economic and social development. On account of their remoteness, their insularity and their extreme climatic conditions, these territories do actually need differential treatment, both for the viability of local agricultural and industrial production and for the successful implementation of the various EU programmes and remits. As such, the Commission’s proposal to halve the budget allocated to offset the additional costs on these territories is highly regrettable. What is more, I had proposed amendments on this subject in the opinion that the Committee on Budgets issued on the Teixeira report, and I had pointed out the need to include the accession of Mayotte to OR status in the 2014-2020 financial forecasts for these regions. In 2014, Mayotte will actually become the fifth outermost French territory recognised by the European Union.

  Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Given their situation, their characteristics, their geographical distance, the structural weaknesses of their economies and their dependence on the outside world, etc., the outermost regions (ORs) of the European Union should be granted special treatment under the European Union’s cohesion policy, so that their unique features are adequately considered and protected. At a time when we are negotiating the new EU budget programming with the EU institutions, our Parliament has strongly objected to the Commission’s proposal to reduce the specific allocation for ORs by nearly half, pointing out that these regions should receive special treatment. In this resolution, which I supported, we also insist that the specific characteristics of the ORs are taken into account in all European Union policies: fisheries and maritime policy, transport, the environment, etc.

  Brice Hortefeux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The European Parliament has adopted by a large majority the report on the role of the cohesion policy in the outermost regions (ORs) in the context of the Europe 2020 strategy and I welcome that. On account of their physical and structural characteristics, and because of their geographic remoteness and isolation, the ORs enjoy a special status and, therefore more than deserve differential treatment, as evidenced by the report. Like other regions in the European Union, the ORs should be aiming to achieve the Europe 2020 strategy goals. Their development and growth are dependent on these. However, given their characteristics and their specific constraints, European policies must be applied appropriately to the ORs, on both internal and external matters. The European Commission should take these regions into account when negotiating trade deals with third countries as they may have a strong impact on their economic development. The ORs have their advantages and disadvantages. It is up to the European Union to find the right balance in the implementation of its policies, in its approach to governance, and in promoting their integration into the geographical regions to which they belong.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) Cohesion policy is one of the main instruments of European action to reduce disparities in the European regions in general, and in the outermost regions (ORs) in particular, with a view to enabling them to integrate into the internal market and assert themselves in their respective geographical areas, promoting the economic development and convergence of these regions with the EU mainland and pursuing the EU 2020 targets. European funds are key instruments, but I believe that this European policy cannot, by itself, resolve all of the difficulties facing the ORs. I therefore abstained from voting on the European Parliament resolution on the role of cohesion policy in the outermost regions of the European Union in the context of EU 2020.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I have given my support to the own-initiative report that addresses the definition and implementation of European policies in the outermost regions for 2014-2020, taking into account the goals of the Europe 2020 strategy. In particular, this report rejects the European Commission’s proposed reduction of the specific additional allocation for the outermost regions.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) In the context of EU 2020, cohesion policy must increasingly take into account the specific needs of the outermost regions of the European Union (ORs). The ORs need special attention, which varies from case to case, and is based on assessments of their individual requirements and problems which are useful for implementing the best and most appropriate political strategies for growth and development in these territories. In this regard, both the reform of the new common agricultural policy and the ongoing definition of the new multiannual financial framework have a crucial role to play. A two-speed Europe, or a Europe that looks at ORs holistically, without specific economic policies to encourage their growth, is unthinkable. Therefore, I believe that in order to have a truly effective EU 2020 strategy, the objectives that have been set need to be achieved by Europe as a whole.

  Carl Schlyter (Verts/ALE), in writing. – (SV) We are voting in favour of this report in view of the vulnerable situation that many of these regions find themselves in and because the report clearly advocates a reform of fisheries policy. Despite the presence of certain negative elements, such as criticism of the reduction in the cohesion policy budget, these are outweighed by the positive aspects.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) In addition to the regions in the new Member States, the outermost regions typically have a very low level of competitiveness, which means a special effort needs to be made to tackle this as part of the cohesion policy. Based on the Europe 2020 strategy, the main priorities for these regions must continue to be improving accessibility, boosting economic competitiveness and regional integration. As the main instrument for achieving the 2020 strategy objectives, cohesion policy must remain one of the main resources for European action aimed at narrowing the disparities between Europe’s regions and, by extension, between the outermost regions, thereby promoting the development and economic convergence of these regions with mainland Europe. I also think that cohesion policy must take into account all the existing specific regional attributes and allow these regions the right to be treated differently.

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE), in writing. – I voted in favour of this resolution because I consider that the cohesion policy must remain one of the main instruments of European action to reduce disparities in the European regions in general, and in the outermost regions in particular, with a view to enabling them to integrate into the internal market and assert themselves in their respective geographical areas in order to promote their economic development. I believe that the various proposals outlined in the resolution are adapted to the specific reality of these regions and contribute to the finding of a more balanced response, in terms of European action, to the challenges faced by the outermost regions of the European Union within the scope of the EU 2020 strategy objectives. Finally, given that Romania also has a significant number of regions that could benefit from a decrease in economic or social disparities, I am a strong supporter of EU cohesion policy in general.

  Ramona Nicole Mănescu (ALDE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the report on the role of cohesion policy in the outermost regions of the European Union in the context of the Europe 2020 strategy because these regions have specific features and needs that differ from all the other regions in the EU, which must be handled and resolved as such. It is of paramount importance for the regional and local authorities in these areas to be actively involved in devising and implementing European programmes and policies as part of multilevel governance, in partnership with the private sector. This will give us the assurance that the actual problems which these regions are facing will be taken into account at every level in the decision-making process, while also giving them a higher profile at European level. As far as the forthcoming programming period is concerned, I think that the proposal to cut the amounts allocated to the outermost regions is unjustified, especially as the financial input for implementing the EU 2020 strategy requires access to at least the same amount of European aid as in the current financial framework.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I supported this report. The outermost regions of the European Union comprise a set of regions which, due to the specific characteristics associated with their physical and structural conditions, and as a result of their remoteness, insular locations, difficult topography and climate, constitute a specific group of regions recognised by Article 349 of the TFEU. These regions possess a special status enshrined in the Treaty, which permits a derogation from the rules of the Treaty and the adjustment of these rules to the outermost regions, by virtue of their particular characteristics and conditions. As the constraints and difficulties facing these regions are permanent and distinguish them from other European regions, the EU rules and programmes cannot be applied in the same way as in the rest of the EU’s territory. Their implementation has to be guided by a territorial approach. It is therefore necessary and desirable to examine, in relation to the future cohesion policy of the outermost regions, how the EU 2020 objectives of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth can be achieved in these European regions, which possess permanent characteristics and constraints – arising mainly from their remoteness – which justify the adoption of specific measures by the European Union.

  Iosif Matula (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the report drafted by Mr Teixeira because I think that we need to focus our attention on promoting balanced, sustainable development in all European regions, in keeping with the objectives of economic and social cohesion. We all want a harmonised European Union, without any economic imbalances or differences in standard of living; in other words, a European Union where all citizens are equal. In this respect, I regard as timely the increase in the level of accessibility of the outermost regions through infrastructure improvements. Access to ICT in the EU’s less well developed regions is also just as important. Furthermore, the considerable contribution made by the Structural Funds in the process of integrating at regional level regions with weak development potential has proven to be beneficial, and I support a more effective use of these instruments. Particular attention must be focused on boosting economic competitiveness in the regions by creating an environment conducive to the development of the entrepreneurial spirit and businesses. In order to achieve these objectives, an ambitious, active partnership is required between the European Union, Member States, civil society and the regional authorities, in keeping with the principle of multilevel governance.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The outermost regions of the European Union comprise a set of regions which, owing to the specific characteristics associated with the physical and structural conditions resulting from their remoteness, insular locations, and difficult terrain and climate, constitute a specific group of regions recognised by Article 349 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It is therefore necessary and desirable to examine, in relation to future cohesion policy for the outermost regions, how the Europe 2020 strategy’s objectives of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth can be achieved in these European regions, which possess permanent characteristics and constraints, arising mainly from their remoteness, that justify the European Union adopting specific measures.

I am voting for this report because it is important in the development of my country’s outermost regions, specifically, the autonomous regions of the Azores and Madeira.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – I think it is necessary to take into account the specificities of outermost regions in designing the future cohesion policy. These regions are subject to permanent particularities and constraints arising mainly from their remoteness and which justify the adoption of specific measures by the European Union. This relates primarily to Latgale, the eastern Latvian region which Latvian politicians remember only on the eve of elections.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) The outermost regions means those regions which, due to their particular social and economic situation, such as remoteness or economic dependence on just a few products, are conferred a kind of special status. Specific measures and privileges have been adopted for these, which represent derogations from provisions of European law that would otherwise apply. Despite these derogations, these regions are valuable parts of the EU’s territory. I voted in favour of the report because the outermost regions of the EU should be given particular support.

  Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) No region in the Europe Union should be left out when the steps are taken to achieve the cohesion objectives. While the report we have voted on today refers to the outermost regions, we must not forget that some regions – located at the very heart of Europe – can be regarded as facing the same challenges due to extreme isolation, altitude, as well as difficult living and economic production conditions. For example, mountainous regions are just as disadvantaged as those located a great distance away from the mainland. This fact must be noted not only by the cohesion policy, but also by the agricultural policy, whose objective must be to guarantee an agricultural sector which develops harmoniously across the whole of Europe.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. – (DE) The outermost regions have been hit particularly hard by the worsening of economic conditions resulting from the economic, social and financial crisis. This has highlighted the structural weaknesses of their economy and it is now particularly important that European investment in these outermost regions is seen as an investment that will benefit and be advantageous to the European Union as a whole. I therefore voted in favour of the report.

  Younous Omarjee (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on outermost regions (ORs), which has adopted many of my proposals. On my initiative, Parliament calls on the European Commission to fight against the high cost of living in French overseas departments, and draws the attention of the European Commission to the monopolies, abuse of dominant positions and cartel offences which have the unfair consequence of high living costs. Parliament therefore calls for a study on pricing in the ORs. Another of my amendments has led to Parliament denouncing the reluctance shown by the European Commission to take into account the specific characteristics of the ORs when negotiating Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs), and urges the Commission to continue to seek compromises that respect the interests of the ORs concerned when it comes to EPAs. The almost unanimous adoption by the European Parliament of this own-initiative report on the ORs is good news, but in no way does it remove the threats that exist to reduce the amount of Structural Funds allocated to ORs and to the poorest European regions, and Member States are still calling for the European budget to be revised downwards for 2014-2020.

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE), in writing. – (ET) The European cohesion policy must be in harmony with the Europe 2020 strategy, and therefore I also supported this report, which is also based on the strategy. In order to make Europe’s peripheral countries more competitive and to transform restrictive conditions into growth potential and opportunities, Europe must make a greater contribution to the development of these regions. I am extremely concerned by proposals to reduce foreseen budgetary allocations for peripheral countries and regions with low population density in the 2014-2020 budgetary period, which conflicts with the objectives specified in the Europe 2020 strategy. In order to ensure that peripheral countries are able to use existing support, cofinancing rates for the outermost regions should be 85% for all support intended for them, and the budget implementation deadline should also be extended, or else some ‘smart official’ will once again report that the peripheral countries have not shown any interest in the support offered, and the funds will become a budget surplus. If the criteria and bureaucratic procedures are too difficult, we must review them, instead of casually abandoning the development of Europe’s peripheral countries; in other words, European unity.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) Cohesion policy must be aligned with the Europe 2020 strategy in order to properly and effectively implement this strategy’s objectives. Although, geographically, they are far from the EU Member States, the outermost regions (ORs) are very important economically. EU cohesion policy is aimed at promoting the economic development of these regions and their convergence with the EU mainland. I believe that the EU’s rules and programmes should be applied in the same way throughout the territory of the EU. Clear criteria must be set out so that assistance is allocated to those who really need it. Furthermore, it is very important for assistance to be granted with due regard to the GDP and development level of each region.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (S&D), in writing. – The EU respects two principles: harmony and specificity. European cohesion policy promotes prosperity of all the regions by taking advantage of their strengths. In the context of EU 2020, the outermost regions of the EU need a specific approach to help them to reach the objectives. I voted in favour of this report because the European policy towards the outermost regions needs a strategic approach. On the one hand, the outermost regions have to be managed in a specific way, based on their particularities. On the other hand, these regions cannot be excluded from transverse European policies. In view of success already achieved, specific measures should be developed in different sectors, promoting the growth and cohesion of these regions. A very important measure to ensure their cohesion is the promotion of partnership relations with both neighbouring regions and more remote territories.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The report by Mr Teixeira, for which I voted, lists the measures to be considered as priorities in order to adapt the EU 2020 strategy to the outermost regions of the European Union (ORs). These regions possess a special status because of their remoteness and topography, and therefore require special analyses in order to integrate them into EU programmes and manage to achieve the EU 2020 strategy objectives of social inclusion, cohesion (the best instrument for their small economies) and growth. It is necessary to assess how the objectives of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth can be achieved in these regions. It is only through the specific framework of EU policies that they will contribute towards the accomplishment of the EU 2020 objectives.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) The own-initiative report refers to areas which, because of their particular natural and structural characteristics, form a specific group that comes under Article 349 TFEU, and which needs to be differentiated in terms of the EU rules and programmes applied, by following a territorial, rather than a strictly technical, approach. Within this framework, the EU 2020 strategy needs to take account of these peculiarities by focusing on cohesion policy, which is a basic driving force to stimulate small-scale economies. At the same time, European policies need to be adapted to the outermost regions of the European Union so that they can improve the implementation of economic, social and territorial cohesion and help to achieve the EU 2020 strategy objectives. This motion for a resolution, which I supported, moves in this direction, by taking account of the above characteristics.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report – by my Madeiran colleague, Mr Teixeira, whom I would congratulate on his excellent work – is of the utmost importance because it constitutes the first specific pronouncement during this session of the European Parliament on the outermost regions, and because it is designed to influence the communication on the outermost regions that the European Commission should be publishing in May as the commitment to these regions by this College of Commissioners.

I therefore worked hard on the final draft of this report, cooperating closely with the rapporteur and the Azores branch of the Portuguese Social Democratic Party (PSD) on including proposals that meet the specific needs of the Azores; in particular, a future POSEI transport programme and extending the archipelago’s exclusive economic zone. These two issues have been safeguarded, although I fought for a more decisive wording as regards the POSEI transport programme.

However, as regards restricting access to areas identified as biogeographically sensitive so that only local fleets are allowed there, the adopted text paves the way for strengthening the Azores’ demands for an exclusive fishing area beyond the present 100 nautical miles. I voted for this report for all these reasons.

  Franck Proust (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Once again, we have just shown our commitment to a strong but sensible cohesion policy. To my mind, it goes without saying: economic recovery hinges on the dynamism of our regions. I trust in good ideas and in entrepreneurship. Europe has a key role to play: offering our regions intelligent and pragmatic support for their initiatives. The creation of a new intermediate category of regions, which will benefit Languedoc-Roussillon, is a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, some policy makers do not share my opinion and are challenging this idea. I will therefore put it very clearly, as an elected MEP of Nimes working on the ground for over 20 years: our regions need to feel supported. Europe should be going forward with ambition, not backwards.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The outermost regions of the EU comprise a set of regions which, owing to the specific characteristics associated with the physical and structural conditions resulting from their remoteness, insular locations, and difficult terrain and climate, enjoy a special status under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. This report calls for a territorial approach and proposes analysis of how, with regard to future cohesion policy in the outermost regions, the objectives of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth enshrined in the Europe 2020 strategy can be achieved in these European regions.

The most important of the priorities to be taken into account in this context are as follows: the need for differentiated treatment of the outermost regions as a whole within the EU, that takes into account their uniqueness and makes use of their potential; the adaptation of how European policies in a number of strategic areas are implemented in the outermost regions; and the outermost regions’ increased integration with the EU, involving more efficient government, territorial continuity to improve access to the benefits of the single market and the development of their incorporation within the context of regional neighbourhood plans. I voted for this report because I agree with this approach.

  Robert Rochefort (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The outermost regions (ORs) of the European Union are marked by their remoteness, insularity, difficult topography and climate. They have to face a major challenge: to transform their constraints into growth potential. Unfortunately, the economic, social and financial crisis has hit ORs particularly hard, highlighting the structural weaknesses of their economies and their dependence on the outside world. Against this background, EU measures that benefit them are more vital than ever. The text in this report stresses, in particular, the need to adjust European taxation and customs policies in order to enhance the competitiveness of the outermost regions’ economies, as well as the importance of supporting small and medium-sized enterprises through the allocation of Union funds, with the aim of developing the productive fabric of the ORs. It also draws attention to the importance of the tourism sector for these regions and calls on the Commission to speed up the implementation of the European Action Plan in this field, ensuring more effective coordination of the existing funding lines. Given that European investments in the ORs not only involve a policy of making up for delays and compensating for disadvantages, but that they are also carried out for the benefit and to the advantage of the whole of the European Union, I offer my support to this report.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. The outermost regions of the European Union comprise a set of regions which, due to the specific characteristics associated with their physical and structural conditions and resulting from their remoteness, insular locations, difficult topography and climate, constitute a specific group of regions recognised by Article 349 TFEU. These regions possess a special status enshrined in the Treaty, which permits a derogation from the rules of the Treaty and the adjustment of these rules to the outermost regions, by virtue of their particular characteristics and conditions. As these regions’ constraints and difficulties are permanent and distinguish them from other European regions, the EU rules and programmes cannot be applied in the same way as in the rest of the EU’s territory. Their implementation has to be guided by a territorial approach.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted for this text because I believe it is crucial to adapt the implementation of European policies in the outermost regions of the European Union (ORs) in order to assist them in achieving the objectives of economic, social and territorial cohesion, thus contributing towards the accomplishment of the EU 2020 objectives.

In fact, European investments in the ORs not only involve a policy of making up for delays and compensating for disadvantages, but also investments carried out for the benefit and to the advantage of the whole of the European Union. In order to assist ORs, the implementation of EU policies has to be guided by a territorial approach, in order to pursue the objectives of the EU 2020 strategy.

  Vilja Savisaar-Toomast (ALDE), in writing. – (ET) The European Union’s outermost regions are a body of regions that possess a special status specified in the EU Treaties, which makes it possible to make exceptions in the provisions of the EU Treaties and adjust those provisions for the outermost regions due to the distinctive features and conditions of those regions. Since there are permanent restrictive and aggravated circumstances in these regions which mean they are recognised as being different from other European regions, EU legislation and programmes cannot be implemented uniformly over the entire territory of the EU; rather, their implementation must be based on a territorial approach. I support the rapporteur’s position that European policy measures should be adjusted when implemented in the outermost regions of the EU, because those regions will only be able to better achieve the objectives of economic, social and territorial cohesion through specially adapted EU policy measures, while they can contribute to the achievement of the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy. It should certainly be noted that the special measures of the Programme of Options Specifically Relating to Remoteness and Insularity (POSEI) have been successful in agricultural and fisheries policy, making it possible to consider the possibility of launching other programmes of this type in other potential sectors such as energy and renewable energy sources, transport and information and communications technology. Unfortunately, I cannot agree with the rapporteur’s position that support for the outermost regions must be continued regardless of their level of development, which is generally expressed as GDP per resident. I believe that if a given region is doing well enough to manage on its own, it is no longer necessary to allocate as much EU support to that region. In conclusion, I supported the adoption of the report.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The outermost regions of the European Union (ORs) are characterised by physical and structural conditions resulting from their remoteness, insular locations, difficult topography and climate.

In order to deal with these disadvantages, these regions possess a special status enshrined in the Treaty, which permits a derogation from the rules of the Treaty and an adjustment of these rules. This vote will lead to efforts towards better integration of the ORs into the EU. This objective will be achieved through more effective governance through a governance system at various levels, territorial continuity to improve access to the benefits of a single market and development of their incorporation in the context of regional neighbourhood plans.

It is not just financial support, it is an appropriate strategy providing a development model capable of taking advantage of their strengths, in the interest of greater competitiveness, increased growth and job creation.

  Monika Smolková (S&D), in writing. – (SK) I voted for the resolution on the cohesion policy in the outermost regions because any financial support under the cohesion policy is about solidarity, assistance where the need is greatest. On the other hand, however, I would like to ask why only the most remote islands should have special benefits. My country also forms part of the Schengen border, and the region from which I come is directly on the border, which gives it peripheral status. Therefore, it should also merit special attention. The crisis has also affected my region, which has one of the highest unemployment rates in Slovakia. Two-thirds of my region is spread out on the fertile soils of East Slovakian lowlands, and yet agricultural production is not competitive due to EU agricultural policy vis-à-vis the Eastern countries. I do not know whether this is supposed to constitute cohesion policy if the Eastern countries will be lagging behind until 2028, even though we have all the prerequisites for agricultural primary and secondary production. I therefore wish to bring to your attention the EU’s subsidy policy, especially since our country used to be self-sufficient in food production, but today the figure stands at only 48%.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The outermost regions are a set of regions of the European Union which, by virtue of their characteristics resulting from insularity, distance, small size and serious dependence on a small number of products, have been conferred a special status enabling differentiated treatment as regards European actions and policies in these regions, pursuant to Article 349 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The purpose of this report, which I wrote, is to establish the European Parliament’s proposals for a renewed strategy for the outermost regions, taking into account the important role of cohesion policy in the outermost regions and their contribution to achieving the Europe 2020 strategy objectives. These measures demonstrate these regions’ main needs, which the European Parliament has today recognised as meriting particular treatment.

  Patrice Tirolien (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I welcome the position adopted by Parliament today. I would like to address two key points in this report. It was important that Parliament spoke out strongly against the Commission’s proposal to reduce the specific allocation for outermost regions (ORs) by almost half. This cut in funding is all the more unfair in that it affects the money set aside to compensate for the disadvantages of these regions which, by definition, are not decreasing. They are described as structural and permanent in our Treaties. Consequently, these regions would be the only territories, and I mean the only ones, under the cohesion policy that would see a cut in their funds, which would not be justified by growth effects or a change in category of regions.

Secondly, I would like to focus on our call for a comparative analysis of pricing in these regions. Economic mechanisms that go against the principles of the single market seem to be at work here and often lead to extremely worrying social movements. In this area, we need to have better informed and targeted action to meet this urgent demand of the people.

  Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE), in writing. – I agree on the main points of the renewed strategy for the Union’s outermost regions (ORs), which faces some structural difficulties. The points I appreciate the most are the development of synergies between the Research Framework Programme Horizon 2020 and the Structural Funds, the support to small and medium-sized enterprises, and the encouragement of the participation of fledgling units of excellence and increased investment. That is why I am in favour of this report.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the report on the role of the cohesion policy in the outermost regions of the European Union in the context of the EU 2020 strategy. I think that Member States need help to secure full access for the inhabitants of these regions to the information sources and communication media provided by new technologies, such as broadband technologies and infrastructure and wireless technologies, including satellite, so as to promote economic growth and more efficient administration through the digitisation of services. I call on the Commission and Member States to take the necessary measures to ensure that all the inhabitants of the outermost regions have access to broadband Internet by 2013. The areas of research and innovation, transport, telecommunications and tourism require particular attention in terms of applying European policies in the outermost regions. The Connecting Europe Facility should include specific references to the outermost regions. I should emphasise the importance of integrating the outermost regions into the TEN-T network. It is important to support SMEs by allocating funds from the EU and Member States, with the aim of developing the production structures in the outermost regions and promoting workers’ skills, thereby helping to enhance region-specific products and the local economy.

  Viktor Uspaskich (ALDE), in writing. – (LT) The majority of the issues mentioned in this report on the European Union’s outermost regions (ORs) also apply to Lithuania. Significant social and economic disparities between Lithuania and other regions of the European Union can still be observed. According to Ismeri Europa and a report by the European Commission on the achievements of cohesion policy in Lithuania, it can be said that a lack of clear priorities is still limiting the effectiveness of this policy. Cohesion policy is being pursued slowly in Lithuania, partly due to poor leadership. In Lithuania, Structural Fund applicants still complain about inflexible administrative mechanisms and questionable transparency: the application procedure often lasts more than a year, and following their initial application, applicants are unable to change any terms or conditions. Given the rapidly changing business environment, more flexible and free conditions should be introduced to revise drafts that have already been submitted. If cohesion policy was applied properly, it could give Lithuania enormous potential.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – This motion for a resolution values the cohesion policy in the outermost regions of the European Union to make it possible to achieve the goals of the 2020 strategy there. It is important to take into account their specific characteristics and it is necessary to foster their strong points and strengthen their weaknesses. That is why I supported this report with my vote. To get the best integration of these regions in the EU, the adoption of particular measures and funds available for these areas is of crucial importance. Unfortunately, the prevision for the period 2014-2020 is that these funds will be reduced.

  Janusz Władysław Zemke (S&D), in writing. – (PL) Today, the European Parliament has looked at cohesion policy in relation to the Union’s weakest regions. In my opinion, it is necessary to apply other, more favourable criteria to these regions for the allocation of Structural Funds. Cofinancing rates should also be higher and should be 85% as standard for all instruments providing aid. In relation to this, I want to object to the European Commission’s plans for a 5.1% cut in EU expenditure on cohesion policy in the period 2014-2020, because this will hit at the least-developed regions, including the Kujawsko-Pomorskie Province.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The main problem with this report is a fundamental one: its argument for the specific nature of the outermost regions is framed by compliance with the guidelines of the Europe 2020 strategy and by the internal market. We consider this strategy harmful to the outermost regions’ development, as it exacerbates many of the constraints weighing down on them. However, we are bound to highlight some positive ideas: specifically, it clearly advocates differentiated treatment for the outermost regions, in line with their uniqueness and their permanent natural constraints; it criticises the Commission proposal of reducing Cohesion Fund and European Regional Development Fund support; it advocates an 85% cofinancing rate for all aid instruments; and it argues for a framework on State aid that is not degressive or time-limited. We also agree with the idea that the per capita GDP criterion should be complemented with other human and social development indicators.

Report: Richard Howitt (A7-0086/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report, since I believe there is a need to reinforce the idea that the European Union cannot have criteria that are different or duplicated between human rights and other external policies, between its internal and external policies, and in the conduct of its relations with third countries. The same principles should be the basis for all political action. I also advocate the need for a more systematic approach, which should include individual efforts by each country and a human rights strategy that includes clear deadlines, actions and responsibilities that can be implemented. However, I regret that some of the proposals by the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament were rejected at first reading, specifically, those referring to minorities and gender equality.

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The European Union has stood out in the last two decades as one of the main contributors to stability and one of the main global actors that have encouraged the peaceful transition of several states to democracy and a market economy. Against this background, it is important that the EU, which is also currently still the biggest global donor, is up to accomplishing its historic mission and has a coherent programme for supporting human rights and the task of establishing democracy, especially at a time when the European Union is rooted in support and protection for fundamental rights and freedoms. I think that in the current global climate, a major emphasis must be placed on the specific situation of Christians in the countries neighbouring the EU. It is also important that the EU’s foreign policy and neighbourhood policy focus on the recently created European Endowment for Democracy as an instrument.

  Pino Arlacchi (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this resolution because it is a comprehensive text that underlines the need for the EU to avoid double standards between its human rights policy and other external policies. I am particularly pleased for the huge victory achieved in this Parliament by the cause of the Sahrawi population. The text adopted condemns the ongoing repression of the Sahrawi people in the occupied territories, calls for the release of 82 political prisoners belonging to the Polisario Front, and strongly supports the path of self-determination of Western Sahara in accordance with UN resolutions. I am proud to have campaigned for this success today. The rights of the Sahrawi are those of us all, and this position will have a bearing on the EP’s negotiations to end the last case of colonial oppression in Africa.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I warmly welcomed Baroness Ashton’s statement in favour of appointing an EU Special Representative on Human Rights. Through this vote, I wanted to stress that, as pointed out by the rapporteur, for the EU to be a ‘credible actor’ in external relations, ‘it must act consistently’, but also be ‘exemplary’ and avoid ‘double standards’ between its human rights policy and other policies, whether internal or external policies. It must step up efforts to cooperate with civil society and social networks, enforce women’s rights, freedom of religion and belief and freedom of expression.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed this report. The European Union is committed to having its external actions guided by the principles of democracy, the rule of law, the universality and indivisibility of human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for human dignity and the rights of minorities, the principles of equality and solidarity, and respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter and international law. The EU Annual Report on Human Rights and Democracy is very important for analysing and evaluating EU policy on these issues. I welcome the criticism expressed in the report regarding the content of the annual report, which still remains descriptive rather than evaluative. In order to ensure consistent and effective EU external policies on human rights and democracy, it is essential to set comparable criteria to evaluate the progress made by third countries in these areas. I believe that in her drafting of future annual reports, the Union’s High Representative/Vice-President of the Commission must consult comprehensively with the European Parliament and present the annual report on the human rights situation to the plenary, something which did not happen this year.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I share the position of the report by Mr Howitt on the Annual Report on Human Rights.

It carries out an analysis that looks at all areas of the problems relating to human rights throughout Europe, and provides interesting suggestions for its improvement and future implementation. I believe the section on freedom of religion, which highlights, in particular, the problem of the persecution being suffered by Christians all over the world, is fundamental.

Without the certainty that the European project and its partners in third countries are guarantors of the fundamental rights of freedom of expression that come from our Christian roots and the safeguarding and respect of our cultural identity, it would not make sense to be part of it. The obligation to include binding clauses on the protection of human rights in relationships between the EU and all third countries is a turning point in EU policies and one we cannot afford to do without.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because appropriate measures must be taken to ensure that human rights and fundamental freedoms are not compromised or diminished in times of economic crisis. The European Union should continue to increase its efforts, mainstream more effectively human rights and democracy across development cooperation and ensure that EU development programmes contribute to the fulfilment by partner countries of their international human rights obligations. The European Parliament welcomes the landmark convention by the Council of Europe on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence, creating a comprehensive framework to prevent violence, protect victims and end impunity, and calls on all Member States and the EU to quickly sign and ratify this convention. The European Parliament condemns all forms of human rights violations, where people were discriminated against on the basis of work and origin, and limited access to justice for victims. Furthermore, the EU and its Member States should endorse the draft UN Principles and Guidelines for the effective elimination of discrimination based on work and descent. As far as freedom of expression and speech is concerned, the EU should increase support for media freedom, protect independent journalists, reduce the digital divide and facilitate Internet access.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Although the situation regarding human rights in the EU is good, I do not think that we can rest on our laurels. The European Union supports the efforts in combating racism, xenophobia and other kinds of discrimination based on religion, gender, age, disability or sexual orientation, with particular attention being focused on respect for human rights in the area of asylum and immigration. With the aim of promoting human rights worldwide, the EU finances the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights, which has a budget of EUR 1.1 billion for the 2007-2013 period. The initiative finances not only projects devoted to gender equality and child protection, but also supports joint actions taken by the EU and other organisations involved in defending human rights, such as the United Nations, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the Council of Europe and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Based on what has been stated above, I think that the EU must remain a major player in this area.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – I voted against this as I do not believe the EU should have, or indeed does have, other than self-professed, authority to act as an arbiter of human rights. Most of the judgment calls made by the ECHR that France or the UK chose to defy were controversial decisions that left nations incredulous at the ineptitude of the judicial process carried out by unelected judges in Strasbourg. It is somewhat onerous that the EU has applied for accession to the ECHR in its own right and this can be seen as prescriptive for what is likely to come. The revelation that the EU wishes to set out punitive measures against Columbia, and also send Baroness Ashton to Gaza on a fact-finding mission, suggests the EU is asserting diplomatic and peacekeeping powers upon itself that it is in no way, shape or form entitled to claim. We do not want the EU attempting to usurp the powers of the UN or NATO and it is abhorrent that a supranational body with such a democratic deficit believes it can be an intermediary actor on the global stage.

  Antonio Cancian (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted for the aforementioned report because I am firmly convinced of the indissoluble link between the respect for, and promotion of, human rights and the development and consolidation of democratic societies.

To take a particular example, recent events in the Mediterranean countries show that the local populations are crying out for human rights to be safeguarded. Therefore, the EU institutions are being called upon to commit themselves to protecting democracy, human rights and fundamental freedoms by setting specific, achievable and time-bound objectives in their development programmes with third countries.

I welcome the comprehensive section on the rights of the child and on violence against women, as well as the priority given to supporting efforts towards the worldwide abolition of the death penalty. I believe in fact that the work of women is at the heart of the economy in many areas of conflict around the world, and that they must therefore be more involved and their rights recognised as being full priorities when negotiations seeking to bring peace to these areas are launched.

Finally, I applaud this report because it supports the new, freely elected Members of Parliament in activities that encourage the respect and promotion of these inalienable rights.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The EU’s policies should not only be consistent and exemplary within the EU, but should also be coherent and in line with fundamental values and principles, in order to maximise the EU’s global credibility and the way in which policies relating to fundamental rights are implemented. Over the last decade, from 9/11 to the Arab Spring, profound changes have taken place, causing new challenges to emerge that demonstrate the vital importance of human rights and democracy. It is crucial to redefine and enhance the EU strategy, as well as the instruments used, so as to be able to respond more effectively and comprehensively to current challenges to human rights and democracy worldwide. I call for rapid, transparent and inclusive progress towards an ambitious common strategy for the EU, with clear actions, timetables and responsibilities, and for all stakeholders to contribute fully to the creation thereof. I also hope that Parliament can be given a more prominent role in promoting transparency and accountability in implementing the EU human rights strategy, since this annual report does not, in itself, constitute an accountability mechanism.

  William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD), in writing. – Amendment 7 – UKIP deplores violence against LGBT people. However, we do not feel the EU can order Britain to grant asylum on the grounds of sexual orientation. We also note the fact it is very easy to lie about sexual orientation in the context of fraudulent asylum applications. Amendment 11 – UKIP opposes torture. However, we object to the EU speaking in our name on this topic.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) What the European Union’s foreign policy really needs, first and foremost, is to promote the values that made Europe what it is today. That is why I supported the adoption of this report as it defends republican and humanist values, but also controls the correct allocation of EU funds in this area. It is crucial that we promote our values but equally important to control the budget allocated to this. However, I could not bring myself to support certain points as they misinterpreted the role played by France in the negotiations.

  Philippe de Villiers (EFD), in writing. – (FR) The European Parliament has spoken out again on the EU’s external relations.

Parliament is, indeed, deeply concerned by the many violations of human dignity, but the fact remains that the report as a whole is ideological and it calls for European action that is inherently inefficient and bureaucratic.

The proposals on ‘digital diplomacy’ and ‘sustainable democracy’ may leave us somewhat guarded, to say the least. The support in principle for ‘bloggers’ and other ‘activists’ (the new heroes of human rightism), is a double-edged sword.

To Parliament’s credit, far removed from the euphoric speeches of some leaders on the democratic aspirations of the Maghreb and the Middle East, it is clearly, albeit belatedly, concerned about the persecution of minorities, in particular Christians, in these regions of the world.

However, diplomacy and international relations must remain under the exclusive competence of the Member States.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D), in writing. – I voted in favour of the document concerning the Annual Report on Human Rights in the World and the European Union’s policy on the matter, including implications for the EU’s strategic human rights policy, because it presents a balanced opinion of the current state of play and the improvements to be implemented to the EU’s action as a global player and within its internal governance, with regard to the human rights discipline. In particular, I strongly support the need for the European Parliament to be recognised, and to further enhance its role, as a key actor in the shaping of the implementation of the European Union’s human rights strategy. For this reason, I strongly believe that the Council and the Commission should systematically take up the Parliament’s resolutions and communications, by providing substantive responses to the impulse received from the democratically elected body of the EU. The report addresses the fundamental issues of the death penalty, arms control, torture and other cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment or punishment, women and human rights, freedom of religion, discrimination, children’s rights, freedom of expression. The guarantee of the highest standards of human rights must imperatively guide the EU’s action, in its external and internal policies.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report because it considers that the EU should enhance its credibility on the international stage and continue to set an example of respect for and defence of human rights. It should therefore avoid double standards regarding human rights and in its relations with third countries. Moreover, the report calls for speed and transparency in developing a common EU-level human rights strategy.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This resolution is the European Parliament’s response to the Annual Report on Human Rights in the World and the EU’s policy in this regard, published by the European External Action Service, which includes an extensive overview of how the European Union tries to involve itself in many particularly sensitive issues, as well as an evaluation of the activities in this area of the main European institutions and agencies.

This evaluation could be very useful as a means, not only of assessing which are the best practices and of establishing the best criteria for resolving the problems raised by the EU’s strategic approach to human rights, but also of suggesting pathways and solutions. The centrality of human rights to the European Union should be reaffirmed. The European Union has been increasingly committed to putting democracy and human rights on the global agenda. It is right that it should evaluate whether it will be properly tackling the problems it faces and not neglecting others. A Union that wants to demonstrate its ability to ask questions of itself, and to seek to improve its answers, could emerge stronger from this exercise.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) One of the European Union’s flagship policies that has won recognition from huge numbers of countries and states is its uncompromising defence of human rights. The European Parliament started analysing its Annual Report on Human Rights in the World in 1983. This report, drafted by Mr Howitt, analyses the annual human rights report and EU policy in this regard. Never before have human rights been as important and led to as many changes, as happened in the ‘Arab Spring’, when men and women, young and old, demonstrated a willingness to give their lives in defence of human rights. However, there is still a long way to go, particularly within the UN, before certain human rights violations, such as the death penalty, are brought to an end once and for all. It is also necessary that the freedom won in the countries with Muslim majorities does not transform itself into the persecution and massacre of minority communities, such as Christians. At a time when we are faced with the news that the Argentine Government, with which the EU has cooperation agreements, has nationalised a Spanish company, it is crucial to review EU strategic policy in this regard.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The report includes a number of positive points – for example, regarding Guantánamo or acknowledgement of EU complicity in certain regimes; it is no accident that these have already fallen at the hands of their peoples – but that does not change the fact that it is overwhelmingly negative. Yet again, we are witnessing human rights being put to use; being viewed as a pawn in the political game and used in the interests of the major EU powers and the large companies and financial sectors thereof. As with previous annual reports, there is absolutely no mention of the flagrant human rights violations in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, occupied Cyprus or Western Sahara. These are violations in which EU Member States and/or their allies – the US, Israel, Turkey or Morocco – have undeniably been complicit. On Libya and the military aggression suffered by its people, with tragic consequences that can still not be fully determined, they only regret not having intervened sooner. They advocate new, enhanced instruments for open intervention in the domestic affairs of sovereign states similar to instruments that the US has been using for a long time, in breach of the letter and spirit of the UN Charter. This is a shameful and intolerable demonstration of the imperialist impetus behind EU actions.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The founding Treaties commit the Union to having its external actions guided by the principles of democracy, the rule of law, the universality and indivisibility of human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for human dignity and the rights of minorities, the principles of equality and solidarity, and respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter and international law. I firmly believe that it is important to learn from the European Union’s past failures in re-shaping its external action. For the EU to be a credible actor in external relations, it must act consistently, in accordance with treaty and acquis obligations, and avoid double standards between its human rights policy and its internal and external policies, and its relations with third countries. It is essential that appropriate measures be taken to ensure that civil rights and fundamental freedoms are not compromised or diminished in times of economic crisis. The EU’s policies should also be consistent and exemplary, as well as coherent with fundamental values and principles. This would maximise the EU’s credibility globally and the effectiveness of its human rights policies. It is important to strive for the more effective mainstreaming of human rights and democracy across development cooperation and, at the same time, to meet the international commitments in this area. Democracy, the rule of law, justice and accountability are the best safeguards of human rights, fundamental freedoms, tolerance and equality.

  Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), in writing. – (IT) The thing I most appreciate about this Annual Report on Human Rights is the breadth of the treatment, which does not just look at the specific problems of individual countries, but deals with every relevant aspect of human rights across the board. In view of the importance of including binding clauses on human rights in all the EU’s relationships with third countries and the need to implement the EU’s human rights policy in all other EU policies, I voted in favour.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) The European Union needs to have a genuine common strategy on human rights. As outlined in this report, this new strategy must be based on clear actions, a pre-determined timetable and an efficient allocation of responsibilities, which, in particular, will involve clarifying the roles of the Council and the European Parliament on the matter. ‘Double standard’ attitudes between human rights and external policies should best be avoided, in particular, with regard to asylum policy. The integration of human rights safeguards into the various EU policies, especially in its external actions and its cooperation and development strategy, is still far from perfect and will require greater collaboration with civil society. Finally, we can only welcome the prospect of the future accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights, as an autonomous entity.

  Mikael Gustafsson (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (SV) I voted in favour of the report, which highlights important principles in relation to human rights. In particular, I would emphasise the report’s criticism of the EU for failing to defend human rights consistently and for supporting authoritarian regimes. This was very clear, for example, in the democratic revolutions of the Arab Spring. I am pleased that the LGBT issues have been included and that matters concerning women’s reproductive health and rights have been clarified. The report contains a few federalist wordings with which I do not agree. However, as the report focuses on human rights and the importance of being consistent, I am giving it my support.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. – The EU has an important role to play globally in the promotion of human rights and I voted in favour of this report.

  Lívia Járóka (PPE), in writing. – I would like to welcome the fact that the Annual Report on Human Rights in the World and the European Union’s policy on the matter dedicates a full chapter to the human rights situation of women, taking a firm standpoint in condemning the gravest abuses of women’s fundamental rights, such as sexual violence. In this regard, the EU Plan of Action on Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment in Development for the period 2010-2015 and the Commission’s Women’s Charter promoting gender equality at international level are very important steps. The Council of Europe’s Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence must also be promptly signed and ratified.

  Elisabeth Jeggle (PPE), in writing. – (DE) During yesterday’s vote in plenary on the Annual Report on Human Rights and Democracy in the World in 2010, I voted in favour of the full texts of paragraphs 93 and 101 respectively, and thus against the position of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats). I am very concerned that women in crisis regions are given general access to the public health care system, to medical information and to appropriate educational programmes. Sadly, in armed conflicts, the rape of women is often used as a weapon against the entire population. Like many of my colleagues in the PPE Group, I am personally opposed to abortion in principle. In this report on human rights, however, we were not voting in principle on access to health services; rather, we discussed specifically the possibility of abortion following rape in situations of war and conflict. In this context, I consider the woman’s dignity to be the overall objective, and that is what I would hope to uphold by voting the way I did.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported this report, which refers to the Annual Report on Human Rights and Democracy in the World in 2010 published by the European External Action Service (EEAS), and which reviews EU policy in this area (in particular, the EU action in the UN, trade and human rights, etc.). I also supported the two paragraphs in this report defending the rights of LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) people.

  Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE), in writing. – (FI) I voted in favour of the Annual Report on Human Rights in the World because it deals with issues that are very important for both Parliament and the EU as a whole. Parliament’s power in matters of human rights has increased substantially with the Treaty of Lisbon, especially as a result of the adoption of trade agreements. We Members must take responsibility for this. I would like, in particular, to emphasise the importance of two whole areas. Much has happened in our neighbourhood recently. I visited Egypt in November and talked to people who were worried about their personal inviolability and their freedom under the new regime. As the Arab Spring has shown, the EU needs to support the individuals and groups who want to build their society as one that respects democracy and human rights. The representatives of civil society must gather around the table in accordance with the principles of good governance. This kind of systematic participation could be promoted by the civil society monitoring mechanism that we are proposing. I would also like to focus special attention on the section on human rights defenders. Members of Parliament have doggedly shown their support by making statements, following legal proceedings and paying visits to prison, and in many other practical ways. Now, however, it is time to implement the EU’s guidelines on human rights defenders, and Baroness Ashton needs to follow the process closely. We Members of Parliament will contribute to the debate by tackling especially glaring cases against individuals in our urgent human rights resolutions.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the report by Mr Howitt because I believe that the text approved today by Parliament puts forward some positive suggestions for dealing with the difficult issue of human rights. The delicate area of human rights covers various issues and needs to be tackled by the EU not only from a European and a political viewpoint, but also in its relationships with non-EU countries. The EU must therefore continue to take action to safeguard civil rights, such as freedom of expression, gender equality and actions to support pluralism and democracy. This Parliament has already done much and must continue to do much with regard to safeguarding human rights. There is still a long way to go, and the good work on the issue in EU policies needs to be extended and improved in the area of non-EU relationships, without losing sight of developments in the social and political context.

  Agnès Le Brun (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I welcome the adoption of this own-initiative report, which I supported. Based on the Annual Report on Human Rights and Democracy in the World in 2010, published last September by the European External Action Service (EEAS), it provides a constructive analysis of EU policy in this area. I fully agree with the findings of this report, which calls on the EU to pursue a more concrete policy for the defence of human rights, in particular, through the European Neighbourhood Policy.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I congratulate the rapporteur, who managed to obtain the consensus of all the political groups on this report. It is important that this report emphasises from its very first paragraph how vital it is for the European Union to act consistently in its external relations and to avoid having two coexisting sets of rules, either with one for its human rights policy and the other for other external policies, or with one for domestic policies and the other for external policies. This will allow the European Parliament to send a clear-cut message to the foreign ministers who will be meeting in June to adopt the declaration on a new human rights strategy.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report, which stresses that, for the European Union (EU) to be a credible actor in external relations, it must act consistently, in accordance with Treaty and acquis obligations and avoid double standards between its human rights policy and other external policies, between internal and external policies, and in the conduct of its relations with third countries, combining this approach with the challenge of developing the human rights country strategy papers and implementing action plans, which must also cover democratisation, reflecting the specificity of each country as regards impact, and making full use of the EU’s relevant instruments

  Clemente Mastella (PPE), in writing. – (IT) We believe that the European Union should renew its commitment to support the protection of human rights and democracy by making it central to all of its policies.

In order to maximise its credibility globally, the EU must act consistently, in accordance with Treaty and acquis obligations, but, above all, it must avoid double standards between its human rights policy and other external policies, between internal and external policies, and in the conduct of its relations with third countries.

We recall that economic and social rights have also been an integral part of human rights, since the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. We believe, therefore, that the EU must help to implement these rights in less advanced and developing countries with which it signs international and trade agreements.

The goals of development, democracy, human rights and good governance are intertwined; we reiterate the need for all EU external actions to combine a political dimension that supports pluralism, democracy and respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law, and a development dimension that focuses on socio-economic progress.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. – I voted in favour of this report as a whole and support the many positive measures within the text. The European Union’s policies should be consistently exemplary within the EU, as well as being in line with fundamental values and principles. I could not vote against Amendment 7 outlining positive action in respect of LGBT rights and combating human rights’ violations on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity in some parts of the world. I abstained from the vote on the second part of paragraph 93 as I did not believe that it was necessary to stress, in particular, the need to promote sexual and reproductive health, having already dealt in the first part of the paragraph with the need for adequate gynaecological and obstetric care, as defined by the World Health Organisation.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Credibility is key in the field of foreign relations, so the European Union must act consistently, in accordance with the Treaty and EU acquis obligations. The EU should therefore avoid inconsistencies between its human rights policy and other external policies, between internal and external policies, and in the conduct of its relations with third countries. Appropriate measures must be taken to ensure that civil rights and fundamental freedoms are not compromised or diminished in times of economic crisis. The Union’s policies should not only be consistent and exemplary within the EU, but should also be coherent and in line with fundamental values and principles, in order to maximise the EU’s credibility globally and how human rights policies are implemented.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – In order to be a credible actor in external relations, the EU must act consistently and in accordance with its Treaty and acquis obligations. There is a need for the EU to avoid double standards between its human rights policy and other external policies, between its internal and external policies, and in the conduct of its relations with third countries. Furthermore the drafting of future annual reports should take a more systematic approach, which should include the use of benchmarks for individual countries. It is also necessary to achieve swift, transparent and inclusive progress towards an ambitious final EU common strategy for human rights, which should include clear actions, timetables and responsibilities. I voted in favour.

  Elisabeth Morin-Chartier (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for this report because it points out that the focus should be on human rights, democracy and the rule of law when preparing EU policy and in any relationship or cooperation between the EU and third countries. The report also encourages Member States to keep up their efforts in this time of economic crisis. By voting for this report, I am reminded of the EU’s exemplary role in fighting for human rights and urge the EU to meet the expectations of its citizens.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) In its founding Treaties, the EU undertakes to be guided by principles such as human rights and the rights of minorities when acting on the international stage. The European Union is all too keen to take the moral high ground and point the finger at other countries, even when it has yet to put its own house in order. Two prominent examples of this are the CIA overflights and the CIA’s secret prisons. There is also still some work to do in respect of minorities in a large number of EU Member States, not to mention the question of unlawful legislation like the Czech Beneš decrees or the regulations of the Anti-Fascist Council of the People’s Liberation of Yugoslavia (AVNOJ), which are still in existence and which the European Union regularly considers itself not competent to deal with. Moreover, Mr Howitt’s report is a work that is completely overloaded with left-wing ideology and humanitarian rhetoric. For example, it is greatly concerned with the rights of homosexual and transgender people in developing countries, but, at the same time, fails to recognise that minimum standards of human rights first need to be established in these countries. Overall, the EU does not acquit itself well in this report, which is why I voted against it.

  Vital Moreira (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the Howitt report on the EU’s human rights policy, which honours the European Parliament with its ambition and clarity. However, I do not support a specific point: the proposal to include a human rights chapter in all international trade treaties, which seems unsuitable and excessive to me. Defending and promoting human rights is not an intrinsic and specific goal of EU external trade policy. Trade policy must certainly be consistent with the other aspects of external and internal policy, starting with human rights, so we cannot conclude a trade agreement with a country characterised by systematic human rights violations, such as China or Belarus. Nevertheless, we cannot make international trade conditional on the EU’s high human rights standards. What we can and must demand is that trade treaties be positive on balance, rather than negative. I fully agree, however, with the proposal for strengthening the chapter on labour and environmental standards, which is incorporated in the EU’s external trade treaties. It is a case of defending the EU’s very economic and commercial interests, by combating social and environmental dumping in trade relations.

  Mariya Nedelcheva (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I welcome Mr Howitt’s report and I am pleased that it has been approved by my fellow Members. I voted in favour of this report for the simple reason that the European Union has always been committed to the defence of fundamental rights, the very cornerstone of our Union.

I voted for this report because EU policy in this area needs to be more specific and I look forward to the appointment of the Special Representative for Human Rights. In fact, society and people are hungry for democracy, freedom and guaranteed rights, as the Arab Spring has shown us: the European Union must meet the expectations and respond to the hopes of these people.

Lastly, I voted for this report because defending human rights means defending and guaranteeing the rights of women around the world because it is women who are the real driving force behind progress, development, democracy and freedom.

  Kristiina Ojuland (ALDE), in writing. – Since I work closely on human rights, democracy, rule of law, civil liberties and gender equality, I endorse Richard Howitt’s report. Those values are the cornerstones of the European Union and it is important that we imprint them on every policy field, from energy and development to environment and trade. The activities of the EU must be consistent and coherent, keeping in mind the interests of the citizens of the Union as well as its international credibility. As human rights are such an integral part of what the EU stands for, I would insist that it reflects on our relations with third countries, especially with strategic partners. Unfortunately, not all of them share the same values, which, in my opinion, casts a doubt as to whether use of the term ‘strategic partnership’ is, in those cases, justified.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution because the EU must pursue a coherent and consistent policy to support and promote human rights throughout the world. I believe that the recommendations on the transportation and illegal detention of prisoners need to be implemented as a matter of urgency. The Member States should address more effectively their complicity in the worldwide violation of human rights in the context of the US rendition and secret detention programme, and in accompanying domestic human rights’ violations. Only through joint efforts can we stop secret detention disguised as counter terrorism. The EU Member States cannot continue to be used for the secret transportation and illegal detention of prisoners. To achieve a strong and transparent political Union and an effectively and coherently functioning framework for the protection of human rights, the EU must complete the negotiation process and accede to the European Convention on Human Rights. I welcome the new European Neighbourhood Policy. Greater support must be given to partners engaged in building deep and sustainable democracy and supporting inclusive economic development. There should also be continued support for democratic movements, NGOs and civil rights advocates in the Eastern Neighbourhood.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (S&D), in writing. – The EU is acting all over the world to promote respect for human rights, which is an integral part of EU foreign policy. I voted in favour of this report, because it emphasises that human rights is a fundamental EU value, and that economic and political priorities should not be the be-all and end-all. EU cooperation with third countries has to be based on the real performance made by the countries towards better human rights implementation. Special attention should be paid to our immediate neighbours. In our external action, we should remember that there are more than 10 political prisoners in Belarus, and politically motivated cases in Russia and Ukraine. I agree with the rapporteur that it is extremely important to be aware of work which is being done by local actors in third countries defending human rights and to have a possibility to support it. The bottom-up approach needs improved communication with the top, information sharing and cooperation between civil societies in third countries, the EU and other actors involved in the protection of human rights. For this reason, the European institutions should cooperate more closely with organised civil societies in third countries.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I am in favour of the report presented on the subject of human rights given the importance of the subject in question. The EU must continue its support consistently in order to ensure that, especially in countries with authoritarian regimes, the subject of human rights may overcome the obstacles that still persist and achieve a global position of respect. The protection and promotion of democracy has always been one of the key points of our European policy, given the effective results achieved over the years. The EU must undertake additional efforts to integrate relations with partner countries more effectively and achieve a position of guarantee and support to citizens.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of this report; however, my opinion differed on certain points in it. I supported the inclusion of phrases that strengthen the text and the EU’s commitment to human rights, such as the reference to the need to promote public health and health education programmes in third countries and to strengthen European humanitarian aid programmes on gender equality and children’s protection. I also supported the reference to the disappointment expressed by the European Parliament on the conduct of certain Member States and their unwillingness to adopt the European Treaty on Human Rights.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report because I agree with the main thrust of it; specifically, as regards the European Union’s duty to ensure that its development policy actions promote and enhance peacebuilding, conflict prevention and international security.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report is in response to the EU’s 2010 Annual Report on Human Rights in the World, published by the European External Action Service, and provides an overview of EU policy in this regard. The main points tackled by this report are as follows: EU action in the context of the United Nations and in the International Criminal Court; EU policies to support democratisation; human rights dialogues; consultations with third countries; and other issues such as the death penalty, arms control and torture. Its provision for a more effective approach in which development cooperation plays a key role is to be welcomed, as is the intention of extending human rights issues to all EU policies. I therefore voted in favour.

  Frédérique Ries (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Broadly speaking, I share the overall outline of the Howitt report and its emphasis on the potential of the Internet to expose the truth and the triumph of freedom. This is one of the great achievements of the Arab Spring. On the other hand, the protection of religious minorities in the world deserved more attention. Defending freedom of religion is a modern and secular struggle, which primarily affects Christian minorities around the world: Coptic Christians in Egypt, minorities in Syria, northern Mali, Nigeria and Kenya, Laos and Vietnam, and so on.

I would also like to mention the ‘biased view’ of human rights embodied in a whole host of new amendments. Condemning ‘the security vigilance’ of Colombia, Israel or Morocco is missing the point. What these three countries have in common is they have never traded in the security of their citizens and they have all achieved results in the fight against terrorism. These three States have combined freedom and security and share the same values as the European Union. It is through standing firm on the ideals of tolerance and freedom, but also by carefully choosing its allies, that the EU will have a greater voice on the international stage.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. The resolution stresses, for instance, that, for the European Union (EU) to be a credible actor in external relations, it must act consistently, in accordance with Treaty and acquis obligations and avoid double standards between its human rights policy and other external policies, between internal and external policies, and in the conduct of its relations with third countries, combining this approach with the challenge of developing the human rights country strategy papers and implementing action plans, which must also cover democratisation, reflecting the specificities of each country as regards impact, and making full use of the EU’s relevant instruments.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted for this document because I believe that for the EU to be a credible actor in external relations, it is crucial that its policies are consistent and exemplary, in line with guiding values and principles, in order to maximise its credibility globally and the effectiveness of its human rights policies.

The EU should undertake additional efforts, more effectively mainstream human rights and democracy across all development cooperation, and ensure that EU development programmes contribute to the fulfilment by partner countries of their international human rights obligations.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) European hypocrisy regarding the right to life of embryos must not continue. The time has come to face and debate the issue without any prior censorship.

During this morning’s plenary session, we once again discussed human rights worldwide. I asked for an amendment to be added to the report presented by the British MEP Mr Howitt, to include the right to maternity among women’s rights, underlining in my speech in the Chamber that, in the future, it would also be desirable if specific attention were also paid to the rights of the unborn child.

An unborn child is a human being and deserves every protection from institutions and social protection networks. Whatever the technique used, termination of pregnancy is both a trauma for the woman and a choice that cannot be reversed. My position is clear: we should ask for official recognition of the right to life from the very first days after conception.

  Michèle Striffler (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I welcome the adoption of the Howitt report on human rights in the world and the EU’s policy on the matter. The European Union needs to continue relentlessly promoting human rights on the international stage under the provisions of the European Treaties. I personally supported Amendments 7 and 8, which encourage EU institutions to defend the rights of LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) people in their bilateral relations with third countries, in international forums and through the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights. In this respect, I also call on the Commission to encourage the removal of gender identity from the list of mental and behavioural disorders during negotiations for the 11th version of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11), published by the World Health Organisation (WHO).

  Charles Tannock (ECR), in writing. – The UK Conservatives wholeheartedly believe in human rights and equality for all, regardless of sex, age, religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation; and therefore there is much in this annual report which we strongly support.

However, we strongly believe that health, immigration and security are the prerogative of individual EU Member States.

For these reasons, the UK Conservatives could not support this report.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Human rights are indivisible values enshrined in the EU’s founding Treaties. Therefore, EU policy, both internal and external, should take their pursuit into account. They should be applied uniformly, thereby demonstrating the role of the EU as an example of respecting and safeguarding human rights. There are still failings, naturally, but the EU and the Member States should use these to work on reformulating their policies and strategies. This report tackles a number of key issues; specifically, EU policy action in the context of the UN and the International Criminal Court, policies to support democratisation, and the EU’s financial support instruments. I should like to stress the need for cross-cutting inclusion of this matter in the EU’s various policy areas. We have also witnessed the shortcomings of the EU’s approach to external policy. Finally, I consider it extremely important that we continue supporting democratisation and development. The various programmes being implemented need more technical, financial and political support. We cannot provide third countries with the proper aid if funding is scarce. This is an issue of unparalleled importance that enables the public’s quality of life to be developed and increased and in relation to which annual reports must use transparent criteria.

  Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE), in writing. – I am a Catalan, from a minority nation in Spain which has been discriminated against for hundreds of years and that has always been fighting for freedom and democracy. The Catalan people have been demanding respect for their rights peacefully and constantly, even in the worst moments of our history, the civil war and under Franco’s fascist regime only 40 years ago. I therefore understand and share the fears and problems of all people harassed and oppressed by their own government around the world. That is why, through the tools I have as a Member of Parliament, I think, I try to make the voices of all dissidents and non-violent opposition and the people who stand and fight for freedom and democracy heard as much as possible. I always try to denounce publicly the violations and abuses of human rights that take place all around the world and I call for the European Union to stop ‘business as usual’ in its relations with many authoritarian regimes around the world. That is why I voted in favour of this report.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the Annual Report on Human Rights in the World and the European Union’s policy on the matter, including implications for the EU’s strategic human rights policy. EU development aid programmes should include specific, substantial reforms to ensure respect for human rights, transparency, gender equality and anti-corruption measures. I condemn all forms of human rights violations and the limited access to justice for victims. I welcome the conclusion by the EU of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) and the adoption of the European disability strategy 2010-2020. I should point out that the Internet, together with social media, have become one of the most important vehicles which individuals are using to exercise their right to freedom of opinion and expression, and that they play a crucial role in promoting human rights, democratic participation, accountability, transparency, economic development and new forms of public access. I welcome the creation of UN Women, and call on the EU to work closely with this institution at international, regional and national level to enforce women’s rights. I welcome the adoption of the landmark convention by the Council of Europe on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence, thereby creating a comprehensive framework to avert violence.

  Viktor Uspaskich (ALDE), in writing. – (LT) This report is overdue. I would like to draw your attention to two important issues mentioned in this report. Firstly, the report recalls that the founding Treaties commit the EU to having its external actions guided by the principles of democracy and the rule of law. Secondly, the report states that for the EU to be a credible actor in external relations, its policies must be consistent and exemplary within the Union itself. It must act consistently in accordance with the Treaty and avoid double standards between its human rights policy and other external policies. The EU is failing in both areas. The European Parliament does not have a moral right to lecture others when it has even worse human rights violations and even crimes perpetrated in its own Union, when people are handcuffed, thrown into a cell, held under house arrest during elections, prevented from meeting voters, and when illegal searches are carried out, funds seized, parties’ activities blocked and people are slandered on state television. The worst thing is that the European Parliament is failing to draw attention to, and is even concealing, crimes perpetrated by European Union Member States against opponents. Cases are being falsified and the opposition is being drawn into trials; year after year, people are being hauled before the courts. A mechanism has been created that only allows you to prove your case after 10-15 years when your political career is already over. This is a sham of democracy.

  Geoffrey Van Orden (ECR), in writing. – I am a strong supporter of genuine human rights and have campaigned vigorously for them in regard, for example, to Burma and Zimbabwe – but there is no mention of either country in the report. It contains much with which I can agree but inevitably, it is distorted by political prejudice. The Left, as reflected in this report, seems to think that just about everything is a fundamental human right, that all policies should be subordinated to ‘human rights’, that migrants should have special treatment, and that terrorist suspects are particularly deserving of protection. It displays a particular obsession with gender issues. Curious legal interpretations of the European Convention on Human Rights have seriously distorted the convention’s original purposes, yet the report seeks to encourage accession by the EU to the Convention and ‘deplores’ any efforts by the UK and France to thwart this. I abstained in the final vote.

  Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. – I am fully supportive of this excellent report, which outlines the Parliament’s response to the Council’s annual human rights report 2010. The concrete recommendations made by the report look at improving the coherence and effectiveness of human rights policy. The emphasis placed by the report on more effective human rights dialogues, support for the International Criminal Court, better election support and stronger human rights and democracy clauses in trade agreements is particularly important. The EU must be effective and influential in issues such as combating torture and eradicating the use of the death penalty, and I believe that this report, which calls for a new EU Special Representative on Human Rights, will increase the EU’s influence in the UN Human Rights Council and at the International Criminal Court.

  Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa (PPE), in writing. – I voted in favour of the Annual Report on Human Rights in the World and the European Union’s policy on the matter, including implications for the EU’s strategic human rights policy. I strongly believe that the universality of human rights can only be ensured by active cooperation between different human rights systems. We all acknowledge that the responsibility to protect human rights is one of the most substantial duties of a state. I am convinced that, in order to fulfil this duty properly, it is crucial to review the situation regularly. This report reflects current problems which affect Union citizens and also those living elsewhere. Active engagement in monitoring the situation in other regions of the world is indispensable if the European Union wants to be regarded as a responsible and powerful partner on the international scene, not only in the economic field, but also as regards conflict prevention. Moreover, I regard this as our responsibility to promote values of democracy and the rule of law, understanding that this is the best way to ensure peaceful development and the raising of living conditions.

  Artur Zasada (PPE), in writing. – I have voted in favour of 2011/2185(INI) on the Annual Report on Human Rights in the World and the European Union’s policy on the matter, including implications for the EU’s strategic human rights policy. This document provides an excellent outline for what we as a Parliament need to continue working toward. It is quite evident that over the years, the EU has not always been consistent in its dealings with third countries with regard to policies and the role that human rights plays in those policies. Thus, this document provides a foundation for improving the consistency in the said dealings and pushes the EU to even expand upon the importance of human rights policy. We are, in fact, a union of 27 different countries with different cultures; however, we have worked tirelessly as a whole to establish fundamental rights for all of our citizens, as it is our duty to protect them. This concept should not end with us but should be granted to all citizens around the world and we should play our part to ensure this is achieved.

  Janusz Władysław Zemke (S&D), in writing. – (PL) I support the Howitt report on the Annual Report on Human Rights in the World and the European Union’s policy on the matter. In my opinion, it is a document which is comprehensive in including both an assessment and essential recommendations for ongoing and future actions taken by Parliament, the Commission, the Council and the recently established European External Action Service in the area of human rights and supporting democratisation processes throughout the world. I agree with the general idea of the report that the effectiveness of EU policy in this area requires full commitment from the Member States to the process of strengthening the system of international justice, including the concepts of the universality and indivisibility of human rights.

It also requires an increase in EU funds available for the implementation of European support mechanisms for democracy and the protection of human rights throughout the world, as well as the establishment of clear and more detailed criteria for the EU when awarding budget support to third countries.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This document concerns the 2010 Annual Report on Human Rights in the World. The document is geared towards deepening the EU’s intervention policies, towards turning the idea of human rights to the EU’s advantage, towards silence on crimes against human rights – which we also understand to include social, cultural and economic rights – committed by countries allied to the US and EU, and towards advocating enhanced mechanisms enabling the EU to step up its interventionism rapidly. As with previous annual reports, there is absolutely no mention of the flagrant human rights violations in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, occupied Cyprus or Western Sahara, in which EU Member States and/or their allies – the US, Israel, Turkey or Morocco – have played a leading role. On Libya, they only regret not having intervened sooner and they praise the ‘Arab Spring’. The stance of intervening in the domestic affairs of other countries shamelessly rears its head with the assertion of the need to use various means – particularly financial – to promote ‘transition’ to democracy, so as ‘to support civil society capacity for democratic opposition ... in a mutually safe and, where necessary, deniable manner’. Obviously, we voted against this hypocritical use of the concept of ‘human rights’.

Report: Anneli Jäätteenmäki (A7-0071/2012)

  Damien Abad (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Since 1 July 1999, the EU has been tied to Azerbaijan by a partnership and association agreement. The vote on this resolution has enabled the European Parliament to make recommendations on the ongoing negotiations with Baku. As a member of the delegation to the EU-Armenia, EU-Azerbaijan and EU-Georgia parliamentary cooperation committees, I welcome this agreement, which will strengthen relations between the EU and the South Caucasus. I have campaigned for a peaceful and lasting solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. We must give the Minsk Group a leading role in conducting the peace negotiations.

On this point, I am keen to emphasise the major role played by France, a long-standing partner in the region, in the work of this group and how vital it is that it continues to play its rightful part in future negotiations.

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report, since I consider it in the European Union’s interests to develop close relations with Azerbaijan, which is a geostrategically important country for the European Neighbourhood Policy – East. However, I consider it important to consider a number of worrying issues in the country at the moment, regarding the deteriorating situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms. In view of this situation, this agreement will be important in that it calls for safeguard clauses relating to respect for and promotion of human rights, and to freedom of expression, association and assembly to be included in the agreement with Azerbaijan, which will satisfy the requirements for Azerbaijan to become a partner.

  Pino Arlacchi (S&D), in writing. – I support this report because I value the closer association of Azerbaijan with the EU as a fundamental step for the EU Eastern Partnership initiative. The report acknowledges Azerbaijan as a strategic partner of the EU, but, at the same time, it criticises the Azeri Government for its still insufficient democratic standards. In addition to that, thanks to our proposal, the progression of the association agreement is linked – as in the report on Armenia – to the resumption of negotiations on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. The current status quo, which involves the illegal occupation of the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh by Armenian forces, bloody incidents on the contact line and inflammatory rhetoric, is incompatible with European values.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The European Union and Azerbaijan are currently negotiating an association agreement to follow on from the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA). This association agreement will considerably enhance Azerbaijan’s political association and economic integration with the European Union. However, there are still several issues, such as the energy question, that have yet to be resolved. Yet, I think that human rights should be a prerequisite to any association agreement, especially as the country does not belong to the World Trade Organisation. Lastly, just like in the resolution on Armenia, we are calling on the country to act to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, a destructive conflict that has been ongoing since the fall of the USSR. We have condemned the militarisation of the region and the significant military expenditure of the two countries, and call on their leaders to tone down statements and avoid inflammatory declarations in order to pave the way for a genuine dialogue.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed the European Parliament’s recommendations to the Council, the Commission and the European External Action Service on the negotiations of the EU-Azerbaijan association agreement. Azerbaijan plays an important role in the context of the European Union’s Eastern Partnership, which provides the political framework for strengthening bilateral relations by means of new association agreements. Azerbaijan has progressed rapidly in the field of ICT, in particular, with regard to e-governance, which increases the transparency of public administration and helps to combat corruption, and the government of Azerbaijan has shown itself ready to cooperate actively with the EU and take the necessary reforms to promote the development of democracy. I welcome the European Parliament’s recommendations to incorporate in the association agreement clauses and benchmarks on the protection and promotion of human rights, to emphasise the importance of guaranteeing citizens’ fundamental rights and freedoms, including the right of assembly and association, and private property rights, the development of civil society, the rule of law, the continued fight against corruption, political pluralism and the independence of the media and the judiciary, to fully comply with the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, and to welcome the reforms made by Azerbaijani authorities in the judiciary.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I voted for this report on the signature of an association agreement with Azerbaijan, despite the numerous problems involving this country, in particular, its historical, cultural and political proximity to Turkey and its conflict with Armenia.

However, the EU’s political activity in the Caucasus region is crucial for safeguarding our strategic interests (particularly in terms of energy supplies), and therefore requires agreements with problematic political entities such as Azerbaijan, which has an undisputed key role in terms of the energy resources in the Caspian Sea.

In the same way, we must include Azerbaijan in cooperation with the EU in order to slow down and, if possible, completely eliminate, the risk of a new conflict in the Nagorno-Karabakh area, as new destabilisation in the Caucasus would have disastrous effects not only for Asia, but probably for the entire planet. I therefore decided to vote in favour.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because parliamentary cooperation, within the framework of the European Union’s Eastern Partnership and bilateral programmes, is a key element in developing advanced political cooperation between the EU and Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan plays a positive role in the framework of the European Neighbourhood Policy and contributes to the solution of the EU’s energy security problems. It is therefore important to ensure that the association agreement is a comprehensive and forward-looking framework for the future development of relations with Azerbaijan, one which enhances political association, economic convergence and legal approximation and strengthens the relationship that both the European Union and Azerbaijan have decided to develop. It is crucial to incorporate in the association agreement clauses and benchmarks on the protection and promotion of human rights, especially with regard to freedom of the media and the right to freedom of expression, association and assembly, which reflect the principles and rights enshrined in the constitution of Azerbaijan and the highest international and European standards. It is especially important to build and develop a strong youth sector and welcome in this regard the various state programmes offering scholarships for studying abroad. Furthermore, the necessary action should be taken to incorporate in the association agreement provisions enabling Azerbaijan to participate in Community programmes and agencies, as a tool for promoting European integration at all levels.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – While I support efforts from the international community to recognise and ultimately address ongoing conflict in Azerbaijan, and while it is paramount that ethically sound trade deals and third country negotiations take into account such problems in their creation, I cannot endorse EU negotiations in Azerbaijan as I do not acknowledge the European Union as an entity that should have an individualised and unified approach to foreign affairs. While the report recognises the deficit in democracy, restrictions on individual freedoms and the stifling of expression as administered by the ruling party, it is not the duty of the European Union to highlight and address these issues but of supranational organisations elected to represent the voice of its members in the field of international relations and the sovereign prerogative of nation states themselves.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for this report, which aims to strengthen our relations with Azerbaijan. I note that the process is running its course in accordance with the procedures determined by the European Union and the guarantees provided by Azerbaijan. I would also like to point out that the association agreement is the next logical step in the partnership and cooperation agreements already in place between the EU and Azerbaijan. Two points in particular caught my eye: the need to ensure compliance with EU requirements and the recourse to regional cooperation to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The recommendations voted for today in the context of the EU-Azerbaijan association agreement, which replaces the EU-Azerbaijan Partnership and Cooperation Agreement, significantly deepen Azerbaijan’s political association and economic integration with the EU. I am voting for the conclusion of this report because I believe Azerbaijan plays an important role in the EU Eastern Partnership. There are mutual benefits to concluding these agreements because of political stability and the EU’s strategic interest in the region’s democratic development; of the noteworthy economic growth of its domestic market; and of the energy issue, since it is an important energy supplier for the EU, although the energy issue has still not been broached in the negotiations.

I consider it extremely important to stress human rights and the citizens’ fundamental freedoms – political, association, expression, press and personal self-determination – in the negotiations, along with respect for the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and the highest international and European standards. It will also be important to mention the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, as part of the efforts within the Eastern Partnership to achieve political reconciliation between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) Bearing in mind the negotiations between the European Union and Azerbaijan aimed at concluding an association agreement, I think that this association agreement should bring tangible benefits and opportunities to the people of Azerbaijan and the European Union, with a view to promoting a sustainable economy, and will ensure greater transparency in the energy sector and also guarantee that this sector is developed in accordance with international environmental standards.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported the adoption of this new association agreement with Azerbaijan as it is a key partner for the EU and a major player in the Caucasus. I welcome the solid relationship established with our Azerbaijani partners, which has led to the signing of an agreement encouraging the strengthening of exchanges. However, as pointed out in this text, Azerbaijan needs to sit at the negotiating table with other countries in the region to find a solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, which has gone on far too long to the detriment of the people.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report because I believe Azerbaijan plays an important role in the EU Eastern Partnership. The agreement is intended to make the region more secure by promoting a peaceful solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. It also advocates the primacy of the law and freedom of expression for the political opponents of the present government, and expresses particular concern at rising military spending.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Union and Azerbaijan are currently negotiating an association agreement which will replace the partnership and cooperation agreement currently linking them. This new agreement will be intended to deepen and strengthen political and economic ties between the EU and Azerbaijan. The energy chapter has yet to be tackled and there remain sensitive issues such as Nagorno-Karabakh and the human rights situation. I hope that the EU and Azerbaijan moving closer in this way, which is crucial to the Eastern Partnership, will enable this country to recognise in its European ally an example of consistency and a model for voluntary subordination to Western values, and that it will be the country itself that commits to convergence therewith.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) One of the EU’s concerns has always been the European Neighbourhood Policy. Political and social stability have been strategic priorities of the EU since its creation, so it has established cooperation agreements with neighbouring countries. This report, by Ms Jäätteenmäki, includes recommendations by the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission and the European External Action Service on the negotiations for the EU-Azerbaijan association agreement. This is the first time that the EU has been involved in negotiations with Azerbaijan, which is under a cloud because of the armed conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh. Although Azerbaijan is an important partner for the EU, particularly as a supplier of energy, but also of other products, we cannot accept continuous human rights violations, such as the raiding of people’s homes and detention of individuals without formal charge. Notwithstanding the progress made since July 2010, I voted for this report and I call on the Azerbaijan authorities to put a stop to the human rights violations in the Nagorno-Karabakh region.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The mandate for negotiating the agreement with Azerbaijan cannot be viewed in isolation from that for negotiations with Armenia. Both are bound up in the EU’s energy dependence and the acknowledged strategic importance on the Caucasus as a productive and transit region for important energy resources. That is the central reason for updating the existing deep and comprehensive free trade agreement, and for the pressure on the country to join the World Trade Organisation, thereby obliging it to open up its energy market and put a substantial part of its sovereignty over its natural resources – energy, specifically – at the mercy of the multinationals of Europe and other regions in this important sector.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) Azerbaijan plays an important role in the context of the European Union’s Eastern Partnership, and the level of economic growth that the country has recorded in the last few years has been noteworthy. Parliamentary cooperation, within the framework of the EU’s Eastern Partnership and bilaterally, is a key element in developing advanced political cooperation between the EU and Azerbaijan. It plays a positive role in the framework of the European Neighbourhood Policy and, inter alia, contributes to the resolution of the EU’s energy security problems. In this connection, association agreements constitute the appropriate framework to strengthen relations, by enhancing political association, economic integration and legal approximation with the EU and developing cultural relations, thus having an important impact on the democratisation process. Azerbaijan’s active commitment to assert shared values and principles, including democracy, the rule of law, good governance and respect for human rights, is the basis for taking the process forward and for making the negotiation and subsequent implementation of the association agreement meaningful. The association agreement should bring tangible benefits and opportunities to the people of Azerbaijan and the European Union. I firmly believe, however, that it is both necessary and justified to establish clear benchmarks for the implementation of the association agreement and provide for monitoring mechanisms, including the submission of regular reports to the European Parliament.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) As with the report on the EU-Armenia association agreement, this report places great focus on the unresolved conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh and it, too, mentions a certain imbalance in the recommendations to the parties involved for settling the conflict. The gap between the texts setting out the European Parliament’s recommendations could be sorely perceived by the parties to the conflict and runs the risk of the European Union losing its image of neutrality. That is why I voted against this report.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report, which aims to clarify the European Parliament’s position in ongoing negotiations on the EU-Azerbaijan association agreement. The purpose of this agreement is to strengthen political dialogue and economic integration between the parties (without providing a free trade area as Azerbaijan is not a member of the World Trade Organisation (WTO)). Parliament also expressed its support for resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

  Agnès Le Brun (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this own-initiative report, which advocates the European Parliament’s position in ongoing negotiations on entering into an association agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Azerbaijan. The object of this agreement is to strengthen the political association and economic integration of Azerbaijan without creating a free trade area as this country is not a member of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). The adoption of the report is also an opportunity for Parliament to discuss the worrying situation in Nagorno-Karabakh and to point out that, first and foremost, it is crucial that international standards be met.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I welcome the paragraph in this report which urges the Azerbaijan authorities to step up implementation of the core conventions of the International Labour Organisation (ILO).

  Emma McClarkin (ECR), in writing. – I am delighted to be in a position to vote in favour of the report on negotiations on the EU-Azerbaijan association agreement. This follows a number of welcome recommendations in the report which I feel are essential if EU-Azerbaijan relations are to continue on the road to a final agreement. For example, the protection and promotion of human rights is, of course, vital in this regard and reflects principles already enshrined in the constitution of Azerbaijan. The report gives an important reminder that deeper relations with the EU depend on adherence to the rule of law and the importance of freedom of expression for political opponents. This ties in with concerns expressed over the registration of NGOs and political parties and, of course, a resolution to this problem must be found if EU standards are to be met. Civil society organisations must also be given room to hold government to account. These recommendations form the basis of a free and fair society and must be taken on board by the Council, Commission and External Action Service in their negotiations with Azerbaijan.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The association agreement being negotiated between the European Union and Azerbaijan will replace the partnership and cooperation agreement currently in force. The purpose of these new negotiations is to deepen and strengthen political and economic ties between the EU and Azerbaijan. Despite everything, there are still a few issues not tackled in this report, notably energy. There are also very controversial issues such as the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, as well as the human rights situation in the country. Let us hope that these issues will be resolved in the best possible way for all parties. I also eagerly expect this new agreement to be a major step forward in EU relations with Azerbaijan, which is a very important country as regards the Eastern Partnership.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – We are interested in developing closer relations with Azerbaijan, a strategically important country of the Eastern Neighbourhood. However, in order to deepen these relations, Azerbaijan should effectively address concerns about the deteriorating situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the country. I totally agree with the rapporteur and I voted in favour.

  Katarína Neveďalová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) Relations between the EU and Azerbaijan have been defined by a Partnership and Cooperation Agreement since 1999. Under the enlargement of the EU, the European Neighbourhood Policy was also launched, of which Azerbaijan became a part. The European Union and Azerbaijan are currently in the process of negotiating an association agreement, which should become the successor to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement. The signing of the association agreement would lead to a substantial strengthening of relations with the European Union. Azerbaijan was also one of the first members of the Eastern Partnership. Despite the close cooperation between the EU and Azerbaijan, the country faces many challenges and problems. These are issues in the areas of human rights, freedom of speech and the rule of law. Another problem it faces is the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh, which is marked by many years of conflict and war. I firmly believe that these conflicts can be overcome, and I also support the conclusions of the rapporteur, Ms Jäätteenmäki.

  Kristiina Ojuland (ALDE), in writing. – I voted in favour of Anneli Jäätteenmäki’s report as I find it to be balanced and sound. In particular, I support the reference to Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity, which has been stated very clearly in the report. The frozen conflict of Nagorno-Karabakh has been casting a gloomy shadow over the South-Caucasus region and intimidated the relationship between Armenia and Azerbaijan for far too long. Armenia must respect international law, the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and therefore withdraw its forces from occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh and return them to Azerbaijani control.

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE), in writing. – (ET) I supported the report prepared by my colleague from the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, as well as the principles referred to therein. Given Azerbaijan’s significant role in safeguarding the European Union’s energy security and its geographical location, it is an extremely important strategic partner. Nevertheless, Europe should not neglect its fundamental values while pursuing cooperation with Azerbaijan, and it must continue to demand that the latter respect human rights and promote democracy, end the persecution of the opposition and release political prisoners. Despite the many shortcomings with regard to the promotion of a democratic society, Azerbaijan has made progress, for instance, in increasing the transparency of public administration by implementing the principles of eGovernment. The peaceful resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is also important, and I am concerned by Azerbaijan’s bellicose rhetoric and the large increase in defence expenditure. I believe that the role of the European Union, the Russian Federation and the Republic of Turkey is very important for the successful resolution of the conflict.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) Relations between the EU and Azerbaijan have deepened steadily in recent years and there has been closer cooperation, particularly in the energy and transport sectors. Azerbaijan plays an important role in the context of the European Union’s Eastern Partnership. To ensure that the association agreement becomes a comprehensive and forward-looking framework for the future development of relations with Azerbaijan, the country must implement reforms more effectively and address particularly sensitive issues that exist in the country. Above all, it is necessary to strengthen the rule of law, democratic checks and balances, as well as stop corruption, fraud and human rights violations in the country. I believe that in the interests of security, the Azerbaijani authorities should sign and ratify the convention on the prohibition of the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of anti-personnel mines and the convention on cluster munitions.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) Azerbaijan is an important partner of EU Member States in the trade in energy resources. However, the implementation of the values of democracy, human rights and freedoms in this country is just as important. Today, we are hearing that in Azerbaijan, people are continuing to be arrested because of their political convictions, that forced evictions are taking place, and that people’s property rights are being violated. I welcome this report, which, above all, calls for the safeguarding of human rights in the country on its road towards the European Union. Negotiations on the EU-Azerbaijan association agreement are also being overshadowed by the frozen conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh. The Minsk Group, made up of Russia, France and the US, is mediating in the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia, but as yet, this group’s achievements are insufficient. Brussels is concerned by the slow progress of conflict resolution and calls on both Azerbaijan and Armenia to implement the Minsk Group’s recommendations as a matter of urgency. The EU is ready to continue to provide assistance in deepening democracy, ensuring the implementation of human rights and resolving conflicts. I hope that the association agreement will become the main driving force for the implementation of these objectives.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I fully support the work carried out by the EU in the negotiations of the EU-Azerbaijan association agreement. Azerbaijan has a certain amount of importance in the Eastern Partnership and agreements need to be developed for growth that will undoubtedly benefit both parties, both economically and politically. As Azerbaijan is an important energy supplier for our continent, we need to develop our dialogue and maintain this diplomatic approach in order to deliver ever greater advantages, including by way of benefits and opportunities for citizens.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report, which includes recommendations by the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission and the European External Action Service concerning the negotiations relating to the EU-Azerbaijan association agreement. The most important of these recommendations is to ensure that the association agreement is a comprehensive and forward-looking framework for the future development of relations with Azerbaijan; one which enhances political association, economic convergence and legal approximation, and which reflects the relationship that both the European Union and Azerbaijan have decided to develop.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report concerns the EU-Azerbaijan association agreement, in the context of the EU Eastern Partnership. The EU Eastern Partnership is the political framework that strengthens bilateral relations by means of association agreements, taking account of the specific situation, the mutual benefits, and the EU’s strategic interest in the region’s stability and democratic development. Its noteworthy economic growth means that Azerbaijan has been playing an important role in the Eastern Partnership, as well as in solving the EU’s energy security problems. As such, the negotiations under way are to be welcomed. They are intended to strengthen EU-Azerbaijan bilateral relations, translating to increased political association, economic convergence and legal approximation with the EU. However, we cannot fail to call on the Azerbaijani authorities to guarantee greater respect for both the primacy of the law and the political opposition’s freedom of expression, so that we can say that this is a genuinely democratic process that is under way.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. It is very important that the joint amendment calling for the ongoing construction of buildings linked to the Eurovision song contest to be carried out in line with legislation, and expressing concern at government criticism of human rights activists, is adopted.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of this text because I believe that the association agreement can bring tangible benefits and opportunities to the people of Azerbaijan and the European Union.

Azerbaijan, in fact, plays an important role in the context of the European Union’s Eastern Partnership, which provides the political framework for strengthening bilateral relations, taking into account mutual benefits and the EU’s strategic interest in the stability and democratic development of the region. Furthermore, it has become an important energy supplier for the EU as well as an important transit country for energy resources from Central Asia in particular.

Finally, Azerbaijan is making progress in shared values and principles such as democracy, the rule of law, good governance and respect for human rights.

  Tokia Saïfi (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The European Parliament has encouraged continued negotiations of the EU-Azerbaijan association agreement. MEPs pointed out that such an agreement would bring tangible benefits and opportunities to the Azerbaijani people and to the European Union. Azerbaijan is actually in a position to help solve the problems related to energy security in the EU. In return, the EU helps the country’s socio-economic integration by providing it with technical and financial assistance. However, the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia is a major obstacle to the progress of negotiations. Stability in the South Caucasus is our ultimate goal but the EU cannot get closer to Azerbaijan or Armenia without a regional dynamic being introduced. What is more, Azerbaijan needs to continue with its democratic reforms to ensure the fundamental rights of its citizens.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Azerbaijan, which, in the last few years, has experienced excellent levels of economic growth, plays an important role in the context of the European Union’s Eastern Partnership.

Furthermore, it has become an important energy supplier for the EU as well as an important transit country for energy resources from Central Asia in particular. At the same time, the EU is a major energy market for Azerbaijan.

This vote intends to enhance economic convergence and also legal approximation with the European Union. Therefore, it is necessary for negotiations on the EU-Azerbaijan and EU-Armenia association agreements to be linked to credible commitments to making substantial progress towards the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

Confidence-building measures are necessary, such as the withdrawal of snipers from the line of contact, the withdrawal of Armenian forces from occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh and their return to Azerbaijani control, and the right of all internally displaced persons and refugees to return to their home settlements and properties.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Union and Azerbaijan are negotiating a future association agreement to replace the present partnership and cooperation agreement. The future agreement will significantly deepen political and economic integration with the European Union, but it will not include a free trade area because Azerbaijan is not a member of the World Trade Organisation. I am voting for the recommendations included in this report. I would stress that the important chapter of the negotiations concerning the energy issue has still not been broached and that human rights should be a key element of this agreement.

  Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE), in writing. – I agree with the effort that the European Union is making on the eastern countries on their way to democracy, freedom and implementation of human rights. I will support this process of political cooperation.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the EU-Azerbaijan association report because the association agreement provides the appropriate framework for deepening relations, by enhancing political association, economic integration and legislative harmonisation with the EU, and by developing cultural relations, thereby exerting a major impact on the democratisation process. Guaranteeing citizens’ fundamental rights and freedoms, including the right of assembly and association, private property rights, the development of civil society, the rule of law, the ongoing fight against corruption, political pluralism and the independence of the media and the judiciary are fundamentally important with the prospect of an EU-Azerbaijan association agreement. I must express my concern about the increasing number of human rights activists being arrested and the difficulties encountered with regard to the registration of NGOs and political parties. I should stress the importance of building and developing a strong framework supporting young people. In this regard, I welcome the various State programmes offering scholarships to study abroad. The association agreement is a comprehensive, forward-looking framework for the future development of relations with Azerbaijan. This should foster political association and convergence.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – The relations between the EU and Azerbaijan are becoming increasingly important as Azerbaijan improves economically and politically. The main points of this cooperation are the stability and democratic development of this Central Asian area and consequently of Euronest, which is highly influenced by, and involved in, economic and political cooperation with the EU. The EP welcomes the association agreement as it fosters cooperation between the EU and Azerbaijan. The EU would have more access to Azerbaijan in terms of assessing and monitoring cases involving human rights and fundamental freedoms, which are not fully respected in Azerbaijan. In addition to this, it would help the Asian country to make commitments related to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and the respect of political opponents and refugees.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted for the report by Ms Jäätteenmäki because I believe that the agreement between the EU and Azerbaijan is an excellent opportunity to deepen and develop the political and commercial relationships with the Azerbaijani Government. I also believe that this agreement can ensure greater protection for human rights in Azerbaijan.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The mandate for negotiating the agreement with Azerbaijan cannot be viewed in isolation from that for negotiations with Armenia, and both are bound up in the EU’s energy dependence and the acknowledged strategic importance of the Caucasus as a productive and transit region. This is the central reason for updating the existing deep and comprehensive free trade agreement, and for the pressure on the country to join the World Trade Organisation, thereby obliging it to open up its energy market and hand over a substantial part of its sovereignty over its natural resources – energy, specifically – to the multinationals of Europe and other regions in this important sector. Guaranteeing access to and domination of natural resources – particularly energy – is becoming crucial to the EU which, facing a serious crisis, is stepping up its policy of interference. It is also strengthening all its political, economic, diplomatic and other mechanisms for weakening sovereignty, and for subordinating it to the interests of the major EU powers and of the capitalist monopolies lusting after new markets and greater exploitation of the workers, so as to generate the enormous profits that they need to emerge from their profit crisis.

Report: Tomasz Piotr Poręba (A7-0079/2012)

  Damien Abad (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Since 1 July 1999, the EU has been tied to Armenia by a partnership and association agreement. The vote on this resolution has enabled the European Parliament to make recommendations on the ongoing negotiations with Yerevan. As a member of the delegation to the EU-Armenia, EU-Azerbaijan and EU-Georgia parliamentary cooperation committees, I welcome this agreement, which will strengthen relations between the EU and the South Caucasus. I have campaigned for a peaceful and lasting solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. We must give the Minsk Group a leading role in conducting the peace negotiations.

On this point, I am keen to emphasise the major role played by France, a long-standing partner in the region, in the work of this group and how vital it is that it continue to play its rightful part in future negotiations.

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this proposal because it is important to recognise Armenia as a European partner and acknowledge its European aspirations. At the same time, the progress made with the required reforms in this country must be stressed: they facilitate the association agreement, despite concern about corruption and tolerance. However, the most serious concern is about the Nagorno-Karabakh issue, which is covered by this agreement and involves Armenian forces withdrawing from the territory.

  Pino Arlacchi (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report because it recognises Armenia as a key partner of the EU and acknowledges the progress made by this country in the reform process. Nonetheless, it also stresses the need to further step up the fight against corruption and the promotion of tolerance. As in the report on Azerbaijan, we succeeded – thanks to an S&D amendment – to link the negotiation on the association agreement to credible progress being made on the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, including confidence-building measures such as general demilitarisation, withdrawal of snipers from the line of contact and the withdrawal of Armenian forces from occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh. I also strongly support the need to advocate the right of all internally displaced persons and refugees to return to their home settlements and properties.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Talks on an association agreement between the EU and Armenia are on track. I therefore welcomed the motion for a resolution which hails the reforms carried out in Armenia to integrate best practices and the recommendations of the European Union in the areas of justice, freedom and security, including tangible results in terms of migration. However, we expect the parliamentary elections of 6 May in that country to be free and fair. Nevertheless, I have every confidence in Armenia and its willingness to cooperate with the European Union. However, just like in the resolution on Azerbaijan, we are calling on the country to act to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, a destructive conflict that has been ongoing since the fall of the USSR. We have condemned the militarisation of the region and the significant military expenditure of the two countries, and call on their leaders to tone down statements and avoid inflammatory declarations in order to pave the way for a genuine dialogue.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed the European Parliament’s recommendations to the Council, the Commission and the European External Action Service on the conclusion of the EU-Armenia association agreement. Association agreements constitute the appropriate framework for deepening relations, by enhancing political association, socio-economic integration and legal approximation with the EU, and developing cultural relations with third countries. Armenia’s active commitment to shared values and principles, including democracy, the rule of law, good governance and respect for human rights, is essential to take the process and negotiations forward and to ensure the subsequent implementation of the association agreement. Although the Armenian authorities have repeatedly stated their willingness to adhere to these values and have invoked Armenia’s European ambitions, the pace of reforms has not always matched reality. I agree that the association agreement with Armenia must incorporate clauses and benchmarks on the protection and promotion of human rights which reflect the highest international and European standards and guarantee the enjoyment of fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of assembly and association, the development of civil society, the rule of law, the continued fight against corruption, ensuring market competitiveness, and the independence of the media.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of this report on an association agreement with Armenia. This nation has always had strong cultural ties with Europe, despite the latter’s geographical distance, and it is important that the EU should acknowledge these ties by formalising its political relations with Armenia.

On a secondary level, the EU should strengthen its political presence in the Caucasus, which is a region of enormous strategic importance, and one where it is crucial to maintain stability. If these agreements can serve these purposes, then it is right to support them, and I therefore voted for this report.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because the EU-Armenia association agreement would be a comprehensive and forward-looking framework for the future development of relations with Armenia and would enhance political association, economic convergence and legal approximation. This association agreement should emphasise the importance of guaranteeing the enjoyment of fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of assembly and association, the development of civil society, the rule of law, the continued fight against corruption, and the independence of the media. It is also important to ensure that civil society and non-governmental organisations in Armenia are regularly and systematically consulted throughout the association agreement negotiation process and to ensure that their recommendations are noted and taken into account wherever appropriate. It is particularly important to stress the independence of the judiciary, transparent public procurement procedures, the separation of politics from business and the need to dismantle oligarchic structures within the economy, reliable court procedures that guarantee a fair trial and access to justice for all citizens, a safe environment for investigative journalism, access to information and independent and social media. The association agreement should incorporate clauses and benchmarks on the protection and promotion of human rights, which reflect the highest international and European standards, drawing to the fullest possible extent on Council of Europe and OSCE frameworks and the ongoing EU-Armenia Human Rights Dialogue.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – While I support efforts from the international community to recognise and ultimately address ongoing conflict in Armenia, and while it is paramount that ethically sound trade deals and third country negotiations take into account such problems in their creation, I cannot endorse EU negotiations in Armenia as I do not acknowledge the European Union as an entity that should have an individualised and unified approach to foreign affairs. While the report recognises the deficit in democracy, restrictions on individual freedoms and the stifling of expression as administered by the ruling party, it is not the duty of the European Union to highlight and address these issues but of supranational organisations elected to represent the voice of its members in the field of international relations and the sovereign prerogative of nation states themselves.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I agree with the rapporteur that we generally need to strengthen dialogue with our various partners. The European Union must support Armenia in its efforts to strengthen democracy, promote economic development and increase the efficiency of its institutions. I also believe it is crucial to demand that Armenia show its willingness to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict by continuing the negotiation process initiated by the Minsk Group. Stability in the Caucasus is an important issue for the European Union and it should provide answers to the refugee problem. I also note that Parliament will be informed of the implementation of the association agreement.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) Bearing in mind the ongoing negotiations between the EU and Armenia aimed at concluding an association agreement, I think that Armenia’s active commitment to shared values and principles, including democracy, the rule of law, good governance and respect for human rights, is essential for continuing the process and making the negotiations and subsequent implementation of this association agreement a success.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this text which enables a free trade area to be established facilitating the export of European products to the region. As highlighted in the text, in view of the upcoming elections in Armenia, it is vital that EU partners respect the democratic values that we hold so dear. In the same vein, we recall here the importance of respecting the principles of international law in resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict that has been going on for far too long. Like all players in the region, Armenia must make efforts to quickly find a negotiated solution within the framework of the Minsk Group so that people can enjoy a lasting peace.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report because I consider Armenia an important partner of the EU with European aspirations. The rapporteur acknowledges the need for further reforms combating corruption, thereby facilitating negotiations on the association agreement. Concern about the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and the requirement for Armenia to withdraw its forces from occupied Azerbaijan territory are legitimate.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Armenia is a nation with a long history, tradition and culture, and was the first country in the world to adopt Christianity as its religion. The Armenia people suffered for a long time during their domination by the Ottomans and Soviets, and are now taking steps to institutionalise Western-style democracy and rule of law. The association agreement will contribute to bringing Armenia even closer to the European model and will cause it to converge with the EU. It falls to Armenia’s leaders and people to follow this path and to the European Union to support this effort, which we hope will be substantial and fruitful. The upcoming presidential elections will constitute an important test of how steadfastly Armenia is opting for Europe and how committed it is to the values of freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. As with Azerbaijan, there are still sensitive issues here, such as that of Nagorno-Karabakh, in which both countries are involved and which will not be definitively resolved without commitment from both parties.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) One of the EU’s concerns has always been the European Neighbourhood Policy. Political and social stability have been strategic priorities of the EU since its creation, so it has established cooperation agreements with neighbouring countries. This report, by Mr Poręba, includes recommendations by the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission and the European External Action Service on the negotiations for the EU-Armenia association agreement. Throughout the negotiation process, Armenia has demonstrated a level of openness to and interest in moving closer to EU values. However, much remains to be done, particularly with regard to combating organised crime, corruption and human rights violations, as well as to the armed conflict in the Nagorno-Karabakh region, where Armenia still has troops. It is becoming essential that both countries – Armenia and Azerbaijan – urgently adopt the Minsk Group initiatives. I voted for this report and would urge the Armenian authorities to continue with reforms, particularly as regards human rights and freedom of expression, promoting fair and free elections in May.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) As with other agreements of this type, the mandate for negotiating an association agreement with Armenia is replete with unacceptable points. The text does not just concern open interference in the domestic affairs of this country: it also attempts to follow the example of the majority of the EU’s agreements with third countries in which it has interests and conclude a free trade area. As always, it insists on creating conditions for increased exploitation of workers, for opening up markets, for colonising countries, and for attempting to expropriate their national resources. There is a perfunctory reference to the UN Charter and the Helsinki Final Act, which is nothing more than using the parts thereof that serve the interests that the EU is pursuing in the region, ignoring or sidelining aspects that are of no use to them; specifically, those on non-intervention in countries’ domestic affairs, on respect for their sovereignty, on respect for international law and on respect for the inviolability of borders. The stance adopted regarding the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh could pave the way for further fragmentation of the region, thereby increasing instability and danger in the region.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) Association agreements constitute the appropriate framework to strengthen relations, by enhancing political association, socio-economic integration and legal approximation with the EU and developing cultural relations. Armenia’s active commitment to assert shared values and principles, including democracy, the rule of law, good governance and respect for human rights, is the basis for taking the process forward and for the subsequent implementation of the association agreement. The Armenian authorities have repeatedly expressed their willingness to adhere to these values​​. The resolutions do not always accord with reality, however, especially regarding the progress of reforms. Nevertheless, negotiations on the agreement continue at a good pace and are stimulating domestic reform. In my opinion, it is important to ensure that the association agreement is a comprehensive and progressive framework for the future development of relations with Armenia, which will strengthen political association, economic convergence and legal approximation. It is important to incorporate into the agreement a strong parliamentary dimension to ensure that the National Assembly of Armenia and the European Parliament are fully involved in its implementation and monitoring. Similarly, it is necessary to assist the Armenian Parliament technically and financially so that it can fully develop its constitutional functions, bodies and services, including the creation of fully-fledged standing committees and better interaction with civil society. At the same time, I believe that it is equally important to provide for monitoring mechanisms, including the submission of regular reports to the European Parliament.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) The 20-year old unresolved conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh figures prominently in this report. However, in the recommendations on Nagorno-Karabakh, there appears to be some disparity in the treatment of allegations against the Armenian authorities. While these recommendations are intended to promote a speedy resolution to the conflict, they could have a counterproductive effect, breaking the parallelism of the European language towards Armenia and Azerbaijan. That is why I voted against this report.

  Małgorzata Handzlik (PPE), in writing. – (PL) Association agreements are an important instrument for building and strengthening bilateral relations. Thanks to bilateral contacts, it is not just the EU which can more clearly defend its strategic interests, but the partner country concerned also has the opportunity to present its situation in more detail, adjust bilateral relations to it and, if necessary, develop and improve its political and economic situation. An important aspect is the possibility to enhance political association and socio-economic integration and to develop cultural relations. Armenia has European ambitions and is a country committed to values such as democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights. Examples of this are Armenia’s participation in multilateral parliamentary cooperation in the framework of Euronest and the good pace of reforms being carried out in Armenia. I think it is essential to provide more advanced stimulation of the development of relations with Armenia, so I welcome the report the European Parliament has adopted today, which contains appropriate recommendations for the Commission, the Council and the European External Action Service which, amongst other things, underscore the necessity of creating a framework for the future development of relations with Armenia. The association agreement which is being negotiated will be just such an instrument, one which will enhance political association and will also be a catalyst supporting human rights and democracy. However, during the negotiation process itself, the parties should attend to and strive for solutions to the most urgent questions, such as the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, encouragement to hold systematic consultations with society and the need for democratic elections.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report, which aims to clarify the European Parliament’s position in relation to the negotiation of an EU-Armenia association agreement. The purpose of this association agreement is to strengthen political dialogue as well as economic integration between the parties (through the introduction of a free trade area). The report urges Armenia to continue its democratic reforms and supports the resolution of the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh.

  Agnès Le Brun (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this own-initiative report, which advocates the European Parliament’s position in ongoing negotiations on entering into an EU-Armenia association agreement. This agreement seeks to strengthen the political and economic ties between the EU and Armenia and to create a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area (DCFTA). In addition, the report highlights the efforts made by Armenia in terms of respect for human rights, and calls on it to be particularly vigilant during the upcoming presidential elections in 2013.

  Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE), in writing. – (PL) Armenia is a country which receives EU assistance and is part of the Eastern Partnership. The perspectives for Armenia’s further economic development are, to a great extent, dependent on finding solutions to the country’s many internal problems, and also on its European partners. I think the negotiations on the EU-Armenia association agreement are very important, and they should be based on stability and the democratic development of the region. In view of the fact that the Armenian authorities are giving great emphasis to their European goals and the need to propagate democratic values and principles, I endorsed the Poręba report on the negotiations concerning the EU-Armenia association agreement.

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE), in writing. – I voted in favour of the resolution because I believe the European Union must continue its good cooperation with the Armenian authorities. We must show support for the implementation of reforms, in particular, concerning the judiciary and law enforcement institutions. The EU should help Armenia on its way towards deeper democracy. This transformation cannot take place without implementing good laws to fight corruption, money laundering, and organised crime, or without a functioning and responsible judiciary. The test for politicians, prosecutors and judges is the high level of corruption cases, so these should be a priority. Transparency of income and expenditure should also be a top objective. The upcoming elections on 6 May are a test for Armenian democracy. The European Parliament must continue to monitor the situation and call on the government to ensure a level playing field for all political parties. We should also support the continuation of confidence-building measures in the Nagorno-Karabakh negotiations. A successful resolution of this conflict can only take place within the framework of international law.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I welcome this resolution, which calls for the incorporation into the association agreement of clauses and benchmarks on the protection and promotion of human rights which reflect the highest international and European standards, drawing to the fullest possible extent on Council of Europe and OSCE frameworks and the ongoing EU-Armenia Human Rights Dialogue.

  Emma McClarkin (ECR), in writing. – An association agreement between the EU and Armenia is in the interests of both parties. We in the EU have a stake in a stable and democratic Armenia, while Armenia has European aspirations of its own. Therefore, this report is important for laying the foundations of negotiations. A crucial factor in these negotiations are the elections, which are to be held on 6 May of this year, and it is right that the proper conduct of these elections plays a vital part in the future development of EU-Armenia relations. However, as the report points out, this also includes plurality, freedom of political discourse, free speech and media and freedom of assembly throughout the entire election process. A second important factor must also be the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, and I am happy that this report addresses that issue. I fully support confidence-building measures such as demilitarisation, as well as human rights measures such as the right of all internally displaced persons and refugees to return to their homes. I am therefore happy to vote in favour of this report, which is based upon such strong recommendations.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Armenia is today taking important steps towards establishing itself as a Western-style democracy under the rule of law. The purpose of this association agreement is to contribute to Armenia becoming an economically and politically stronger country. The upcoming presidential elections will be crucial for Armenia to attest to its desire to stick to the values of freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Like with Azerbaijan, there are still sensitive issues here, such as that of Nagorno-Karabakh, in which both countries are involved and which will not be definitively resolved without a firm commitment from both involved parties.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – As a shadow rapporteur, I welcome the progress made by Armenia in negotiations on the association agreement and the calls on it to deepen reforms in order to fulfil the European aspirations of the Armenian people. It is necessary to develop the negotiation process with Azerbaijan and endeavour to resolve the problems by diplomatic means only. I voted in favour.

  Kristiina Ojuland (ALDE), in writing. – I voted in favour of Tomasz Piotr Poręba’s report as it outlines the importance of resolving the frozen conflict of Nagorno-Karabakh, just like Anneli Jääteenmäki’s report. It is pivotal that the conflict is resolved before the EEAS goes on with the EU-Armenia association agreement. Armenia must respect the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and cease the settlement-building programme in the occupied territories of Nagorno-Karabakh. Artificial increasing of the Armenian population in the occupied territories is an alarming signal and Armenia should, in any case, avoid adding fuel to the fire.

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE), in writing. – (ET) I supported this report, which clearly cited the advances and areas of concern in the negotiations over the association agreement with Armenia. I am still very concerned about the high level of corruption prevailing in Armenia and the explosive situation in Nagorno-Karabakh. It is sad to see that the already long-dead Soviet dictator, Joseph Stalin, is still able to provoke various conflicts through his unjust division of borders between republics, hence my appeal to refuse to obey the wishes of the Red Executioner, and to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict using peaceful means. Here, I believe that the role of the European Union, the Republic of Turkey and the Russian Federation as peace mediators is an important one. As regards the criticism of Armenia concerning its friendly relations with the extremist Iranian regime, this is certainly reprehensible, but also partly understandable for pragmatic reasons, since Armenia is surrounded by Turkic peoples who have established an extensive blockade of the country. The narrow Georgian trade corridor is, unfortunately, too small for Armenia to be able to manage independently and emerge from isolation. I hope the various parties will be able to move forward without excessive emotions and concentrate on the future and not the past. A conflict-free situation would be beneficial to all of the countries in the region.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) In order to ensure that negotiations between the EU and Armenia are successful and that an effectively functioning and mutually beneficial association agreement is concluded, it is essential for Armenia to carry out political, economic and judicial reforms in its country. I welcome the proposal calling on the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan to behave more responsibly and to tone down statements and refrain from inflammatory declarations in order to pave the way for a constructive dialogue at all levels of society. I also believe that Armenia should reduce its military spending and allocate more funds to such important issues as poverty reduction, social security and economic development.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I welcome the congratulations given to Armenia over the implementation of democratic reforms, greater freedom of speech and human rights in the country and the ambitious goal of organising the freest elections in the country’s history on 6 May. Armenia is showing that EU integration is becoming an increasingly clear priority for the country. As the greatest project for implementing peace and social justice, the European Union is also an example to Armenia, showing that peace can also be achieved in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict that has been going on for 20 years. The resolution of the conflict should begin with an agreement between the EU and Armenia to build relations on the basis of shared values. I invite the EU to call on Armenia to act more constructively to resolve the conflict, to withdraw military forces from the occupied territories, and to let forces from the international community maintain peace there. I welcome the report because it proposes EU and Armenian visa liberalisation to develop people-to-people contacts as soon as the country fulfils the EU’s democratisation and conflict resolution requirements.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) As I have pointed out, I am in favour of this agreement as far as the state of Azerbaijan is concerned. The development of negotiations relating to the EU-Armenia association agreement will encourage progress towards a more democratic way of life, and another major goal will be to achieve effective economic and social collaboration. Following this type of cooperation, the EU may also take a stronger position in the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the Nagorno-Karabakh region, which has been the subject of a dispute between the two countries for some time.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report, which includes recommendations by the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission and the European External Action Service on negotiations concerning the EU-Armenia association agreement. I am doing so because association agreements constitute the appropriate framework for deepening relations, by enhancing political association, socio-economic integration and legal approximation with the EU, and by developing cultural relations; it is also because I agree with most of the content of the recommendations tabled.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report concerns the negotiations on the EU-Armenia association agreement. These association agreements are the proper framework for deepening relations, both through efforts at political association and socio-economic integration, and through increasing judicial approximation with the EU. Armenia’s desire to establish the bases for genuine regional cooperation as envisaged in the underlying principles of the European Neighbourhood Policy is welcome, as are the country’s efforts to respect democratic values, the rule of law and good governance practice, and to promote respect for human rights. However, the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict needs to be resolved quickly and peacefully, since any threat of the use of force jeopardises the international community’s joint efforts. I voted for this report for the aforementioned reasons.

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I applaud Mr Poręba for his work on this report.

With the approval of this motion for a resolution, given the ongoing negotiations between the EU and Armenia on the association agreement and the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA) between Armenia and the European Union, which entered into force on 1 July 1999, the European Parliament recognises Armenia’s aspirations and considers them a necessary catalyst for implementation of reforms and public support for these reforms aimed at strengthening Armenia’s commitment to shared values and the principles of the rule of law, respect for human rights and good governance.

With this report, Parliament wants to encourage the Armenian authorities to continue to develop the defence of human rights, in particular, by providing additional financial and human resources and supporting the newly established regional offices.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. The two joint amendments asking the EU to replace France as co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group and expressing concern at Armenia’s high military expenditures were adopted.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The negotiations on the EU-Armenia association agreement constitute the appropriate framework for deepening relations with Armenia by enhancing political association, socio-economic integration and legal approximation with the EU, and developing cultural relations and stimulating internal reforms.

It is important to recognise Armenia’s active commitment to shared values, including democracy, the rule of law, good governance and respect for human rights, which are fundamental elements for making negotiations on, and the subsequent implementation of, the association agreement a success.

Finally, I hope the forthcoming parliamentary elections due to take place on 6 May 2012 will be properly conducted, as these will be of the utmost importance for the development of EU-Armenia relations.

  Tokia Saïfi (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The association agreement that I supported in plenary aims to strengthen ties between the EU and Armenia. Armenia’s European aspirations are an excellent lever for promoting democratisation and should be exploited to speed up the pace of reforms. For, in accordance with the ‘more for more’ principle, European integration of Armenia will continue apace if this condition is met. Sectoral cooperation between the EU and Armenia is intended to strengthen political dialogue, but also socio-economic integration and legal convergence. EU-Armenia rapprochement is also a regional matter. The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict has a major negative impact on development and stability in the South Caucasus. Above all, the tensions that it generates isolate Armenia and motivate it to adopt a policy on Iran that is out of sync with EU policy. I would say that the alternative, European integration, has got to be the best answer.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I am pleased that here in Parliament, we are talking about the EU’s relations with Armenia, and that the report on which we voted clearly indicates what I consider to be a fundamental problem in relations with the country, and that is the unresolved problem of Nagorno-Karabakh.

It is increasingly common to hear talk of war in Karabakh. Talk of this kind has come from representatives of the political leadership in Baku, political scientists and experts. Karabakh is internationally recognised as being part of Azerbaijan. The fact that, by creating an atmosphere of fear and periodically threatening the renewal of hostilities, Azerbaijan can present the simple fact of not attacking and not conceding anything else to Armenia as a compromise is the political strategy we have been seeing for quite some time now.

Azerbaijan works hard to make sure the threat of war is constantly present, in order to ensure that not fighting still appears to be a concession. This is no longer a secret; it is openly talked about. Therefore, I think it is important to remember that the demilitarisation of the region and withdrawal of Armenian troops from the occupied territories are essential conditions for maintaining the dialogue and negotiations in the context of Euronest.

  Monika Smolková (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The strategic interests of the EU, stability and democratic development in the region, and the active commitment of Armenia to consistently follow the rules in the assertion of common values ​​can be a good basis for implementing the association agreement. The Armenian authorities repeatedly express their willingness to adhere to these values​​ and confirm the European ambitions of Armenia. In these efforts, however, Nagorno-Karabakh resonates very strongly, and I expect both parties to make significant progress in resolving this conflict as a result of this agreement. I voted for it because I expect the more than 20 years of suffering of the people of Nagorno-Karabakh to end soon, and displaced persons and refugees to be able to return to their homes and to be able to use their property and start to live their lives in free and peaceful conditions.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The EU-Armenia association agreement is intended to deepen relations between both parties by enhancing political dialogue, boosting economic integration, and establishing an agreement with a view to a free trade area and sectoral approximation. As regards the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, it is important to insist on respect for the principles of international law and the need to enhance the European Union’s ability to resolve the conflict.

  Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE), in writing. – I agree on the effort that the European Union is doing in this negotiation with Armenia, and I hope they can find their way to democracy, freedom and implementation of human rights, transparency, and independence from the judiciary and fight against corruption. I encourage this Eastern country to keep on joining the European values, though the way is not going to be easy. That is why I will vote in favour of this report.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the report concerning negotiations on the EU-Armenia association agreement. This agreement is a comprehensive, forward-looking framework for the future development of relations with Armenia, promoting political association, economic convergence and legislative harmonisation. Armenia’s active commitment to shared values and principles, including democracy, the rule of law, good governance and respect for human rights, is vital for continuing the process and making the negotiations and subsequent implementation of this association agreement a success. Armenia must, as part of the negotiations, treat youth and academic mobility as a priority with the aim of signing agreements for facilitating a visa waiver. Armenia must also improve its national higher education legislation, with a special emphasis on the legal regulation of student internships in accordance with the Bologna process. We call for the transparent management of public finances and the improvement of public procurement legislation with a view to ensuring good governance and a transparent decision-making process.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – Armenia is a prominent area for the peaceful cohabitation of Central Asian peoples. Its position in the South Caucasus enables it to be at the centre of the strategic dialogue on the crisis in Georgia, South Caucasus and Nagorno-Karabakh. The EU therefore stresses the importance of an association agreement with Armenia. Close cooperation between the EU and Armenia could be an effective tool to solve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and develop stability and peace in this area bordering Azerbaijan. Furthermore, it would represent an additional way to call on Armenia to stop the illegal activities carried out by Armenian troops in the occupied Azerbaijani territories, namely, regular military manoeuvres, the renewal of military hardware and personnel and the deepening of defensive echelons.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. – (PL) I welcome the fact that this important report was drafted by my fellow countryman, Tomasz Poręba, who, like every Pole, knows very well how important the Eastern Dimension is in the European Neighbourhood Policy. It is good that the European Parliament is working to develop the Eastern Partnership. We are all very well aware of the importance of strengthening bilateral relations between the EU and Armenia with an association agreement, and we also know what the consequences of this will be for the development of the entire region of the Southern Caucasus. We are making efforts to enhance political association, socio-economic integration, legal approximation and even development of cultural relations. I personally think, however, that at the moment, we must lay the greatest emphasis on the question of security, which means taking specific action to end the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. When we have overcome that problem, we will be able to talk about other aspects of cooperation, and even about cooperation on culture and entertainment.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Despite some situations, like the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, which are hindering stability and development in this geographical area, I believe that the association agreements are an appropriate instrument for deepening and improving political and commercial relations and developing cultural relations with Armenia and the countries of the South Caucasus.

Armenia’s European ambitions are also the right lever and necessary catalyst for strengthening the Armenian Government’s commitment to shared values and the principles of the rule of law, in particular, respect for human rights and good governance, and for helping to ensure a successful outcome for the association agreement with the EU.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The mandate for negotiating an association agreement with Armenia is replete with unacceptable points for a text that does not just concern open interference in the domestic affairs of this country, which is already serious enough: it also attempts to follow the example of the majority of the EU’s agreements with third countries in which it has interests and conclude a free trade area. As always, it insists on creating conditions for increased exploitation of workers, for opening up markets, and for colonising countries and their national resources. They mention the UN Charter and the Helsinki Final Act as if they respected them, but what they are doing is nothing more than using the parts thereof that serve the interests that the EU is pursuing in the region, relegating or sidelining aspects that are of no use to them; specifically, those on non-intervention in countries’ domestic affairs, on respect for their sovereignty, on respect for international law and on respect for the inviolability of borders. Instead of contributing to resolving the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh, they pave the way for further fragmentation of the region, by implicitly supporting its independence, thereby increasing instability and danger in the region.

11. Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes

(The sitting was suspended at 13.30 and resumed at 15.00)

IN THE CHAIR: MARTIN SCHULZ
President

12. Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting: see Minutes

13. Means to combat the economic crisis, particularly in the eurozone (debate)

  President. – The next item is a statement by the President of the Commission on the subject of means to combat the economic crisis, particularly in the eurozone.

  José Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, during our previous debates, we agreed that the financial and economic crisis can only be overcome if we combine financial stability and fiscal consolidation with measures that generate growth and jobs. The economic situation in Europe does not allow for any complacency, and we must continue to take the necessary steps not just to ensure stability but to build sustainable growth and job creation.

I am therefore grateful for the opportunity to formally present to you today – immediately after their adoption by the Commission – two concrete initiatives which address issues which we have discussed at length and where we are in agreement that significant measures need to be taken.

First, as part of the effort to tackle the single biggest social challenge which we face, the Commission yesterday adopted an employment package. I have previously reported to this House on some of the targeted measures we are taking, such as support for small and medium-sized enterprises, the Youth Employment Initiative and the Commission action teams, which are working in Member States facing a more acute situation in terms of youth unemployment.

The communication adopted by the Commission today takes an even broader, structural perspective. Creating jobs across Europe and meeting the Europe 2020 employment target requires the concerted efforts of all actors. The communication therefore puts forward a range of actions at all levels. These include proposals to maximise the job-creating effects of the European Union budgetary instruments and policy guidance on supporting job creation, especially in areas with great potential such as the green economy, health care and the ICT sector. These are just a number of labour market reforms.

At the heart of the communication is also a desire to remove obstacles to a genuine internal European labour market. Creating such a market will require action from national governments but also – and I will insist on this – the full involvement of the social partners at European and national level.

While the communication can take us a long way towards reinforcing the conditions for job creation, implementation on the ground is very much in the hands of the Member States. I would urge the Member States to move forward quickly and take the necessary steps at national level to help foster such conditions.

The second communication we have just adopted is about growth for Greece. Again, we are all in agreement on the need both to ensure that Greece delivers on its commitments and to support Greece and its people. The great efforts made by the Greek authorities and the Greek people in recent months in taking the measures necessary to secure the second programme open the way for this communication.

The set of priority actions it proposes ranges from promoting youth employment to tax reform, from investing in education to smart regulation. These actions, if properly implemented, should quickly unblock growth, create jobs and mitigate the social impact of the crisis. Beyond this, with the determination on the side of all the Greeks and the full support of the European Union, we can transform Greece for the better. I would like to tell the Greek people that we shall succeed together.

There have been many calls for greater solidarity, for a kind of Marshall Plan for Greece. Let us recall that the assistance provided under the Marshall Plan amounted to around 2.1% of the GDP of the recipients. The total package of assistance to Greece, if we consider the funds, grants from the Structural Funds, the loans and the write-off of private debt, is equivalent to 177% of Greek GDP. Yes, almost twice the growth Greece can generate in one year. This is a very visible symbol of the solidarity which lies at the heart of the Union. This shows that we are acting and making an enormous effort to help Greece stand on its own feet. We will continue to do so.

Honourable Members, we have learned from the past. We cannot have growth mainly fuelled by debt or imbalanced growth where one sector expands to the detriment of others. Growth has to be built on the foundation of competitiveness. It should be socially inclusive and environmentally sustainable. Let me give some examples of how we are moving the growth agenda forward in Europe.

Firstly, the single market: further releasing the full potential of the single market. This is probably the largest engine for growth in the European Union. It gives European business unfettered access to other companies and half a billion consumers and allows them to develop the scale to compete globally. Getting the most out of a properly functioning single market is indeed economic policy par excellence. This is why the Commission has been working for the past two years to put an enhanced single market at the service of the Europe 2020 objectives.

So it is incomprehensible that Member States are still not fully implementing the growth-friendly legislation we already have in place. Full implementation of the Service Directive will produce immediate results and boost the European economy by 1.5%.

The single market infringement rate in Europe is still too high. Again, if Member States are ready to move, this can deliver results fast. The Commission will present a range of ideas for improving single market governance and filling the implementation gap ahead of the June European Council.

Of course, we also need to continue our work to further enhance the single market, and indeed to complete the single market. The Commission, as you know, has presented the Single Market Act, and I again urge Member States and this House to play a constructive role in ensuring that the laws are adopted and come into force quickly. This is the only way for our SMEs and for our consumers to enjoy the full benefit of the single market.

I would like to confirm to you that later this year, the Commission will put forward the Single Market Act II to further advance our efforts to unleash the full job and growth potential of the single market. At the same time, we are working hard on achieving the digital single market.

Secondly, there is – and it is important to be reminded of this – the international dimension of growth. Our external policies need to focus on access to those markets in the world that are growing faster. We now have a free trade agreement with Korea which stands to bring us EUR 18 billion in additional trade, and similar agreements are being negotiated with a number of strategic partners, including India.

But let us not stop there. The United States is our largest economic partner. Our trade relations are the most extensive in the world, with a value of almost EUR 450 billion in 2011, and we have invested over EUR 1 trillion in each other’s economies. Any further gains, including by reducing non-tariff barriers, will be significant for both sides. We are exploring ways in which to broaden and deepen these ties.

In the global economy, the size of your market and the strength of your currency will determine your ability to compete, your capacity to shape the global economy and also your future prosperity. There is no strong economy without a strong currency. There cannot be a strong Europe without a strong euro. It is therefore no surprise that those who oppose a strong Europe also do whatever they can to undermine the euro.

Our Europe 2020 strategy has a breadth of vision and a depth of substance which goes far beyond any one narrow perspective or single course of action. It also has the flexibility to adapt and throw up new ideas and, indeed, be the basis for a new European initiative for growth. In this respect, investment is key. Investment at European level is vital, especially at a time when there is little fiscal space at national level. Of course, the multiannual financial framework is one of the main tools for delivering the Europe 2020 strategy. It is a tool for investment, growth and job creation across the whole European Union, from our capitals to our most deprived regions.

So let us make it clear that we are for investment and for growth. That is why we need the MFF, and that is why we need, in some cases, to frontload some of the investments. By investing in infrastructure, networks and research on a European scale, the European Union channels resources that help to complete our internal market, increase our efficiency and support the sustainability of our economy.

I believe that, to boost growth, some of the investments must be frontloaded. This is why the Commission has proposed pilot project bonds, which the European Council agreed in principle in March and which I would like to see on the ground as soon as possible. It is also why today, I would like to recall that, as I have already mentioned in this House – on 28 September 2011, in the State of the Union address, to be precise – I am in favour – and the Commission is in favour – of an increase in the capital of the European Investment Bank.

Moreover, with our proposals for a financial transaction tax to contribute to the budget, we are also making clear that this budget is not only a budget for investment but for solidarity. It is also a question of fairness, and fairness is important for the support of the reforms that are needed in Europe. Our strategy must ensure a fair spread of the benefits and burdens which reform will bring. It must be inclusive.

The current crisis has thrown into sharp relief the question of social cohesion. The Commission and I do not believe that the European social model is dead. We believe that it is an essential part of our social market economy. At the same time, the crisis we face is not just a fiscal debt crisis, it is also a crisis of competitiveness. It is an economic crisis. In order to sustain our social model, we need not just to pursue fiscal consolidation but also to regain our competitiveness, which is key to sustaining our social market economy.

Let me also tell you very frankly that I do not understand how it is possible that, at this especially difficult moment for Europe – while we have in some countries and many regions a real social emergency and an increase in social difficulties and, in some cases, in poverty – some governments in Europe are now calling for cuts in European programmes such as the Globalisation Adjustment Fund and support for the very poorest in our societies. As I have said before, discipline must be accompanied by convergence and responsibility matched by solidarity. I can see that we are not doing enough in terms of solidarity at European level.

(FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we must show our resolve against criticism of our exit strategy by those whose goals are not always in the interests of the European Union and the euro.

We must show our confidence in those who are driving efforts as we reform our economies and put our public finances in order. These reforms are important. These efforts are essential. We need to move on from practices that have been very successful for a few but have come at a great cost for many others, in particular, the most vulnerable in our societies. We must not give in to the temptation to kick-start our economies through budgetary stimulus as this would create a false sense of sustainable growth. This would be returning to past mistakes with their own set of consequences, which we have been suffering for years.

We must complete the reform of the financial sector and, in this regard, the Commission has already presented proposals to banish the spectre of speculation which could create new risks, so that this sector fully regains its core purpose, that of serving the real economy and covering existing economic risks.

To return to sustainable growth and create jobs, we must stay the course we have set ourselves. We must spare no effort in implementing elements of last October’s road map, which is our exit strategy.

Remember that one of the pillars of the road map in question is to strengthen the firewall around the euro area. We now have an agreement that will strengthen the mechanisms in place to support Member States in financial difficulty and which will embark upon both vital yet difficult reforms.

May I remind you that the European Stability Mechanism will have EUR 620 billion of callable capital, more than any other international financial institution. Its capacity of EUR 500 billion is almost equivalent to that of the International Monetary Fund, which deals with the entire world. What is more, we should remember – because there is a tendency to forget – that the Member States of the European Union are by far the main contributors to the International Monetary Fund. However, there is no room for complacency. Both the Commission and I remain convinced that the key to effective budgetary discipline and convergence in the euro area lies in the pooling of public debt.

In addition, work on the European Semester continues. For the first time, this year we will have an integrated vision of the situation of Member States, in particular, with the inclusion of the mechanism for the correction of macro-economic imbalances. Member States are in the process of submitting their national reform programmes and updates of their stability or convergence programmes. In May, the Commission will present its country specific recommendations based on its analysis of these programmes.

Rest assured that the Commission will be taking this work seriously and adopting a truly integrated approach. Thanks also to you, we now have the instruments for this kind of exercise, something we did not have in the past. For the purposes of competitiveness and inclusive and sustainable growth, the Commission will not hesitate to put Member States before their own responsibilities to ensure the reforms are put in place.

The situation is clearly still difficult. National authorities and our citizens are clearly making considerable efforts, yet we have some positive examples showing that these efforts are beginning to bear fruit.

For instance, Latvia is living proof that implementing a demanding programme of fiscal consolidation and renewed growth is possible. We have also seen early signs of a boost in exports in Ireland and Portugal.

There are indeed great difficulties, but there is also some progress. We need to build on this progress. Our work will not be easy. My message has never been one of complacency. I have never said that the crisis was behind us.

We must be relentless and serious in continuing our work together, showing coherence, sustainability, persistence and determination. We realise that it is a long drawn-out process with no magic solution, a process to ensure the future of our social market economy, a process to ensure the role of Europe in the world and to meet the needs and wishes of our citizens.

That is the Europe that we want. That is the Europe that we are fighting for.

(Applause)

  Joseph Daul, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in terms of European fiscal discipline, we have achieved a lot in a short space of time. What we did was necessary, because in 2008 and last autumn, we were on the brink of disaster and we almost lost everything: the euro, our financial system, but, above all, our credibility in the world and our social model.

We now have the instruments for greater discipline. We needed to do all of this so that Europe could regain its credibility. We needed to do all of this to create the conditions for a return to growth. Growth which, being the only way to get us out of crisis, must be at the heart of our debates, starting with this afternoon’s. We cannot achieve growth by passing laws, but what we can do is create the conditions for a return to sustainable growth. How so?

Firstly, by focusing on European policies for growth and employment and putting others on hold. This means acting quickly to conduct a qualitative audit of European public expenditure so that we can make informed decisions. The EU budget must be one of the key instruments for kick-starting the European economy.

Therefore, having done it with fiscal discipline, I propose a joint initiative committing us to growth, an initiative that would make the EU budget a reserve for investment for all of us. The growth principle needs to be the equivalent of the principle of subsidiarity. This principle would mean that each proposal, each EU policy would, in future, have to demonstrate how it contributes to growth. No potential for growth, no money. That should be our rule for the next two years. This principle would mean that we could, for example, examine the issue of trade agreements. Are we gaining market shares or are we losing them? Are we gaining jobs or are we losing them?

Another point close to my heart, as you know, is the single market. Twenty years after its launch, as I have already said and I will go on saying, we have a duty to achieve it fully. Our 23 million small and medium-sized enterprises need it, because unlike the major players, they cannot adapt to the competitiveness gaps that still exist today. We therefore have to do it for our SMEs, the very ones who, over the past decade, have created 85% of new jobs.

Business leaders are now being accused of being rich. Did you know that, like me, these bosses of small and medium-sized enterprises earn at most just EUR 1 000 to 1 200 and are looking for contracts that will guarantee employment to the workers of their SMEs. Here, too, Mr Barroso, we need to support them so that the banks offer finance to small and medium-sized enterprises. Instead, they are dropping them, and that is not right. We need to establish a more effective support. We need to adopt a much stricter approach in order to maintain support for small and medium-sized enterprises. These are jobs that exist and we do not want to lose them.

On the completion of the single market, let me add another point: we need to reduce paperwork and red tape which, alone, costs our economy nearly EUR 40 billion. We need to simplify matters in order to move on.

Ladies and gentlemen, the growth we need to kick-start our economy is not the growth of the future. What we need, right now, is to rapidly increase the added value that these companies bring. What we need is productivity gains in public services. What we need is an employment policy adapted to the new situation and I welcome the proposals adopted by the Commission this morning in this regard.

The markets have already shown renewed confidence in the Union. This confidence will remain thanks to the unprecedented discipline and solidarity of Europeans. Such solidarity was inconceivable just two years ago. I also welcome the Commission’s plan for putting the Greek economy and its public finances back on a sustainable path and for guaranteeing financial stability in that country and in the euro area as a whole. It is now up to our Greek friends, whose courage I commend, to stay the course, before and after the upcoming elections.

Ladies and gentlemen, we must make the most of this new impetus to step up a gear and urgently refocus the EU’s action and budget on real growth. I would like to thank the Commission – José Manuel and his team – for their work, which is no mean feat, and I also call on the Member States to move up a gear as they are the ones with deficits. It is now time for them to move back up into top gear to restore growth and jobs.

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

  Sven Giegold (Verts/ALE), Blue-card question. – (DE) Mr President, Mr Daul, I listened carefully to what you said. What you are proposing – in other words, imposing a growth test on all expenditure alongside the subsidiarity test – means narrowing the objectives down to just growth. I would like you to tell me how you reconcile that with the manifesto of a Christian Democrat group which still has objectives that extend beyond growth.

  Joseph Daul (PPE), Blue-card answer. – (FR) I will do what my friend, Georges Marchais, used to do. I did not understand the question but I will give you an answer anyway.

Anyhow, my dear friend, the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) is responsible for what is happening in the various countries as we shoulder our responsibility. If we have made mistakes, then we need to accept where we went wrong. That is the first point.

As for the second, I do not understand what you are saying about my group. We voted for the ‘six-pack’, that was the first point. We are currently preparing the ‘two-pack’, and I do hope it will be based on the growth and employment model favoured by you.

As I way saying … I do not really know what you were driving at … I am also a company director working on a voluntary basis to manage my company employing just 160 people. I do not get a penny from it. We have faced difficulties four or five times now and, each time, with the help of my employees, we have managed to get ourselves out of trouble. However, we are not yet out of the crisis and that is why I maintain that it is vital that we keep the jobs we have and create new ones.

That is my answer, my dear friend.

  President. – Mr Daul, we will put it on record that Georges Marchais was a friend of yours. I think that is news to this House.

  Hannes Swoboda, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (DE) Mr President, perhaps the French conservatives need the comradeship of Georges Marchais to win the election. That is a different issue, however.

President Barroso, I listened to what you said very carefully. I can support much of what you have said. However, I ask myself whether that is really what the Commission is doing. When I look at what is being demanded in the Troika, for example – sorry to come back to that – I see that far too short a deadline is still being demanded for balancing budgets. How do you answer Mr Rajoy when he quite rightly points out that he cannot meet this deadline? What do you say to Ms Lagarde, what do you tell Mr Zoellick, when they point out that the policy of budget balancing that is being pursued is far too narrow and short-sighted?

Just as before, the Commission is still calling for more flexibility and less security in many countries. That is a misunderstanding of the concept of flexicurity: less security and more flexibility. Moreover, just as before, it is believed that the solution lies in marginalising unions and workers, rather than ensuring that they also take responsibility. What we want is a genuine growth strategy. However, President Barroso, if you say ‘Well, that is subsidiarity’, then I would counter that subsidiarity applies to the budget, too. Even you cannot resolve the budget problems, yet you are pushing for us to have common legislation. Why is it that when it comes to employment policy, we only get declarations, wishes and requests? Yet for the budget we have strict laws, obligations and sanctions. That is not a balanced situation, and we cannot accept it.

We need a genuine growth policy. That is what we are calling for. If Mr Sarkozy points out to his challenger François Hollande that writing the word ‘growth’ in a treaty is not enough in order to achieve it, why should he then need a treaty for fiscal union? Why has he not already been pursuing a growth policy for a long time? It is entirely possible to do so. I have greater confidence in the Financial Times, which says ‘It is encouraging that an increasing number of politicians, including François Hollande, the French presidential hopeful candidate, are calling for a European growth strategy’. As this proves, where growth is concerned, the Financial Times is more progressive than Mr Sarkozy. I have already mentioned what Mr Zoellick said recently and what Ms Lagarde said at yesterday’s presentation. We are demanding a great deal from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). However, we are not prepared to pursue a policy that allows the IMF to support us appropriately. Ms Lagarde is calling for lasting fiscal initiatives that provide sufficient room to stimulate growth.

If you therefore present an employment package, if you present a growth strategy that we can support, then you must also tell your colleagues who go out into the countries and look at their budgetary policy that a budget policy that allows growth is also to be practised there. That is also something that I demand of the Commission: a budget policy that allows growth. That is the only way we will really achieve growth.

Unfortunately, Mr Draghi is not here, but naturally, this is also related to the European Central Bank (ECB). Much of what the ECB is doing, it is actually doing without appropriate support from policy, although the European Central Bank is, of course, also tasked with supporting the general economic policy of the EU. Many of those who criticise the ECB tend to overlook that fact. It is therefore not necessarily the case that rules need to be changed beforehand. I having nothing against our changing the rules in the way proposed by Mr Sarkozy. However, we have to conduct a growth policy that corresponds to what the ECB is trying to achieve as a support vehicle.

President Barroso, I do not deny that there are also a few positive proposals. You have stuck your neck out where the financial transaction tax is concerned. On that front, we are still waiting for the Council, Mr Daul, and for the members of the governments, who are still extremely hesitant. You have now presented an employment package. It contains lots of approaches. Some of it is too ambivalent for us; some of it has not been expressed in sufficiently clear terms. Anyone who reads the statistics clearly, however, will see that the countries that are successful have not achieved that success by getting rid of social security and the influence of the unions; on the contrary. You only have to look at Germany and my own country, Austria, which is also giving the lie once again to the idea that we absolutely have to reduce social security and that more flexibility and less social security is a growth strategy. That is not a growth strategy.

I support what you said regarding the European capital markets, that we can borrow money. I very much support what you said regarding the European Investment Bank, which could have started doing more a long time ago. Yet the problem remains that we are doing too little to counter unemployment, and youth unemployment in particular. President Barroso, it is not simply an economic issue. You know that very well. It is also a social issue and, in the final event, a political issue. How are we supposed to save political democracy in Europe when so many people – so many young people – are unemployed and giving up hope? If they despair of this Europe and despair of democracy in Europe, then eventually it leads to their electing extremist parties. That is the great challenge that we face.

To quote Mr Zoellick once more, ‘show people who want to work that you want them to work’. That is our job, and that is what we must do. Otherwise, I fear that we will be on a similar course to the Titanic. If we want to avoid heading for an economic, political and social iceberg, then it is essential that what is in the employment package is transformed into actual legislation. Declarations are not enough. We need strong, binding legislation in the area of employment policy too.

(Applause)

  Guy Verhofstadt, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, so, Mr Barroso, it is just one month ago that we had our last debate on the euro crisis here. It was on 13 March, and you remember what happened. Statements were made to the effect that the crisis was over, that we had reached a turning point, that the worst was behind us – statements not made by you, I have to recognise and underline that; the Commission did not do that, but statements by Mr Van Rompuy, Mr Draghi, Mr Jünker, and also by Mr Sarkozy (but for quite obvious other reasons).

What I deplore is that none of all these people is here today, when we invited them to come to this Parliament. Mr Draghi is not here, and Mr Jünker had no time; the Council is also not here – there are a number of civil servants, but the Council is not here. In the middle of a euro crisis, when they were stating a month ago that everything was done and the worst was behind us, they do not have the courage to be here. It is a lack of courage that I want to deplore today.

Secondly, the real thing is that we all know that the crisis is not over. We said it here one month ago, on 13 March. We introduced austerity; we have established emergency funds; we have injected one trillion euro into the banking system; we have bought more than EUR 100 billion of sovereign debt from countries like Portugal, Ireland and Italy; we have decided on the biggest haircut in the history of the world (what happened with the Greek debt is the biggest haircut ever carried out) – and what is the result? The result is that interest rates in Spain and Italy today are back where they were six months ago, at around 6%; the spreads are again around 400 basic points for countries like Italy and Spain, and these spreads are also going up for other countries in the eurozone – mainly for France, Belgium and other countries.

So one thing is clear: we need another approach. We need a structural approach, not the half measures we have seen for two years now. In my opinion, this means two things: first of all, we must launch a new growth strategy (a real one), using the EIB as you have indicated, and spend money from the EU budget – project bonds, not only a pilot project, but project bonds on a full scale. My proposal is that you put forward to the Council and Parliament a global plan on this – on a new growth strategy – as fast as possible.

The second thing, as we know, is partial mutualisation of debt. You have talked, as everybody here does, about strengthening solidarity without losing discipline. There is only one good proposal: the redemption fund, a EUR 2.3 trillion fund which will help all Member States.

Everybody knows that this is the only way forward. What is important to underline is that, in the case of a redemption fund, it is the bondholders who are paying the bill by receiving lower interest rates, not the taxpayers of Germany or the other countries. Perhaps we should launch a campaign in the German press about this. Now they are paying the bill with the so-called fire extinguisher – the rescue fund – while, with a structural solution of a redemption fund, it would be the bondholders paying.

Finally to Greece, and I am very pleased with the announcement today. However, last week, I sent you a letter about Greece, which was also about the financing of the political parties. The two main political parties in Greece – both irresponsibly in my opinion, given the current situation – paid themselves EUR 29 million of taxpayers’ money to start the campaign on 6 May. The Commission spokesman responded in a press conference by saying that it was none of the Commission’s business.

I do not agree with you. You interfere in pensions and in wages in Greece – this is not foreseen in the Treaty, but you do it, and I think it is necessary to do so. In the second memorandum of understanding, it is clearly stated that there must be a reduction – and I quote (I have here the MOU No 2) – ‘of the electoral spending of EUR 70 million in Greece’.

I think that, based on that memorandum, you can interfere. I find it a scandal – and this is my final word – that Greek citizens have to make sacrifices and that the European partners have to continue to pay while most Greek politicians simply continue the bad practices of the past.

  Rebecca Harms, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, although Mr Draghi has declined to attend, I would like to reiterate that I think it would have been very good to have him here. I thought it was a very good idea of the Conference of Presidents, because I think it is high time we had a direct face-to-face discussion between us here concerning whether the strategies of the European Central Bank are consistent and proportionate with the common European crisis strategy.

In recent years, we have praised the ECB on several occasions for having saved by its measures not just the euro, but in some situations, probably the entire European Union, from a worse fate. However, have we actually dealt carefully enough, in political terms, with the actions taken by the European Central Bank? Has the Council used the time bought well? Thousands of billions of euro have flowed into European banks under Mr Draghi. What was supposed to be done with this money? This money was supposed to be used for the real economy, and it was supposed to be used to buy up government bonds in the crisis-hit countries. My findings suggest that only a small part of it has been used for this. Why is that? My findings suggest that the time bought by the ECB to enable us to make better policies in Europe has not only elapsed without being utilised, but has actually been used counterproductively. All the palaver over the European fiscal pact, which was played out splendidly all over again at the last summit, has meant that we have not utilised the time bought properly – time that cost thousands of billions of euro.

The dramatic reports from Southern Europe – and we are no longer talking only about little Greece and Portugal, but now we are also talking about large countries, large economies such as Spain and Italy – make me think that what we are hearing from there suggests we cannot afford to go down this single-minded, fanatical road of austerity any further. I welcome the programme that is now being put forward by you and Commissioner Andor, but before I give you any further praise for it, I must reiterate that some of the demands that we have repeated like a mantra over the past year have not yet been dealt with. In this respect, I share Mr Verhofstadt’s opinion that the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) must be expanded. We do not have sufficient funding in the ESM. The European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF), or even the ESM, needs a banking licence. We need to be able to intervene differently in the markets, and we cannot allow ourselves to continue along this path of austerity. If government debt is not the sole cause of the crisis, then austerity alone cannot be the solution.

Regarding the programme that you have presented today, I would like to say that we have long been convinced that we need to conduct anti-recession policies, that we need to stimulate lasting growth. Whether you will manage to do it – that I do not know, Mr Barroso. I no longer know what the European Commission is capable of here. I would be very interested to know, for example, what timetable you are actually following right now – so that, on behalf of my group, I can judge whether anything will actually be done in time in Greece, in Italy, in Spain, in Portugal and in other crisis-hit countries.

  Martin Callanan, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, the eurozone has experienced several months now, as Mr Verhofstadt reminded us, of a sort of sugar rush, thanks to the ECB’s cheap credit. Now the sugar has worn off and the hangover is well and truly kicking in – and, unsurprisingly, we discover that the eurozone faces all the same problems that it faced beforehand. Solutions will only be identified when our leaders finally decide to put the economics ahead of the politics and hard-headed realism ahead of financial federalist romanticism.

My group, fortunately, represents predominantly non-euro nations, so I feel best placed to offer some impartial, honest and realistic advice. It is all part of the service that we offer, Guy. As I see it, there are two rational options. Either, firstly, Germany and some of the other Northern European States accept that they are going to have to enter into a full-scale fiscal transfer union with permanent flows of money – not just loans – from Northern Europe to Southern Europe, or, alternatively, we allow the lightning rod of this crisis – which has become the poor people of Greece – the opportunity to leave the euro and to devalue their way back into the marketplace.

I can understand why German taxpayers and Dutch taxpayers and others are rather reticent about allowing their hard-earned taxes to flow to a number of unreformed countries. Similarly, I can sympathise with the poor Greeks, who are reluctant to hand over any more of their economic sovereignty. That leaves us only with the option that Greece should be allowed to leave the eurozone, to default and to devalue.

A 10-year-old child could work that out. In fact, a 10-year-old child did work that out. I have here a Wolfson Prize essay from Jurre Hermans, who is a 10-year-old from the Netherlands, and it sets out a plan for how Greece can leave the euro. He won a prize for it. I particularly like the picture that he drew illustrating how all this would successfully work. In his essay, Jurre says ‘I think about solutions’ – which, I have to say, is more than can be said for some of the euro’s leaders. Instead of solutions, what we have seen is finger pointing, and I agree with Spanish Prime Minister Rajoy that it is not right for others – most notably the electioneering Nicholas Sarkozy – to point fingers in the direction of Spain. Instead, it is time for the euro leaders to make a decision. The choices are simple: either Germany and Northern Europe pays, or Greece leaves, or the euro fails. The choice seems obvious to me; it seems obvious to 10-year-old Jurre. I am just sorry that it does not seem so obvious to some of our eurozone leaders.

  Nigel Farage, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Mr President, it is a great shame Mr Van Rompuy is not here, because a month ago, he told us that the worst was over and we had reached the turning point; he even told us that he had solved the euro crisis. Today, we have a more realistic Mr Barroso, who says that if we follow his policies and stick together, we can solve this in the end. Sorry, no one believes you anymore, and actually, in the face of the rapidly deteriorating situation, these comments look ridiculous.

In Spain, mass unemployment gathers by the day, and internal democracy in Spain is now under threat. In Italy – where we were told Mr Monti would sort it all out – growth figures are falling and the bond spreads are worsening. Now an IMF official has come out and said that it is obvious that at some point a euro break-up will happen. These are big changes: the euro is doomed, and with your policies, Sir – even if Greece accepts the austerity you are imposing on them, and even if, for the next eight years, they obey all this – in 2020, they will still have a debt GDP ratio of 120%, which makes one ask: what is the point?

In Spain: if Spain was able to increase ... the difference is, Sir, Britain is not trapped inside the economic prison of the euro. Now take this: if Spain was to increase, if she increased her productivity growth by half a per cent a year (which at the moment looks unlikely), it would take her forty years to close the competitiveness gap with Germany.

These countries were sucked in to a totally false economic boom with artificially low interest rates, and they are now paying the price. These policies cannot succeed. Mercifully, outside of this institution, economists the world over now say it is inevitable that the euro will break up; it is just a question of how. I really hope that the IMF now decides to stop pouring good money after bad into these bailouts, and I really do hope that not one penny piece more of British taxpayers’ money goes into propping something up that should be allowed to die.

  Gabriele Zimmer, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (DE) Mr President, gentlemen, it is surely a well-known fact that the economy does not give birth to children. Neither does it bring up children, and it cannot provide children with a life in unspoilt nature. This would suggest that the Commission, and also the Council, needs to rethink its priorities; needs to reconsider. As a group, we will examine very carefully whether what you presented earlier today actually represents a shift in priorities. Until now, the motto has been to deal first with the economy, which needs functioning financial markets. That is why the first task was to balance national budgets – in other words, to reduce debt and keep the markets calm.

Unfortunately, Mr Daul is not here now. I simply wanted to tell him that my response is exactly the same as that of Georges Marchais. I did not understand his answer, but nonetheless I would contradict him. The measures that were taken were incorrect. It was wrong to concentrate solely on getting the economy right, and in the process to disregard entirely what was happening to people. It was wrong to put the stability of the euro above all else and to say that we could not care less what became of people. It should be the other way round: we must deal first with the people, then we can talk about stabilising the euro.

The speculative raids on Spain took interest rates on Spanish government bonds to above 6% or more, and thus close to the level at which other countries such as Greece, Portugal and even Ireland claimed assistance from the bail-out fund. The policy of austerity that has been forced on the Member States by the EU, the European Central Bank (ECB) and also by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), with drastic cuts in public expenditure of all kinds, from reductions in wages and pensions to increases in value-added tax and much more, has increased the burden on citizens without even preventing the recent spiral. Rigorous cuts in public expenditure are exacerbating the downturn and driving up national debt – and we all need to acknowledge that. When Mr Draghi said recently that the European social model was finished, then I would like to hear you, Mr Barroso, say that the Commission does not think so. I would also expect you to go to Greece, to send your people to Greece, Portugal and Ireland, and to take careful note of what is going on there.

What will happen to the people who are currently having to fight for survival? What are we jointly doing to break once and for all this vicious circle that has implanted itself precisely in the countries worst hit by the debt crisis? We simply cannot look on and do nothing. It is no use having social policy programmes that will start to have an effect sometime in the future, when other measures have already taken effect. We need to act now. What has become of your 2020 goals to eradicate poverty? What happened to the European poverty platform? It has been put on the back burner. That was before the crisis. It is now, however, in the midst of the crisis, that people need help and support – and that they need the European Union to act. They do not need empty promises. We need concrete ideas for what we can do now. If you do that, you will have the support of my group. Support all those – including those within the Commission – who have seen the signs of the times all too clearly and want to change things. Please do not simply carry on as you were and say it will happen anyway. If we carry on as we have been doing, there will be nothing left. I appeal to you to present an actual project, a programme for how we can really provide active help to the people in the countries affected right now. Do something for them. In our Member States, we need to do what is necessary to ensure that the funds for the European Stability Framework (ESF) 2013 or 2014-2020, or for the other programmes, are not blocked or cut. The Member States must shoulder their responsibilities.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI). – (FR) Mr President, Mr Barroso, I think the majority of my fellow Members are being extremely unfair to you. They voted for all the texts that are largely responsible for the current situation. They voted for all the texts on free trade, all the texts that have resulted in the European Economic Area no longer being protected against fierce competition from industrialising countries.

In reality, the crisis is a structural crisis as everyone knows. It is essentially the result of the de-industrialisation of most of Europe or, at any rate, the loss of the virtual monopoly of industry we enjoyed until now.

The crisis is also undoubtedly due financially to the increase in public spending, but this increase in public spending has long been known by another name: socialism. This is socialism indeed. A creeping socialism that has, in fact, been practised with great freedom and ease by supposedly liberal regimes.

Nevertheless, Mr Barroso, before concluding, I would, however, like to ask you one question. A debate has raged for three days in France, ahead of the first round of presidential elections, over a mysterious text entitled ‘Towards a job-rich recovery’. Journalists got access to this text. The media claims the Commissioner responsible for the matter will present it today in Strasbourg. Today maybe, in Strasbourg undoubtedly, but not, at any rate, to MEPs, unless the brief comments you just made on employment are supposed to serve this purpose. I have not seen this text. However, I have seen comments and even denials of these comments made by Commission officials. How can we back-pedal like this on such an important issue?

Mr Barroso, even as I listened to you call for economic and financial austerity, I could not help but be reminded of US President Herbert Hoover in the 1930s, promising that prosperity was just around the corner. I am not sure that the promise he made was any more serious than the one you are making to us.

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

IN THE CHAIR: LÁSZLÓ SURJÁN
Vice-President

  Marisa Matias (GUE/NGL), Blue-card question. – (PT) Mr President, I should like to ask Mr Gollnisch something: did I misunderstand or did you say that socialism is to blame for everything happening to us, for people’s problems and for the situation we are experiencing? I should like you to be more explicit, then, and to give me and all my fellow Members here a list of the socialist systems that are so at fault for the situation we are in, because I have really not understood. I should very much like you to tell me, as quickly as possible, the whereabouts of the socialism for which I am currently fighting.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI), Blue-card answer. – (FR) Thank you for your question. I will try to be brief.

I have singled out two causes of the current crisis, admittedly two apparently contradictory causes. However, I think that Mr Barroso, who is himself something of a personal incarnation of this contradiction, will understand me very well. On one hand, this is effectively a matter of generalised free trade. That is not socialism at all. That is the destruction of our external protections. However, on the other hand, it is internal socialism. It is the excesses, the abuses of the welfare state. It is the exponential growth in my country of useless expenditure by public authorities, for example, carried out in the spirit of social democracy by all successive governments, even supposedly liberal governments. It is the public economy’s excessively large share of the general economy of the country. All that has a name and its name is ...

  Luis de Grandes Pascual (PPE). – (ES) Mr President, Mr Barroso, the first thing I should say is that the Spanish delegation of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) approves of and supports the two packages that have been presented today, both the employment package and the solidarity aid for Greece, which is consistent with your overall proposal. Ladies and gentlemen, there is no denying that we are experiencing difficult times, and daily events remind us that the crisis is still far from over.

Unavoidably, the focus has shifted back to Spain. Alarm bells have been ringing in the markets, without justification, partly fuelled by statements that I consider to be inappropriate, Mr President. Some of those have been made in the context of important elections, in which opponents on both sides are making my country a dialectical element of their confrontation. Naturally, we do not welcome any of these references. Furthermore, as a way of turning the attention away from their own problems, others are showing little political sensitivity in their dealings with us.

Today in Parliament, some have failed to show any finezza, as the Italians would say, and there has been a lack of political tact.

Ladies and gentlemen, the situation in the markets does not reflect Spain’s strength. We are a solvent country and we are entirely capable of tackling our debts. The Spanish debt remains below the European average, and the Spanish Government is fully committed to fulfilling the deficit targets agreed with the EU.

Mr Swoboda, Mr Rajoy has never said that he cannot meet the targets set by the European Union. On the contrary, he said that he is ready to meet each and every one of those targets, and he repeats that on a daily basis.

The Spanish Government, in the few months it has been in office, has adopted, and will continue to adopt, very ambitious measures in order to guarantee fiscal consolidation and lay the foundations for greater competitiveness, job creation and growth.

In the outlook it made public yesterday, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) itself admitted that the forecast was made prior to any analysis of the decisions and measures currently being taken by the Spanish Government.

We have adopted other measures: the general State budget for 2012, which we believe will guarantee that we will meet the deficit target this year; the organic law on budgetary stability; a reform of the education and health care systems, which will be presented this month and allow for an adjustment of EUR 10 billion; and the reform of the financial sector, which is going to help the financial institutions to bring in more than EUR 50 billion.

In short, Spain is meeting the targets set by the Commission, and we are calling on everyone to be responsible. We all need to find a way out of this together, Spain with everyone else, without a doubt; the criticisms being made are not at all helpful. Either all the countries find a way to act together to bring about growth and a new direction, or else it will be difficult for us to move forwards under the conditions proposed by the Commission.

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

  Raül Romeva i Rueda, Blue-card question. – (ES) Mr President, if the measures being taken by Mr Rajoy are, as you say, those established by European guidelines, do you not think it would also be appropriate for Mr Rajoy to appear before this House and have a debate with all the MEPs on what those measures are and what effects they are having not only for the Spanish economy, but also for the other European economies?

  Luis de Grandes Pascual (PPE), Blue-card answer. – (ES) Mr President, Mr Romeva, would you like Mr Rajoy to speak in Parliament? I think that is a good idea, and I would have no objections. Mr Rajoy, however, is not the protagonist of this crisis. The protagonist of the crisis is the legacy left behind by the socialist, communist and green left-wing parties in Spain, who handed over the worst legacy in political history, and this was after they had been handed the best legacy ever left by any previous government.

  President. – Mr Lopez Aguilár, I know you wanted to put a blue-card question to Mr de Grandes Pascual but I am sorry to say that we have no more time. Anyhow, I am very happy that not only the Hungarians have an internal political debate; I think that the Spanish question is very important. We should go ahead.

  Elisa Ferreira (S&D). – (PT) Mr President, Dr Barroso, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to congratulate you, Dr Barroso, on finally bringing before this House issues that we have been attempting to discuss without much success. In fact, employment is at the heart of any growth agenda. It is obviously important to mutualise sovereign debt. It is obviously essential to increase the European budget. It is obviously necessary to review the Greek agenda. Welcome to the debate. However, that is not what is currently in play: what we have is a completely recessive agenda; an agenda staking everything on the budgetary discipline issue and the measures being imposed on the countries with the greatest difficulties by the Troika on a daily basis. The results of this are plain to see and run completely counter to what you have brought before us today.

For example, Greece has lost 20% of its GDP in five years. You talk about social cohesion, but poverty is spreading throughout Europe and the state is so weakened that private charitable bodies – NGOs – are having to replace it. You talk about social consensus, but it has been completely destroyed by the power of the Troika, which has even destroyed constitutional rights, drained pensions, and ignored and destroyed social consensus. You talk about the need for the emergence of small and medium-sized enterprises, but reduced demand and the lack of credit force these companies out of business every day, causing unemployment.

Therefore, what I should like to say to you, Dr Barroso, is we need to move away from these mistakes and this contradictory discourse. There are no jobs without relaunching the economy, in fact, but this involves a genuine Marshall Plan, not the support by financial assistance you mentioned, which serves only to pay interest and debt, and to renegotiate debts. A genuine Marshall Plan is a plan for growth, development and investment. Domestic demand in countries with surpluses needs to be unblocked, a European industrial policy needs to be reborn and external trade policy to be made compatible therewith, and minimum levels of public access to welfare and public services need to be ensured.

When will we see this agenda? My second question, Dr Barroso, is when ...

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Sharon Bowles (ALDE). – Mr President, markets can be made happy with a time horizon of a few months, and on each upward cycle, the wise get out of the dodgy assets. Recycling of panic therefore suits the smart, but we have to stay fixed on the longer term and recognise that it will not be smooth.

The EU has put huge resources into containing the crisis, including through the IMF. Politics prevented faster action: that is regrettable, but it is a fact of life. However, with all the billions that are pledged to the rescue packages, it seems lunacy to be reining back on the EIB when the search for growth is urgent. The EIB is a fantastic means to leverage growth, and Member States should think again.

I am also conscious that there are, and will be, unintended consequences on growth from our regulation. Deleveraging by banks, reducing SME loans in trade financing and perverse incentives to short- rather than long-term investment are already evident. It is vital to find a way to deal with this during the regulatory process and subsequently. Finally, getting out of the trillion of the LTRO looks challenging, but we should not forget that there are EUR 800 billion parked with the ECB by nervous banks.

I was given a minute and a half by my group. I have one sentence left. If you took that EUR 800 billion and had that invested in euro area two-year bills under common issuance, that would satisfy all significant sovereign needs. We have here an opportunity to kill two birds with one euro bill.

  Nikos Chrysogelos (Verts/ALE). – (EL) Mr President, for some time, the policy pushed forward by the Commission via the Troika has focused, in particular, on unilateral austerity. I am delighted that today we are debating employment and growth; however, a great deal of damage has already been done and the Commission must admit that it has made a massive mistake, as has the Greek Government. What are the statistics at present? We know that unemployment in relation to the active population has passed the 21% mark and that over 1 000 000 people are unemployed. Two million people, 20% of the total population, are only just surviving and over 50% of young people have been unemployed for a very long time.

We therefore need to look again at the policies being applied in Greece and ensure that there is cohesion between them and our European values. We need more than mere promises and words; we also need objectives. We have included an objective to reduce the deficit, but why have we not included an objective to reduce unemployment and deal with the problems of small and medium-sized enterprises. We also need specific targets and timetables. Unilateral austerity is not the answer; the problem needs to be addressed in a fair, balanced manner, by changing the economy and the administration.

  Kay Swinburne (ECR). – Mr President, the sovereign debt crisis has raised many different opinions on the best way to resolve it and how to return the eurozone and the EU as a whole to economic growth.

Although we do not currently have all the answers, there are already important lessons to be learned from the eurozone crisis, some of which need to be learned in my own constituency. It is clear that one of the problems identified in Spain has been the level of public debt and liabilities assumed by their regional governments, to which a clear value of the amount outstanding is only now emerging. It has left the Spanish debt market in disarray and lacking investor confidence.

I am therefore disappointed that my own Welsh Government is currently seeking to raise new debt in the markets. Any Welsh debt would ultimately be the liability of the UK Government and would replicate the failed Spanish experiment. Under the new EU stronger economic governance and debt management regimes, surely those liable for the debt need to assume control for all monies raised, whether privately, through the EIB or, more worryingly, in the capital markets? When Member States rightly bear the ultimate responsibility for the debt and the resulting debt ratios, systems of accountability need to be ensured. I hope the Silk Commission in Wales and those that favour Eurobonds in the eurozone heed the Spanish experience.

  Mario Borghezio (EFD). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Barroso has announced measures for small and medium-sized enterprises, but is he aware that in my land, Padania, every day a funeral is held for a small business owner who has committed suicide because his company is in debt and he does not have the money to pay his staff, and his staff are at his funeral?

Your ‘non-solutions’ are taking the ship of the European economy and finance straight towards the iceberg of large-scale international speculation, and you do not seem to be aware of it. Let us consider these ‘non-solutions’ – the ‘bail-out fund’, a body not controlled by the EU institutions, but by stakeholders of the international financial lenders, and then this gigantic – the Chair of the European Central Bank (ECB) is not here – but we need to be brave enough to say that there is a gigantic conflict of interest between taxpayers, the European citizens that we represent, and the bosses of the ECB, that is, the gentlemen from the big central banks, which, in turn, are owned by private banks and by private finance.

This conflict of interest should frighten us. Come on, let us leave the single currency, let us go back to our national currencies ...

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Paul Murphy (GUE/NGL). – Mr President, I would like to say to Mr Barroso that the gulf between your rhetoric and the policies your Commission is implementing is so great that the entire European economy may yet fall into it. You talk about solidarity, but with the Troika, you implement policies that threaten the very basis of society in Ireland, Portugal and Greece. You talk about jobs, but because of your policies, unemployment is at the highest level since the introduction of the eurozone: 25 million people across the EU. You talk about sustainable growth, but you want to institutionalise austerity across Europe with the ‘Austerity Treaty’, which will turn the recession into a deep depression. I would like to ask you a few questions which I think the people of Ireland, who will vote in six weeks’ time on this Treaty, deserve an answer to.

Are you aware that, according to the Commission, in 2013, 18 out of the 25 countries will have structural deficits greater than that allowed by the Treaty? Are you aware that meeting the targets will mean cuts and extra taxes across Europe of over EUR 166 billion? In that case, how can you talk about sustainable growth? Your Treaty will turn Europe into an economic wasteland. Paul Krugman was right yesterday to write about the apparent determination of European leaders to commit economic suicide for the continent as a (…)

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Andrew Henry William Brons (NI). – Mr President, the ailing countries of southern Europe must withdraw from the eurozone, return to their own currencies and allow the values to fall to their market levels. This will lead to export-led expansion in each country. Austerity measures are strangling the economies of these ailing countries – they need expansion, not suffocation.

The embrace of neoliberalism and globalism must be abandoned. The challenge from the emerging economies like China must be tackled head on. We must protect our economies from their cheap exports, kept low by artificially low wages and undervalued currency. Infrastructure must be rebuilt, repaired and brought up to date by public initiative. This must be financed by delayed payment quantitative easing and not by interest-bearing debt.

President Obama, introducing his American job spill, saw the contradiction between infrastructure and disrepair and unemployed construction workers. We nationalists have a principle. What is physically possible should be financially possible. If it is not, there is something wrong with the financial system.

  Marietta Giannakou (PPE). – (EL) Mr President, I wish to thank the President of the Commission Mr Barroso, for his announcement about the resumption of growth and the creation of jobs in Greece. My country has made huge strides to date with the help of its partners. The deficit has been slashed and the situation is stabilising. Structural changes are proceeding. Obviously, public sector spending needs to be cut still further, so that excessive direct and indirect taxation can be restricted and growth can start.

We Greek New Democracy MEPs in the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) pointed out the risk inherent in unilateral austerity very early on. Both we and our chair, Mr Samaras, pointed out that an austerity programme needed to be accompanied by a growth programme. Today, everyone subscribes to this truth. Some people here in this Chamber are calling for Greece to leave the euro area. That is a great pity. The Greek people wish to remain closely associated with Europe and the euro. We consider that it is only by all pulling together that we can deal with a crisis that has become systemic. The same applies to every country in crisis.

What we have built together, we must maintain together, in order to safeguard our joint endeavour. We must all work to combat unemployment and fight for a new period of prosperity. No country can manage that on its own. The President of the Commission knows that better than anyone.

I wish to point out, further to the comments made by the Chair of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, Mr Verhofstadt, that things are not exactly in keeping with what he said: the financing he spoke of was provided in previous years and Parliament simply regulated repayment to the banks. I do not think that the Greek parties are prepared to basically spend, in these difficult times, while the people are suffering from the sacrifices they are making.

  Pervenche Berès (S&D). – (FR) Mr President, Mr Barroso, you said you were, on balance, in favour of the mutualisation of debt. You must tell us the steps you have taken in this regard and, more importantly, whether you think this mutualisation is useful and necessary or whether you are perhaps reacting to the new proposal made by Eurex which, in reality, destroys the European Union’s internal capital markets, allows speculation against a Member State and further diminishes the prospect of mutualising debt.

In addition, Mr Barroso, I would like to know whether you have been informed by the outgoing French Government of the conditions for assessing France’s National Reform Programme and its Stability and Convergence Programme this year, given this country’s electoral timetable.

Finally, with regard to the decisions taken this morning by your college relating to what is known as the ‘employment package’, I wonder about the consequences for your neighbour, Mr Rehn, with regard to the austerity policies being put forward in his portfolio. I already know what the response will be: ‘first austerity, then jobs’. I am led to believe this is not the solution and that what we are seeing today in Greece or Spain tells us that another way must be possible, one based on a pact for growth, responsibility and governance.

Therefore, Mr Barroso, can you assure us that you are combining your two pillars, your employment pillar and your economic pillar, in the service of European citizens and job creation?

  Wolf Klinz (ALDE). – (DE) Mr President, Mr Barroso, ladies and gentlemen, I subscribe to your opinion that the highly indebted countries will only be able to extract themselves from their predicament through a combination of growth and austerity. Some of what you propose – such as European Investment Bank (EIB) financed infrastructure projects – could indeed make them more competitive and thus contribute to growth.

However, much of what you say reminds me of what Christine Lagarde of the International Monetary Fund is proposing – namely, taking on more debt in order to stimulate growth. At the end of the day, such additional financial injections would be just a flash in the pan, and there would be nothing to show for it afterwards other than even higher levels of debt, even higher unemployment and even higher inflation. We experienced that in Germany in the 1970s, when Helmut Schmidt tried precisely that. What we are dealing with is not a cyclical problem, but rather a structural weakness. If we are to overcome it, we need courageous structural reforms. Unfortunately, we are seeing little of that in the countries concerned. We need to complete the internal market, including the services sector. We need to open up protected markets, we need to make the labour market more flexible and we need to get rid of red tape. All that can happen without taking any more money, and it would still lead to growth.

  Vicky Ford (ECR). – Mr President, I have three points to make. Firstly, public finances are still in a mess. We have to stop wasting taxpayers’ money so it can be spent where it is needed. The EU should be leading by example, but instead it is still throwing money at vanity projects. So let us stop them.

Secondly, we need to stop just talking about growth and competitiveness and take action. We have to cut bureaucracy for businesses, but instead the EU puts barriers on our businesses, costs on our consumers and impediments on our investors. Let us stop them.

Thirdly, the economic crisis started in the financial sector. Four years on, this week, the share prices of some of Europe’s biggest banks are still tumbling. The ECB’s EUR 1 trillion sticking plaster is not working. Reforming financial services is not a political toy. Our Basel commitments are vital, but measures that force our largest services industry to relocate overseas must be stopped.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, Mr Barroso, ladies and gentlemen, I agree with my colleagues who have talked about a quantum leap in European politics. The response from the euro area has been strong. We have given ourselves new stringent regulations for Member State budgets in order to avoid repeating the errors of the past, but these rules requiring major sacrifices from our citizens cover only one area.

Now is the time to focus on growth, and I agree with all those who have spoken about growth, because if we straightjacket our state budgets and also require rigorous structural reforms, then, at the same time, we have to bring in measures to stimulate growth. Otherwise, in overall terms, Europe or many Member States risk falling into recession.

The problem facing us today is the lack of an investment policy, the only way to avoid another crisis, which is that of economic stagnation. Therefore, this Parliament is in the frontline with these topics, such as the addition of a discount factor, and I appeal to Mr Barroso with regard to the problem of the Basel reforms – a supporting factor for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to which all the European institutions need to respond jointly and unanimously.

In this situation, we cannot avoid taking the issue of Eurobonds into account, but we must make a distinction as there is a lot of confusion in this regard. Eurobonds need to be created without resorting to mutualising the debt.

In my view, the third approach in the Green Paper seems to be the right one, but there need to be a few amendments. The European economy cannot be kick-started if we do not use the strength of the euro at the same time. Eurobonds make it possible to organise and contain public debt and to collect the necessary finances for Europe’s future on the market.

  Robert Goebbels (S&D). – (FR) Mr President, each of the Commission’s statements sounds like the last. More jobs, more growth, more internal trade; this sounds good but, ultimately, these are empty words, repeated ad nauseum for the past five years in all Commission communications without ever having been acted upon.

The Merkozy decision makers have, at the end of the day, only one recipe: fiscal consolidation through austerity. All the leading economists – Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz, Wolfgang Münchau, Thomas Piketty – tell us that the EU is currently drawing the wrong lessons from the crisis, that it has committed to – and I quote – ‘an absurd race to the bottom in social terms, towards austerity policies which shatter growth and ultimately towards the temptation to go it alone’. I have just cited the group of economists led by Philippe Aghion of Harvard.

The gravity of the situation calls for immediate action. Instead of dreaming about sustainable development, we should be fighting for strong growth. Thus, to revive the Greek economy, we must immediately recapitalise Greek banks. We must implement as quickly as possible the 78 projects identified by the task force which can be financed from the Structural Funds. We must finally decide to increase the European Investment Bank’s capital. We must launch project bonds. We must encourage Member States who have sufficient means to revive their economies and thereby, the European economy. Growth, growth, and more growth is all that matters!

  Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE). – Mr President, I welcome the fact that Mr Barroso has talked today about the mutualisation of public debt. I want to ask the Commission’s opinion on the European Redemption Fund. This is an instrument which would permit a temporary voluntary and partial mutualisation of public debt inside the eurozone. Without changing the Treaties, while complying with the German constitution and linked to strict conditionality, in my opinion, the European Redemption Fund could be a successful tool with which to end the debt crisis. So I would like to hear the Commission’s opinion on this.

  Jean-Paul Gauzès (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, Mr Barroso, Commissioner, alongside the recovery of public finances, the question of growth is key to the success of the European strategy. In this regard, what is to be the role of the European Central Bank, which has shown extraordinary creativity during the financial crisis?

Make no mistake. It is not a matter of making some completely unrealistic revision to the treaty. It is, in reality, about creating political conditions for the ECB to take the action it has undertaken further by buying sovereign debt on the secondary market and injecting liquidity into the financial system. Experience shows that this is possible within the existing legal framework without undermining the independence of the ECB or backtracking on its objectives. It is a question of European solidarity and political will, and not of legal provisions.

However, recovery of public finances and prevention of the risk of crises remain a priority. Economic governance of the euro area is being strengthened. Mechanisms for the detection, prevention and sanction of abuses have been reinforced by the ‘six-pack’ initiative. The ‘two-pack’ initiative is under negotiation and there must be a conclusion on this subject soon. This negotiation must particularly make it possible to develop effective, practical measures for the benefit of Member States in difficulty or whose deficits are excessive. In this regard, we must ensure that democratic control is exercised as normal at European level to make the steps to be taken in this area acceptable to the people, the citizens.

I would like to conclude by stressing that it would be desirable for the Commission’s proposal to be supplemented by legal protection for any Member State in extreme difficulty – not to encourage complacency but, on the contrary, to allow them to recover and meet their obligations. This provision should be controlled by the Commission under the supervision of the Council and Parliament.

  Anni Podimata (S&D). – (EL) Mr President, Commissioner Rehn, it is a fact that the Commission never claimed that the crisis was behind us; however, it is also a fact that three crises – fiscal, economic and social – have been under way in parallel over recent years. To date, the Commission has put all its weight behind fiscal austerity, thereby underestimating the economic and social consequences, the deep recession and spiralling unemployment, especially among young people. This has led to Europe being targeted and to a widespread lack of confidence among European citizens and we should be concerned by the fact that, wherever elections are being held, and I am not referring to Greece, I am referring to France, Europe is at the centre of the election campaign, but in a negative, not a positive way.

Greece has made huge steps towards fiscal consolidation, under extremely difficult circumstances, with just one party, the Socialist Party, bearing all the responsibility and all the cost – both political and social – of managing the crisis up to just a few months ago. Mainly, however, the responsibility has been assumed by the Greek people due to vote in three weeks and I should like to ask the Vice-President of the European Commission, based on the letters from Mr Venizelos and Mr Papademos to the Commission, to tell us what specific measures and policies it can use to help combat unemployment, especially among young people, which is close to 50%, to safeguard financing for small and medium-sized enterprises, which are failing, and to unblock the major projects that are crucial to growth and job creation.

  Theodoros Skylakakis (ALDE). – (EL) Mr President, I shall focus on Greece. The Member States are spending vast sums of money. The Greeks have made serious sacrifices. However, the targets have not been met. Why? Because the adjustment fell primarily not on the state-subsidised, clientelist system, but on the productive system in Greece and on the weakest members of society: companies, salaried employees and low-paid pensioners. Over-taxation and a complete lack of financing are currently causing competitive Greek export companies to go out of business. The State has delayed payment of debts of EUR 6 billion to the private sector. The two ruling parties are taking on people in the run-up to the elections and have passed a law regulating their massive debts to the banks on favourable terms. The Commission does not appear to have any noteworthy new proposals that compare with the 2020 plan presented recently by the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe. This plan includes more private investment, liquidity and jobs. There is a positive, productive, creative Greece outside the inveterate, state-subsidised, clientelist system and it is high time that Europe started investing in it.

  Udo Bullmann (S&D). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, sometimes, I ask myself what you actually take away from these debates with us after sitting here so patiently. Mr Barroso has gone, so it is too late to ask him. The Council is not here either, so the question is superfluous. However, as you are responsible for various areas of the Commission, I can ask you: what will you actually take away from this debate with the European Parliament on an unbelievably serious issue – one that will decide the fate of our populations in the Member States? I will tell you what I am taking away from it: I have a problem. Whenever your services give you reports of how we are not making any progress because growth continues to be in decline, of how employment is in the doldrums, then you get someone to write something about employment and how it can be increased through relatively non-binding measures. I have read it all a hundred times before. Over the past twelve years, I must have read what is written here a hundred times.

However, those who commit this stuff to paper are sitting in your departments, Commissioner Rehn. What they actually believe is something different. They believe that we need to chase the countries of southern Europe through a structural recession. Those are the hard facts of the Stability and Growth Pact, those are the hard facts of the fiscal pact, and those are the hard facts of the erroneous expenditure policy. Until you resolve this contradiction and actually commit to paper some concrete measures for raising levels of investment again, the people will not understand you. I do not understand you either.

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

  Liisa Jaakonsaari (S&D), Blue-card question. – (FI) Mr President, firstly, it is good that representatives of countries other than those in crisis are speaking here. Sometimes, it is a bit disheartening to feel that Europe is just Spain, or Greece, or Portugal. Europe is also Germany and Finland. It is Latvia and the Netherlands.

I would like to ask Mr Bullmann a question. A large number of experts say that it is important for Europe as a whole that salaries should rise in Germany. What do you think about that?

  Udo Bullmann (S&D), Blue-card answer. – (DE) Mr President, firstly, I would like to say to the questioner that the countries she mentions only have no problems on the surface. If you actually read the data on the Netherlands, you will see that growth is in decline there too. When Germans read the statistics, they actually know very well that they are very dependent on them. Things may appear to be going better again in the south, but this is only fleeting. On no account should we think that Germany can maintain its export rates in the long term without a functioning euro area. So my answer is yes; we need to arrive at a constellation in which demand in southern Europe is also boosted again. We need to create new jobs and sensible investment projects, and we need to use all the means at our disposal to ensure that we are not organising a recession that lasts 10 or 20 years.

  Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – (ES) Mr President, I welcome the Commission’s presence at this debate, but I regret the fact that the representative of the European Central Bank (ECB) is not here. He has a great deal to contribute because he could use his experience to show that when the European Central Bank acts decisively, tensions over the euro lessen.

That tension therefore has more to do with speculators’ greed than with the foundations of the affected economies, and that includes the peripheral countries, of which Spain is a good example. This has been mentioned many times here because, when the crisis erupted, Spain did not have a problem with its public deficit, public accounts or accumulated public debt. None of these were a problem. We are far below the EU average and had even settled with a surplus in the three previous budgetary periods.

It was the financial crisis that brought on Spain’s financial troubles, not the other way round. The financial crisis was the cause; our debt and deficit were not the origin of Spain’s financial difficulties, which shows how important it is for the ECB to act emphatically, resolutely and decisively, to act like a firewall or a dam to prevent speculation against the euro.

However, to do so, there needs to be a change of policy, which the Commission has an obligation to promote. This change of policy should not entail complying with an austerity plan that excludes all other measures and which is leading the EU into disaster; rather, the Commission should consider giving real meaning to the concepts of growth and employment.

Diagnosis and therapy have failed resoundingly and categorically, and the patience of millions of Europeans has run out, particularly among the young. We need a change, and we need it now.

  Leonardo Domenici (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wanted to ask Mr Barroso some questions, but I am happy to ask them of Mr Rehn.

Commissioner, have you and the European Commission read that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) does not expect Italy to balance its budget in 2013 or very likely in 2014 either? Does this forecast stimulate any particular thoughts? I am speaking about Italy, but I could very easily be speaking about other countries. The strangest thing is that the IMF tells us, of course, that if there were no recession, Italy would have a surplus of 0.6%. That is great. However, the problem is that there is a crisis, there is a recession, and it is difficult to pretend that there is not.

Mr Rehn, in Europe, are we making choices based on an analysis of the actual situation we are experiencing, or are we simply applying a doctrine based on abstract principles? I believe that we continue to focus on objectives that are not in line with the economic cycle. Commissioner, today, we have been told about the European Commission’s plans for growth, but are you sure that growth based on supply-side policy principles is enough, without considering the at least equal importance of a policy that acts on the aggregate demand side?

Commissioner, I shall end with an appeal. I beg you to speak truthfully to European citizens, truthfully about the crisis and the concrete fact that we still do not have any choices to take at the moment.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I should like to thank the Commission for its outstanding efforts to combat the crisis, although I have a few comments to make.

First, Mr Barroso said that investment is a priority for growth, so we need to go further than pilot projects and launch a real European project-bond initiative. Second, we need the European Central Bank (ECB) to be a lender of last resort, and we especially need to take on board the warnings coming from the small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in Europe that are calling for a commitment to fight the credit crunch, by means including the introduction of the SME supporting factor into the Basel review in order to support lending to businesses. We are not cutting the budget, Mr Barroso has assured us of that, because we can only work for the general good if every Member State does its bit. We should therefore eliminate some anachronistic rewards of position, such as the British rebate.

To sum up, my thoughts go to Rome, the capital of Italy, because this evening, there will be a silent candlelight vigil in memory of the many entrepreneurs who have taken their own lives because of the crisis.

  Gianni Pittella (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let us stop and deal with the emergency, because there are still considerable tensions on the sovereign debt market and the first thing that needs to be done is for the European Central Bank to take action.

The difficulties of countries like Spain do not reflect the fundamentals of the Spanish economy and were not caused by excessive public expenditure, but by the schizophrenia of the markets. In the face of this market disorder, the European Central Bank must play its part in full, using its monetary policy instruments effectively to inject some life into the public finances of countries in difficulties and provide liquidity to the banking and production systems.

Base rates need to be reduced in order to support investment and combat the economic stagnation predicted yesterday in the International Monetary Fund forecasts.

  Georgios Papastamkos (PPE). – (EL) Mr President, the priorities for Greece, if it is to return to growth and job creation, raise the pressing question of how to put plans and announcements into practice. I should like to ask the Vice-President of the Commission if we are in an economic crisis or a crisis of economic perception, of economic recipe, the recipe that resulted in a vicious circle of austerity, recession, new austerity measures and new recession. I believe that both the institutional and the political leadership of the European Union should leave their institutional and political egos to one side and change course and direction.

I also believe, and I absolutely agree with the President of the Commission, Mr Barroso, that together, the European Union and Greece will succeed. I believe that in my heart of hearts, but I believe that it needs to be based on a real partnership and not on a philosophy of suzerainty over Greece.

  Roberto Gualtieri (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I have to say that I was disappointed with Mr Barroso’s speech. As many have said – the last of whom was Mr Domenici – a fact evident to all, with the clear exception of the European institutions, has not been acknowledged. That is that we are falling from a recession into the risk of a depression, and in these circumstances, compliance with the objectives of the ‘six-pack’ and the fiscal compact is quite simply impossible.

There is only one solution for tackling this recessionary and depressive downward spiral and that is to revitalise demand through investment. The solutions and answers that Mr Barroso proposed cannot work by themselves. Investment is needed, and as it is not realistic to make a substantial increase in the European budget at the moment – although we have been asking for it – public investment is needed, and therefore a reform of the ‘six-pack’ that introduces the golden rule on a group of public investments, which need to be separated from the calculation of the structural deficit. This is what Europe needs today.

  Marije Cornelissen (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, I have spent the last half hour enthusiastically retweeting Mr Andor’s tweets about the employment package – while, of course, listening very attentively to the rest of you – because I am really happy with the questions that the package raises. Finally, the debate seems to be shifting to the real economy and to the actual people who live in Europe. Finally, there is attention to job creation and to labour demands and to greening the economy, which I think is a highly welcome and long overdue shift of the debate.

The specific questions I have concern wages. Firstly, will the Commission adapt the scoreboard for macro-economic imbalances in such a way that excessive wage moderation is considered an imbalance as well? Secondly, will the Commission address country-specific recommendations to those countries without decent minimum wages? Thirdly, how do you envision making a tripartite forum for monitoring wage developments at EU level fruitful and durable? Past attempts have not been that successful.

  Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE). – (HU) Mr President, we have discussed the crisis on several occasions, and President Barroso has reported on the ways of crisis management many times. It is sad that the topic remains relevant to this day. It would be good to know how many of the proposals put forward here will be realised. Unfortunately, there is conflicting news about the success of crisis management. It would be advisable to draw appropriate conclusions. It is important that we do not deceive ourselves when drawing these conclusions. There is one additional matter that needs to be clarified, and to me this is the most important question today. It is about the title of today’s agenda item. Ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, let us not forget that we adopted the ‘six-pack’ on economic governance, as well as strict fiscal policy together, and yet now we are just talking about the euro area. This title conveys a different meaning to me. To me, it means that the EU treats some countries as its own children, some as favoured stepchildren, and others as mere stepchildren. Commissioner, please confirm that this is not true, and that we have a common way of thinking, a common tool, and that the growth strategy will be common, too.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D). – (LT) Mr President, it really is difficult to say something new in one minute, but to my understanding, we basically have to acknowledge that those measures that, until now, were expected to help, really have not helped. We were very afraid of talking about the bad situation in Italy – it became a reality. Now news has appeared in the press about Spain and so on. As for the other European Union Member States, it is only a matter of time unless we really change our attitude to the overall global context. We care about everything, but in order to care about climate change and aid for third countries and many other things, what we need, above all, are funds. However, those funds are not enough for us. I therefore can only see one route today – we have to begin to care for the protection of our market. We have to begin to think about how to undo that injustice programmed for the future financial perspective. I am referring to direct payments in agriculture and many other matters.

  John Bufton (EFD). – Mr President, unlike Italy and Greece, Spain did not get into trouble due to reckless structural deficit. The euro is the cause of Spanish woes. It allowed the real estate boom and enabled private debt to soar but, when the bubble burst, banks could not maintain liquidity and faced insolvency.

But, due to the euro, Spain could not print money to bail out the banks. It had to borrow in bond markets, forcing the deficit to grow rapidly. The government could not then finance aggressive stimulus spending to soften the recession. Spain’s debt-to-GDP ratio was smaller than Germany’s, but the European Union insisted that the government slash spending to force the deficit down. This caused growth to stagnate, unemployment to boom and private investment to stall, leading to the protracted implosion we are witnessing.

Spain’s banks are now entirely dependent on emergency loans from the European Central Bank. Youth unemployment is at 51%. Hundreds of thousands of people are on the streets demonstrating against the austerity which is destroying their country. Surely it is time to scrap the euro – or are you just going to issue another pointless bail-out and continue to wreck people’s lives?

  Mario Mauro (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, German sales to China are worth EUR 50 billion, its sales to Italy are worth EUR 58 billion, while its sales to countries like Portugal, Greece, Spain and Ireland are worth EUR 54 billion. Therefore, I believe that there should be a deeply rooted feeling of interdependence underlying our situation. The European institutions are not showing the same sense of interdependence because at times, it seems clear that what others are doing is not taken into account when measures are introduced.

The European Central Bank (ECB) has intervened with strong-arm tactics to refinance the banks, but there has been little care at government level, for example, to ensure that those funds were then passed on to businesses and families. So we should take note. Perhaps the intensive discussions taking place between the institutions and Parliament’s efforts to frustrate mutual diktats could be useful for getting through this difficult time. It would look better than showing that the institutions are not there precisely when they are needed, like this afternoon.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Mr President, Commissioners, we are well aware of the concerns rippling through the Commission and this Parliament about the President of Argentina’s announcement that she was nationalising the national oil company. In Argentina, they are currently putting right the policies that led them to economic and social disaster; the very same ones that you want to impose on Europe by force. While here, for example in Portugal, you are stealing strategic economic sectors from public ownership, including lucrative companies, on the other side of the Atlantic, they understand the importance of harnessing these strategic sectors and companies for the sake of development. What is really making you uncomfortable is the demonstration of results through the application of a different method: whilst others are growing and improving their economic and social indicators, you are miring Europe in crisis and pushing its society towards taking unprecedented steps backwards. You are afraid of the example; the example of those who say that the peoples’ interests are above those of capital and that, inevitably, these interests are mutually exclusive.

  Edite Estrela (S&D). – (PT) Mr President, unemployment in the euro area has reached extremely high levels. One in every three young Europeans is unemployed, highly qualified young people are obliged to emigrate and social inequality continues to increase. It has already been proven that austerity programmes are not the solution to our problems. There are millions and millions of euro for the banks, but there is no money for the economy. Without economic growth, there are no jobs; that is not the Europe that we want. When will debt be mutualised? When will the financial transaction tax be created? When will there be fiscal convergence? When will there be an end to offshores? Fine words will not get us out of the crisis: we need action. Europe needs an employment and growth pact, as the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament has already proposed.

End of the catch-the-eye procedure

  Olli Rehn, Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, first of all, I would like to thank the Members for a very substantive and serious debate. I will respond on behalf of the Commission on some of the key questions. As we were asked what we will take from this debate, I can say that I am fully aware that Europe is living through very tough times in terms of employment and the problems of unemployment, and in terms of growth or lack of growth. This has been very clearly reflected in all the speeches in your debate today.

From our side, I want to underline that it would be very important to try to avoid an excessively ideological debate on fiscal consolidation. It is clear that, as seen in the past three or four years, the level of public debt in Europe has increased from around 60% to around 90% of GDP. It is hampering growth and causing problems for sustainable growth and employment. Therefore, we need a dual strategy, which we are working on. We need both fiscal consolidation and sustainable growth for the sake of sustainable development.

Overall – not least thanks to the ‘six-pack’, the new economic governance and your support for this new framework for economic governance – we are getting results as regards fiscal consolidation in the euro area and in the whole European Union, which is a necessary condition for sustainable growth and job creation. In the next few weeks, we will assess the economic and fiscal policy stance of the euro area and the Union as a whole on the basis of the latest information from Eurostat and our forthcoming spring forecast. Then it will be the right time to analyse and decide what is the best way to strike the right balance between consolidation and growth in Europe.

This is a very important debate for the whole euro area (not only for certain countries), and therefore we are pursuing this debate and are currently making the necessary preparations. I very much look forward to continuing this discussion with the Parliament in the coming weeks.

What do we need for sustainable growth? We need investment, even under the constraints of fiscal consolidation we are currently facing. Let me refer here to what the Commission proposed in the annual growth survey at the end of last year. We put forward a very investment-oriented multifinancial framework. Last year, we proposed project bonds in order to stimulate investment, and just before Easter we had a breakthrough when the Council endorsed this. I want to ensure that we can start the first concrete projects moving in the course of the coming months – this summer – in order to have investment in infrastructure, energy, transport and communication, which means sustainable employment for Europe.

I want to thank you for your very concrete support for the objective of project bonds. We have called for reinforcement of the capital base of the European Investment Bank, which is a very powerful instrument of the European Union for supporting growth and employment. But, as you know, it is reaching the limits of what it can do with its current capital base, and therefore, in order to allow the EIB to do more for growth and jobs, its capital needs must be addressed. Its capital base needs to be increased, and this should be done by its shareholders and by the EU Member States. For instance, a capital increase of EUR 10 billion would allow the EIB to lend approximately EUR 60 billion which, in turn, would attract other financing sources for a total investment of EUR 180 billion for new projects.

Let me therefore send a very clear and constructive message to all the Member States. For the sake of sustainable growth and job creation, we need more European cross-border and Community investment in infrastructure, energy, transport, innovation, research and communication. Therefore, I call on them to provide additional capital for the EIB and on you to support this objective with the Member States.

We need to intensify our work in employment policy. Today, my colleague, László Andor, presented to us a very comprehensive and ambitious package on employment policy covering several areas, including putting the emphasis on the urgent need to focus on efforts on the demand side of job creation. This means encouraging the Member States to take steps that create the right conditions for job creation and labour demand. The package also looks at the major structural challenges facing Europe – to which Ms Cornelissen referred in her speech – such as the move towards a low carbon and resource-efficient economy, the demographic ageing of our societies and rapid technological change. Here, we have identified the green economy, information and communication technologies and health services as the three areas that generate the most job opportunities in Europe. For instance, the green economy alone is expected to create over 20 million jobs in the next ten years, of course on the condition that we can pursue and intensify investment along the lines I described, for instance, by using the European Investment Bank as an instrument.

There were several questions relating to many of the Member States. I would just draw your attention to our communication today on promoting growth and jobs in Greece, which very clearly underlines that Europe stands by Greece in its efforts to reform its economy and administration. Today’s communication is about sending a strong signal that Greece can make it, together with its European partners. Greece can relaunch growth and restore its competitiveness. Greece can reform its tax system to make it more effective, fair and just. It can also reform its public administration.

With regard to Italy and Spain, which were referred to in several speeches, I would like to underline the fact that both countries – Italy and Spain – have taken and are taking effective and determined action on fiscal consolidation as well as growth-boosting structural reforms, which, over time, will help build confidence in the economies of Italy and Spain. In this context, it is essential – indeed it is crucial – that the European partners of Italy and Spain – the Member States, the Commission, the Parliament and the other EU institutions – all support these countries and stay united behind Italy and Spain in order to help them to overcome their challenges.

On the issue of the mutualisation or the joint issuance of public debt – to which Ms Berès and Mr Tremosa i Balcells referred – after the difficult decision on the reinforcement of the euro area financial firewalls was taken just two weeks ago by the Euro Group, now is the time to focus on the next steps to elaborate how we can make concrete progress in this very important field. That is why the Commission presented the Green Paper a few months ago. We have received feedback on that and will shortly be providing you with information on the results of the consultation before making our proposal on the basis of this consultation.

This is also why the new economic governance is so crucial and essential, because any form of partial joint issuance of public debt which would help to stabilise the European economy is only acceptable in Europe for many Member States if they can be certain that fiscal prudence and economic sustainability are ensured and guaranteed. That is the job of the new economic governance we have created together. I can see that the further reinforcement of economic governance, on the one hand, and consideration of steps towards partial joint issuance of public debt, on the other, move very much in parallel, hand in hand.

Mr President, honourable Members, let me thank you for this debate. The Commission is always here for constructive, critical, substantive and serious debate with you. You can rest assured that the Commission defends a very ambitious policy agenda of sustainable growth and job creation in Europe. But we also need the EU Member States on board for this, and I count on your support, because this is what really matters to our citizens. Sustainable growth, job creation and employment really matter to our citizens in Europe.

  President. – The debate is closed.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Considerable work has been carried out in the area of financial stability – congratulations! However, it is incomprehensible for Spain or Italy to borrow from the banks at 6% while the banks borrow from the European Central Bank at 1%. I propose that we create, within each Member State of the euro area, special purpose defeasance entities, with a banking license to manage bad debt that exceeds the ratios authorised by the Stability and Growth Pact.

I propose a political debate between national parliaments and the European Parliament on savings to be made in public expenditure (e.g. armies, diplomatic buildings, research programmes) at three levels – national, European and regional – based on an independent audit which could be conducted by the European Court of Auditors and the 27 national courts of auditors.

I reiterate the idea of a major investment plan of EUR 1 000 – 1 500 billion over the EU 2020 period and the creation of an investment section in the European budget.

Finally, I regret that President Van Rompuy did not attend this debate, as there is an increasingly urgent need to convene a European Council meeting with only one item on the agenda – growth.

  Sandra Kalniete (PPE), in writing. – (LV) Each time that Parliament discusses a directive extending the scope of the single market, a bitter struggle breaks out over wording that would allow some Member States to continue covertly with measures restricting the working of that market. The compromise that is finally reached represents a tiny step forward rather than a significant improvement. This tortoise-like pace puts a brake on the global competitiveness of the EU. We have to recognise that national protectionism makes us lose the most significant element in the control and prevention of every crisis, namely time. Let us take the issue of labour mobility as an example. Currently, there are 4 million job vacancies in Europe. Yet people are reluctant to move where there is work. This is due to linguistic and cultural barriers as well as the tax, pension and social security systems in different Member States. Among the 20 most important problems faced by European citizens in the single market as identified by the Commission, the first few places are taken by uncertainty over different social security systems and health care charges, recognition of professional qualifications and discrimination, tax computation and collection, difficulties with opening bank accounts, and even car registration. Businesses still rarely participate in public tender offerings in other EU states, as they suffer there from unjustifiably complicated registration procedures and non-repayment of VAT. I am convinced that freeing the potential of the European single market is critical in promoting growth and employment. This cannot be achieved without energetic and determined action by the Member States.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) The euro area, and with it the entire EU, has found itself in an extremely difficult situation in which every solution seems a bad one. We are now criticising the current policy of budget cuts in Member States, saying we need to increase pro-growth measures and create jobs, while it seems the answer is not nearly so obvious. The economists are saying that, on the one hand, the cuts which have been made in the euro area countries are too high and have not yet proved effective, while, on the other hand, increasing spending will cause a further fall in investor confidence and, as a result, a further worsening of the situation. I think the optimal solution would be an appropriate combination of these two approaches on a Europe-wide scale and finding a sensible method which the markets will accept, whereas in Member States with relatively stable public finances, we should intensify measures to stimulate growth and employment. The European Commission should make efforts to complete construction of the European internal market, which, despite the fact that it was established almost 20 years ago, is still not making full use of its potential because it is, in fact, the single market which promotes cooperation and the development of all its participants. In addition, the Services Directive needs to be strengthened further to increase the free flow of services in the European market. At a time when access to money is difficult, an interesting proposal is found in project bonds, which are intended to allow the EU to finance a significant part of its investment expenditure in the current decade.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The EU has been facing serious economic and financial difficulties, obliging some Member States to request outside help so as to ensure the sustainability of their public accounts. Although a number of areas of society need reform, I believe there is a need to adopt long-term measures that will put the EU on the path to economic growth, job creation and wealth generation. I believe that only joint European effort will enable the creation of strategic synergies among Member States, and a move away from the budgetary austerity stage towards a new economic growth stage. I agree with the words of the President of the European Commission that there is a need to move from actions to words, gearing the EU budget towards investment in growth and employment. I would congratulate the Commission on the European policies it has been promoting, particularly the European Semester, the reallocation of EUR 82 billion from the EU funds, and increased support for Europe’s 23 million small and medium-sized enterprises and for youth employability. I should also like to express my hope for, and confidence in, the European project’s future: I believe increased economic and financial integration will enable us to make our societies safer and to assert Europe as the world’s major power.

  Kathleen Van Brempt (S&D), in writing. – (NL) Now the euro crisis is threatening to flare up again, it has again become clear that the handling of the crisis by the conservative majority in Europe is not working. The Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists & Democrats in the European Parliament came to this conclusion almost two years ago. A policy that focuses only on rigorous saving, without balancing it out with investments in growth and jobs, is strangling the European economy. The fact that the Commission has finally come up with a jobs package is, in itself, commendable but, unfortunately, this is again too little, too late.

Instead of putting jobs and growth centre stage in the European Semester, the communication confines itself to listing a mishmash of existing measures without developing a strong legislative basis and without setting aside the necessary resources. There can be only one conclusion: this ‘employment package’ is a fig leaf. Meanwhile, a broad consensus has grown in support of our criticism that the narrow-minded perspective of savings and fiscal consolidation is leading the EU straight into the abyss.

It is, therefore, high time that the Commission came up with a real growth plan and put growth and job creation centre stage in the European Semester. The time of empty talk is over; we need tough legislation.

  Dominique Vlasto (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Excessive deficits in the euro area were grist to the mill for speculators who made substantial profits betting on the degradation of sovereign debts. This unbridled speculation created a climate of distrust, destabilised the whole continent and crippled investor confidence. While the markets now have Spain in their sights, it is imperative that we continue to strengthen public finances to restore a climate of confidence, crucial to the sustainable recovery of economic activity. Alongside efforts to improve public accounts, which are, I assure you, a prerequisite for building sustainable growth, we must enact reforms strong enough to boost the recovery. Therefore, I support the proposal to reduce income tax, by shifting taxation in part towards VAT, in order to boost employment and the competitiveness of our workforce. Such a measure will facilitate our exports and support our trade surplus. Finally, in my opinion, the European Central Bank should also participate in achieving growth objectives by lending directly to Member States rather than going through the intermediary of banks. This direct injection of new funding would grease the economic machine and support the real economy.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) Much has already been done to combat the economic crisis in the euro area; to remind you of just two examples, the ‘six-pack’ and, most recently, the ‘two-pack’ that is on its way. Lasting growth can only be achieved if we have a sound employment policy. Think, for example, of the high numbers of people – and particularly young people – who are unemployed in Europe, especially in the southern Member States. We need to act quickly and specifically. Let us invest in solid education and training. What has happened to the 2020 goals? Let us stop all the talking and take some very concrete action soon. Europe needs promising action. These goals can be achieved through a combination of ‘neat’ budgetary consolidation and lasting growth.

14. Call for concrete ways to combat tax fraud and tax evasion (debate)

  President. – The next item is the statements by the Council and the Commission: Call for concrete ways to combat tax fraud and tax evasion [2012/2599(RSP)].

  Nicolai Wammen, President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, on behalf of the Danish Presidency, I would like to thank Parliament for the importance it attaches to the subject of the fight against fraud and evasion. The Council shares the view that this issue is a vital part of tax policy and that tax cooperation is a priority for the Presidency. This is even more the case in the context of the current economic climate and the need for all the Member States to ensure ambitious, fiscal consolidation.

The Council has undertaken a variety of initiatives to address this problem in recent years. In 2006 and 2007, the Council adopted conclusions aimed at establishing an anti-fraud strategy at Community level, in particular, in the area of VAT fraud. Since then, the Council has adopted a number of acts such as the strengthening of the regulation on administrative cooperation between Member States in the field of VAT as well as a number of modifications to the VAT Directive which are aimed at tackling fraud. This includes the speeding up of information exchange between Member States, the establishment of conditions for VAT exemptions on imports and agreements on invoicing rules.

In the area of direct taxation, as recently as February 2011, the Council adopted the directive on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation, which is aimed at strengthening the instruments of mutual assistance in the assessment of direct taxes between Member States. The directive provides, among other things, for increased possibilities for exchanging information and requests and introduces provisions on the automatic exchange of information.

Furthermore, in 2003, the Council adopted the directive on the taxation of saving income in the form of interest payments. Finally, in March 2010, the Council adopted the directive concerning mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to taxes, duties and other measures, which is a major upgrade of the existing mutual assistance instruments to collect taxes.

I believe that these various initiatives demonstrate the Council’s commitment to tackling tax fraud and evasion. That said, it is clear that more can and should be done. At its last meeting in March, the European Council underlined the importance of fiscal consolidation and growth. In that context, it called on the Council and the Commission to rapidly develop concrete ways to improve the fight against tax fraud and tax evasion and to report back in June this year.

The Danish Presidency attaches great importance to this issue. The work is currently under way, and we fully expect to respect the deadline and report back to the European Council in June. Obviously, at this stage I cannot provide you with full details of what we expect to have in that report, but I can give you an idea of the work which is ongoing in Council.

Firstly, the Danish Presidency is pressing ahead with the Savings Taxation Directive. This file is due to be discussed by Ecofin Ministers in May or June, hopefully on 15 May. At that meeting, the Danish Presidency will propose that a mandate be adopted to allow the Commission to open negotiations with Switzerland and other non-EU Western European countries on a new generation of savings taxation agreements. The savings agreements with third countries can then be revised in parallel with the proposed amendments to the EU Savings Directive. The overall objective is to ensure more effective taxation of cross-border savings, and the Danish Presidency hopes that we will be able to make real progress on this difficult file, a file which is important for combating tax fraud and tax evasion.

Secondly, on the issue of excess duties, the new Administrative Collaboration Directive is due to be adopted at the next Ecofin Council meeting. This constitutes a major upgrade of the tools available to Member States to fight fraud and evasion in the area. Thirdly, as regards VAT, the Council will take a close look at the Commission’s communication on the future of VAT, which proposes new ways for dealing with VAT fraud. Detailed Council conclusions on this issue are expected by the end of the Danish Presidency.

In addition to initiatives in the legislative field, the Council is continuing work on the coordination of tax policies. The Council’s Code of Conduct group, which coordinates the efforts of Member States in the fight against harmful tax competition in the area of business taxation, is embarking on a new line of work aimed at promoting the principles of the code to third countries.

Dear colleagues, we will be working closely with you and the Commission to ensure that this will be a successful battle against tax fraud and evasion.

  Algirdas Šemeta, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, Minister, honourable Members, in these difficult times, we must ensure that taxes are efficiently and fairly collected. We cannot ask citizens to accept the burden of increased taxes and cuts in public services if we do not do our utmost to clamp down on activities and practices that rob Member States of legitimate income. I am particularly pleased that the European Council has called for an improvement in this field.

As stated in the AGS last December, the Commission has already been working on a strategy to enhance the fight against tax fraud and evasion. The request of the Heads of State or Government and your debate today will give further momentum to this work. In this context, I look forward to hearing your views and concerns today.

In order to better frame a European-wide strategy, I believe that we need to take a three-pronged approach.

Firstly, Member States need to make the best use of the tools available at EU level. For example, Eurofisc can provide a real return on investment to fight VAT fraud through the quick exchange of targeted information and the opportunity for joint risk analysis. The Commission will continue to support Eurofisc and the practical activities under the Fiscalis spending programme. In direct taxation, Member States have to use fully the provisions of the Mutual Assistance Directive and the mechanisms of the Savings Directive.

This brings me to my second point: progress in the Council on pending proposals that impact on the fight against tax fraud and evasion is too slow. Finance Ministers have to find a way out of the impasse on the revision of the Savings Directive that we have been in for too long, the more so since there have been important international developments over the last three years. The exchange of information has become a global standard undermining bank secrecy. It is now time for the European Union to take its own mechanisms a step forward. The first step has to be for the Council to mandate the Commission to negotiate with our partners in neighbouring jurisdictions, particularly Switzerland.

Thirdly, we need to look forward by developing new ideas. What can be done? For example, develop a joined-up approach to controls and investigations not only across borders between tax administrations, but also between different agencies such as those dealing with customs and tax. New ideas should also be developed, such as quick reaction mechanisms for allowing Member States to take rapid action against new types of carousel VAT fraud.

As already announced in the Commission’s work programme for 2012, I also intend to go further in fighting against tax havens and aggressive tax planning. We need to leverage the economic and political muscle of the Union to ensure that we defend ourselves against non-cooperative jurisdictions and others that do not play fair. In parallel, based on the results of the ongoing double non-taxation public consultation, I will be continuing to push for effective means to end situations of aggressive tax planning which undermine fair tax collection.

Before concluding, let me point out that we are aware that improvements are needed not only on tax legislation. As Commissioner in charge of anti-fraud, I tabled last June the Commission anti-fraud strategy which tackles large-scale smuggling of cigarettes and alcohol at the EU Eastern border. It increases transparency in entities benefiting from EU funds: those which have not fulfilled their tax obligations would be refused any EU subsidies.

My fellow Commissioner, Michel Barnier, is also very active in promoting transparency in company accounts, with recent proposals on country-by-country reporting and interconnection of companies registers.

In conclusion, I believe that we must continue acting strongly against tax fraud and evasion and I look forward to a vibrant and constructive debate with you.

Thank you.

  Pablo Zalba Bidegain, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (ES) Mr President, Mr Šemeta, the last European Council meeting focused on the need to improve the taxation system in order to improve tax collection efficiency and put a stop to tax evasion and tax fraud. Spain will introduce a law on this matter.

The ideas that have been put forward by the Council and given expression in this resolution are priorities of Spain’s economic policy and, I am certain, that of the rest of Europe as well.

They will enable us to bring about legal certainty, reduce the informal economy and lower the number of people who are not fulfilling their tax obligations; this will be sure to create a fairer Europe.

Furthermore, we should bear in mind the recommendations made by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the principle of trying to eliminate or reduce to a minimum the comparative disadvantage between those who have fulfilled their taxation obligations and those who do not fulfil them.

The resolution we shall vote on in plenary and the Spanish plan to prevent and combat tax fraud therefore seek to fight against the informal economy, promote transparency and European coordination, boost tax collection – enabling the deficit to be reduced, which is so badly needed at the moment – and not damage opportunities for growth but, on the contrary, create a fairer and more efficient system that reflects those opportunities.

Those decisions will have a very positive impact on the public accounts and, I insist, will make a significant contribution to reducing the deficit and, therefore, to restoring growth.

Finally, while we are talking about growth, I want to take this opportunity to stress that, in order to achieve the growth we so badly want, we should continue to pledge our commitment to internationalising our economy and our businesses, as the Council has stated many times. To achieve that, however, we need to guarantee the legal certainty of our investments, but I do not want to speak ahead of the debate we shall have later.

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

  María Muñiz De Urquiza (S&D), Blue-card question. – (ES) Mr President, Mr Zalba, you have made several mentions of the Spanish Government’s plans with regard to tax evasion. I presume you are thinking of the Spanish Government’s plans in the area of tax amnesty for tax evaders. Could you explain to Parliament what tax amnesty consists of and how those who have evaded taxes will be regularised, to the detriment of those who pay their taxes properly?

  Pablo Zalba Bidegain (PPE), Blue-card answer. – (ES) Mr President, firstly, Ms Muñiz, the Spanish Government has not passed any tax amnesty laws because, as you are aware, that concept is not included in the Spanish constitution. It is true that the Spanish Government has proposed regularisation, as other countries such as Belgium and Germany have done, as well as other Spanish governments of your own political affiliation – that is, the Socialist Party, a few years ago.

  Elisa Ferreira, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (PT) Mr President, budgetary consolidation is making almost unbearable demands of the European public. Every day, meanwhile, there are fewer to bear an increasing burden. The tax burden falls on workers, on small and medium-sized enterprises, and on consumers, while tax flight and tax evasion on a vast scale are taking place.

The Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament wanted to know how much money was being lost to the 27 Member States from this tax flight and tax evasion, and the answer was EUR 1 trillion. That is more than all the EU Member States put together spend on health care. It is so much that if we invested just one fifth of it, investment in Europe would increase from 2.7% of GDP to 3.5%. We are, therefore, talking about an exceptionally large sum and the purpose of the resolution we are going to adopt – at Parliament’s initiative – is a very clear demand that the Commission and the Council speed up concrete action to combat tax evasion and fraud.

This means, in particular, concrete initiatives for tax cooperation within the European Union, and for cooperation with our neighbouring countries – particularly Switzerland – negotiated by the Commission and not bilaterally by individual countries. This means reforming and harmonising accounting rules, and increasing transparency and reporting. This clearly means resurrecting the key issue of combating tax fraud and evasion through tax havens. Europe is not a minority partner. Europe is a major international player. Europe is obliged to advocate clearly the joint combating of tax fraud and evasion in the G20. If not, we will lose credibility with the public. Therefore, my final words in this debate are to encourage the Commission and the Council to start effectively combating tax fraud and evasion.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (ES) Mr President, my reason for speaking is to express my agreement with this resolution and the measures it proposes. Combating fraud and tax evasion is a matter of institutional efficiency and social justice. Firstly, because it deters tax evaders and encourages those who fulfil their tax obligations; secondly, because it improves the state of public accounts; finally, because it strengthens the values of solidarity and social justice on which our coexistence is based.

I also believe that in order to combat fraud, we need to have tax harmonisation, to coordinate all the European treasuries with institutional, regulatory and economic autonomy, and to exchange data between all of them. I would urge that in carrying this out, everyone should be treated equally, because my region, which is fiscally autonomous, has been sanctioned for applying tax regulations that are identical to those used by other Member States that have not received any reproaches from Europe.

I would like to draw your attention to the need to have better control of the informal economy and to eradicate this practice, which is just another systematic, horizontal way of avoiding taxes, cheating the tax office and promoting unfair competition. I regret that this resolution does not include any denouncement of this situation or concrete measures to improve it.

Finally, I urge everyone to share best practices in order to promote the aforementioned values among our citizens, and I am committed to seeing Europe as a whole quickly take a stand against corruption, another curse that takes away from the legitimacy and prestige of our public management.

  Sven Giegold, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in view of the current situation as regards public finances and the economy in Europe, this is no time for fairy tales when it comes to tax policy. The situation in Council is quite simply that little progress is being made on tax policy proposals. Why is that? It is because some countries are opposed to further tax cooperation. They profit from aggressive tax planning; they are tax havens themselves.

The Treaties clearly state that there must be unanimity on tax matters. That is why the Commission’s proposals have been shipwrecked on various occasions in the past. They are watered down, or no progress is made – as in the case of the directive on interest. Recent proposals have already been resigned to this and do not even suggest anything demanding any more. I would therefore ask you, Mr Šemeta – and I know your job is not an easy one where this is concerned – to change strategy, to present strict measures and go for enhanced cooperation in order to end the blockade in Council.

IN THE CHAIR: JACEK PROTASIEWICZ
Vice-President

  Juozas Imbrasas, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (LT) Mr President, Commissioner, in the context of the economic downturn in Europe, tax collecting and related policies become particularly important. Fiscal policy must be simple, clear and comprehensible to all taxpayers. Taxes must be effective and fair. At the same time, tax evasion and fraud are a key factor threatening the revenue of all countries and costing billions. Only an effective and targeted fight against tax fraud and evasion is therefore the main way of obtaining the resources necessary to increase public investment in Europe’s international competitiveness and opportunities for growth. An environment needs to be created where evading taxes does not bring any benefits and is not worth doing. The Council and the Commission must therefore take the most decisive measures to address this issue. A concerted effort to combat tax fraud and evasion will make it possible to ensure that Member State tax bases function effectively and to increase revenue without increasing the tax burden.

  Cornelis de Jong, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (NL) Mr President, did you know that Ikea is a Dutch company, just like Eni, a company of Italian origin, Coca Cola Hellenic Bottling Company, as the Greek soft drinks bottler is called, and Jerónimo Martins, the largest Portuguese supermarket.

Obviously, these companies are not really Dutch. These are ingenious set-ups with an administrative office in the Netherlands and real activities elsewhere. These companies are doing this, through secret agreements with the Dutch Tax and Customs Administration, in order to pay as little tax as possible. Often, they use the network of tax treaties set up by the Netherlands through which they are able to channel their profits to tax havens following minimal tax payments in the Netherlands.

It is shocking to see that such multinationals are evading tax while, everywhere in Europe, people are having to tighten their belts as a result of the austerity fury. This means that the heaviest shoulders are carrying the lightest burdens. This problem cannot be resolved nationally; the European Union has to take action.

In the resolution, we ask, amongst other things, for transparency. The annual accounts of multinationals should be much clearer and more specific, that is, they should provide insight into sales and profits for each country. Tax treaties, both between Member States and with third countries, should be examined and coordinated, so that they cannot be misused for tax evasion.

In addition, we need to move towards a European minimum rate for corporation tax. I hope that the Commission will pick up this broadly supported resolution and hurry up with the preparation of proposals.

  Anni Podimata (S&D). – (EL) Mr President, Mr Wammen, Commissioner, we took the initiative to hold this debate precisely because we believe that combating tax evasion and tax avoidance are, and must be, an integral part of national and European strategies to get out of the crisis. That is because tax evasion and tax avoidance make cost-sharing socially unfair and undermine fiscal targets for economic and social reasons.

It is irrational for us to take action solely in order to deepen fiscal policy, without at the same time taking action to converge and coordinate fiscal policy; otherwise, fiscal competition between us will increase and the fiscal problems of countries in difficulty will worsen. It is not just a question of fiscal competition between us; it is also the capital flight abroad to Switzerland and to other Member States of the European Union that have retained the banking veil.

Obviously, each country is responsible for tax evasion; the same applies to the fiscal crisis. However, that does not prevent the Council and the Commission from adopting more stringent rules and policies to combat the problem.

  Udo Bullmann (S&D). – (DE) Mr President, the Council Presidency has told us that on 15 May, it will work towards a European mandate allowing the Commission to negotiate. I think that is a good thing. Rightly so. We will then be able to see how far the European Commission gets in its negotiations with Switzerland and others. It is also right, however, when honourable Members say that we should go for enhanced cooperation in areas where they can help us further.

Yet you should ask sometime – you do, after all, have an audience for what you are doing – you should ask the German Government and the French Government why they have not been doing that for a long time already. Why is it that in their home countries, they always come out with fine words, but never actually take the initiative. That would be something. Please would you also publicly answer the question as to why the US is apparently far more successful in its bilateral efforts and is able to exert pressure far more successfully – on Switzerland, for example – than the German Government, rather than simply saying that what they are doing is fine. In the interests of our citizens, ask what the US is doing differently to European countries, so that we can make some practical progress at last.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, tax evasion results in substantial economic losses and affects the functioning of State institutions, thereby jeopardising national security. Romania has revenues of just 33% of GDP, which is below the European average of 40%. The government in my country has made it one of its priorities to combat this problem, setting up, with this purpose in mind, an interministerial committee for combating tax evasion. It is well known that the Netherlands is against my country joining the Schengen area, giving corruption and fraud as reasons for this. By an ironic paradox, a consignment of 40 million smuggled cigarettes with a value of EUR 15 million spent four days in the port of Rotterdam in the Netherlands, a Schengen Member State, without being discovered. This could not have happened in the port of Constanţa in Romania. The credit for this impressive haul, which was made last week, goes to the Irish authorities, whom I would like to congratulate.

  Nikos Chrysogelos (Verts/ALE). – (EL) Mr President, I should like to point out and to ask the Commission this: as we all know, Greece has serious fiscal problems; on the other hand, however, we all know that the Swiss banks are holding …

(The President cut off the speaker)

  President. – Mr Chrysogelos, I am sorry but this is not a blue-card question. With the blue-card procedure, you can only put the question to another MEP who has just spoken. I am sorry about that.

  Janusz Władysław Zemke (S&D). – (PL) Mr President, I cannot stress too strongly that in connection with the crisis in Europe, many Member States have recently increased taxation. This is the wrong approach, it is one which slows development even more and further restricts the creation of new jobs. Much better effects would be achieved by improving tax collection rates and being more effective in the fight against tax fraud. There would certainly then be less economic and financial damage, and there would be a chance that the principle of fair competition would be respected. I must admit that the statements which were made here at the beginning of this debate today trouble me. I do not think we are determined enough in the fight against tax fraudsters, and in the current exceptional situation of Europe’s economy and finances, I think we need to be showing much more determination here.

  Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE). – (HU) Mr President, the issue raised is extremely topical, as there is an extraordinarily great need for both the prevention of tax evasion and the income thus generated. The crisis has confirmed this to us, as it has also confirmed that it is not enough to impose requirements; we must also continuously evaluate and monitor compliance with them. If we fail to do so, then we will lose not only revenue but also European citizens’ and enterprises’ trust and their faith in the future. In addition to today’s debate, the initiative to review dubious bilateral agreements and extend the scope of the Savings Tax Directive is especially welcome. Moreover, I find it important that tax evasion via hybrid financial instruments has also been mentioned. I, too, will give high priority to this matter, also in my capacity as the MEP responsible for the dossier on royalties and interest payments.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI). – (DE) Mr President, combating tax evasion and tax fraud is of great importance if you bear in mind that tax fraud accounts for EUR 1 trillion in the budgets of EU Member States. That is money that could and must be invested in the public sector, in growth and employment, allowing us to actively take one more step out of the crisis. We need greater transparency by the Member States and, above all, enhanced cooperation, taking into account Article 65 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE). – (EL) Mr President, tax evasion and corruption cost Europe 1% of GDP, or approximately EUR 120 billion. Also, according to a recent study, two-thirds of the Member States of Europe failed to score over five out of ten in a recent corruption assessment. I mention this in order to point out, on the question of tax evasion, that this problem does not concern specific Member States only, as certain Members often state; it is a European problem and should be addressed as such.

In addition to what my colleagues have said, I should like to add another parameter. The European funds spend a great deal of money on e-governance. Of that, approximately 1 billion is earmarked for Greece up to 2013 for e-governance and for reforms of the public administration. These funds will be put to targeted use in order to combat tax evasion.

End of the catch-the-eye procedure

  Algirdas Šemeta, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, Minister, honourable Members, this has been a most timely and constructive debate. I have listened attentively to the many views expressed and I am encouraged in my determination to push for further action against tax fraud and tax evasion by your clearly articulated concerns.

The Heads of State or Government have clearly indicated the importance they attach to concrete action in this area. The challenge is to translate this political wish into real action on the ground.

Effective tax systems require many things, such as good design, effective controls and strong administrations. These are elements that Member States need to reflect on, over and above the traditional Union concerns about cross-border issues on tax. I believe that we now have the opportunity, with the European Semester process this year, to put these issues clearly at the centre of the economic governance agenda, and I will be advocating this strongly in the coming months.

I have two important priorities. Firstly, I wish to ensure that the Commission’s report to the European Council in June provides a sound and realistic basis for further work. It is important to mobilise finance ministers to tackle the important issues concerning tax fraud and evasion. Secondly, I will, over the coming months, be developing my ideas for the initiative I am planning on tax havens and aggressive tax planning.

You have provided me today with an extensive list of concerns and ideas. Many of you referred to the issue of agreement with Switzerland, and I am looking forward to the efforts of the Danish Presidency to finalise this point and pave the way for the Commission to negotiate with Switzerland and to give our Member States the possibility to collect the money that they deserve.

Many of you spoke about issues of aggressive tax planning. This is also on the Commission’s agenda for this year, and we will put forward concrete initiatives on how to tackle this problem. On sharing good practices, I have to say that we have a specific structure for this: a tax policy group that was established by the Commission. In this forum, we invite Member States to share their good practices, in order to be able to use these practices in other Member States.

Mr Bullmann raised the issue of the United States’ ability to fight against tax fraud. I would not agree that we are worse than the United States. Actually, we are working in very close cooperation with the United States in promoting standards of exchange of information around the globe, and I hope that this cooperation will provide good results, not only in our relationship with Switzerland, but also with other third countries.

I will also be engaging with stakeholders on this issue and building on the current public consultation on cases of double non-taxation. The support of Parliament is essential if we are to progress, both in providing political leadership and in supporting appropriate Commission legislative initiatives.

To conclude, Mr President, honourable Members, Minister, I am pleased to have been able to contribute to today’s debate. I have appreciated your insights and I look forward to further opportunities to debate this important issue.

  Nicolai Wammen, President-in-Office of the Council. – (DA) Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, I would like to thank you for a very interesting debate, which I think clearly demonstrates that combating tax fraud and tax evasion is an issue that the Council, Parliament and the Commission all consider to be extremely important. I also think that the large number of contributions today has emphasised the importance that is justifiably given to this subject.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Commissioner Šemeta for his account of the Commission’s contribution in this area, and I would like to return the compliment in relation to his remarks concerning the Danish Presidency. We also attach a great deal of importance to our cooperation with the Commissioner and the Commission.

As I started my first speech by saying, a wide range of issues is currently being discussed in the Council, and I hope and expect that we will see some results in the very near future. The question of Switzerland was raised, and the Danish Presidency is pressing for a mandate to be granted soon for negotiations aimed at getting an agreement in place with Switzerland.

The Presidency will work, in cooperation with the Member States, the Commission and this Parliament, to promote these processes, and we will do our best to make progress on the many issues concerned. For example, we are hoping to see progress in the area of interest taxation – a subject that has been debated for many years and in connection with which considerable progress needs to be made. We will also do our best to comply with the request of the European Council to provide it with a report on the progress made before the end of our Presidency.

Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to thank this Parliament for placing such an important issue on the agenda. The Danish Presidency will do its utmost, together with Parliament and the Commission, to ensure that the fight against tax evasion and tax fraud is placed high on the European agenda, and that results are achieved so that everyone makes the contribution required of them to our common prosperity and our common Europe.

  President. – I have received one motion for a resolution⁽¹⁾ tabled in accordance with Rule 110(2) of the Rules of Procedure.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Friday at 12.00.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Zuzana Brzobohatá (S&D), in writing. – (CS) The fight against the financial and economic crisis is currently being conducted mainly through austerity measures. Under the banner of greater competitiveness, these austerity measures are ultimately leading to the gradual degradation of the European social model. We now need a different policy, a policy aimed at supporting growth. Resources should be sought in national budgets mainly on the revenue side. This means, in particular, preventing tax evasion. According to one interesting study on the European grey economy produced for my group by a British tax consultant, the grey economy accounts for about 18% of the EU economy, and would bring in an additional EUR 864 billion, if taxed. The fight against tax evasion must be a common EU task. In this context, I support the resolution of the European Parliament on the call to put forward concrete measures for combating tax fraud and tax evasion.

  Anneli Jäätteenmäki (ALDE), in writing. – (FI) The EU has been toothless when it comes to tax havens. That is also true of other international actors, such as the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the G20, which consists of the world’s richest countries.

I have called on the European commission to take instant steps to curb tax evasion. It is good that the Commission has also now finally proposed something concrete. The Commission’s proposal that listed extractive and timber companies should produce financial statements for each country does not go far enough, however. Better laws on bookkeeping are required, to ensure that all companies and foundations are obliged to keep accounts for every country.

I am pleased that Parliament’s position, the subject of a vote tomorrow, has improved along the way. It is not reasonable merely to criticise the agreements in place between the EU Member States and third countries. For example, the agreement between Germany and Switzerland to combat new incidences of tax avoidance is estimated to bring as much as EUR 10 billion in additional revenue for Germany next year. We need to try to persuade all EU countries to be involved in these agreements. However, if this is not possible in practical terms, EUR 10 billion in additional revenue, for example, is a lot better than nothing at all.

(1) See Minutes

15. Legal security of European investments outside the European Union (debate)

  President. – The next item is the Council and Commission statements on the legal security of European investments outside the European Union (2012/2619(RSP)).

  Nicolai Wammen, President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, on Monday, the Argentine Government announced that it intends to expropriate the majority share held by a Spanish company in the YPF energy company. This Parliament is right to raise this important issue as a matter of urgency.

Before going any further, let me stress that the matter has not yet been discussed in the Council. However, the Danish Presidency – and I expect this will also be the position of the Council once we have had the opportunity to discuss the matter in the Foreign Affairs Council next Monday – shares those concerns and regards the intentions of the Argentine Government as unacceptable and damaging. This is the case with regard both to the continuing attractiveness of investing in Argentina and to the wider business environment.

I would therefore like to make it crystal clear that we fully understand the particular concerns, in this case of the Spanish Government, and that the Danish Presidency strongly supports Spain in this matter. I have also noted that both the President of the Commission and the High Representative have expressed similar concerns. The recent announcement by President Kirchner threatens to undermine the confidence of the international business community and the security of its investments in the country. It is likely to discourage further investment and therefore risk damaging the future development of the Argentine economy. As such, it is a profoundly misguided measure and one which will come to be seen as contrary to Argentina’s interests.

The most recent announcement concerning YPF is only the latest in a number of decisions taken by Argentina in the areas of import restriction and investment policy. We have followed these announcements with growing concern. Such unilateral measures are not helpful to a flourishing business environment, and they risk creating wider difficulties in the relationship between the EU and Argentina.

More generally, the business community within the EU needs security if it is to continue to invest internationally. Insecurity is bad for business, for growth and for job creation. Ultimately, that creates problems for those countries which depend on inward investment. Legal certainty is essential in our globalised economic environment. It means being sure that third countries comply with their international commitments, including in the areas of the treatment and protection of inward investments.

In response to the announcement by the Argentine President, a decision was taken, as announced by the High Representative yesterday, to postpone the meeting of the Joint Cooperation Committee with Argentina, which was due to take place this Friday. The EU has also formally expressed its concerns on this matter to its delegation in Buenos Aires, and the issue is due to be raised at next Monday’s meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council. We will need to look closely at what next steps might need to be taken. In doing so, we will take full account of the outcome of this debate and will, of course, keep Parliament fully informed of further developments.

(Applause)

  Antonio Tajani, Vice-President of the Commission. – (ES) Mr President, Mr Wammen, the Commission is monitoring the situation very closely after it was announced that Argentina was expropriating the majority share held by the Spanish company Repsol in the YPF energy company.

The Commission wishes to express its serious concern and vigorous condemnation of this action, which affects a European company and therefore a significant EU investment in Argentina. It is not for nothing that YPF is the most important oil-producing company in the country.

This announcement has led to a situation of legal uncertainty that is incompatible with international law and could seriously affect international investments, undermining their stability and protection.

The Commission would also like to express its grave concern over the potential negative impact in other sectors that were mentioned by the President of Argentina in her public address.

The Commission urges the Argentine Government to respect its international commitments with regard to the treatment and protection of investments originating in an EU Member State and, in particular, calls on it to comply with – in this case – the Bilateral Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement, signed by Argentina and Spain on 3 October 1991.

That agreement expressly protects investments made pursuant to the law, and it demands fair treatment of those investments, forbidding any unjustified or discriminatory measures such as those applied in this case. Those commitments must be respected. The Commission is demanding that the rights of European investors be duly protected and guaranteed.

The Commission has already conveyed its serious concern to the Argentine Government through the European Union delegation in Argentina.

Mr Barroso himself has been in contact a number of times with the Prime Minister of Spain, Mr Rajoy, and clearly expressed his concern from the very beginning. For the same purpose, Mr De Gucht, Commissioner for Trade, will be sending a letter to the Argentine Minister for Trade.

Given the situation that has arisen, the Commission and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Baroness Ashton, have decided to cancel the EU-Argentina Joint Cooperation Committee meeting due to take place on 19 and 20 April.

As Commissioner for Industry and Entrepreneurship, I can also inform you that my Directorate-General of Enterprise and Industry, along with a number of European companies, was due to undertake a mission to Brazil, Uruguay, Chile and Argentina next week, but obviously this will not take place in Argentina. It will go ahead in the other countries, of course, but it is clear that the climate created by this expropriation does not allow this mission to take place in Argentina.

The Commission fully supports Spain. Our services, with Spain’s consent, are currently examining the measures that need to be adopted. At the moment, no options are being ruled out.

I would like to stress the importance of reaching a solution by common agreement in accordance with international law and the principles of legal certainty and investment protection, which does not damage relations between the EU and Argentina or have an adverse effect on European investors in Argentina.

  Jaime Mayor Oreja, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (ES) Mr President, I shall not waste too much time describing the decision and procedures undertaken by the Argentine Government in its expropriation of YPF-Repsol. As I said yesterday, however, arbitrariness, legal uncertainty and illegitimacy are some of the terms that this decision merits.

We are therefore facing a violation of rights and principles, appalling political and economic practice, and a worrying precedent, which means that this incident affects all Europeans. This is not, therefore, a dispute merely between Spain and Argentina.

That is why today, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), I would like to stress what Europeans – the European institutions – can do, as well as why, what for and how, when this kind of decision is taken, which weakens the principles and, undoubtedly, the freedoms I have just mentioned, with the aim being that this type of action is never repeated. Allow me to express two ideas.

The first is that in times and situations of crisis such as we are currently experiencing, the weaknesses of everyone, national governments and national institutions of the different countries, both inside and outside the EU, tend to increase; this is a reminder that the EU’s strength is its reason for being, and that the best instrument with which to alleviate the difficulties and weaknesses of the Member States should be the Union’s strength. That is the EU’s main purpose.

My second idea is this: the crisis involves us all and is present in every European country; although it might appear momentarily that it is settling in one country or another, it is, in fact, our very model that is in crisis and, if it is not resolved, that crisis spreads slowly, gradually and systematically throughout all the countries. That is why one of the deep-rooted causes of this crisis is the EU’s lack of political ambition, and therefore the different manifestations of the crisis at hand should serve as opportunities so that the European voice can be clearly heard when this kind of injustice endangers the investments and future of the European institutions.

I therefore welcome the determination shown by Mr Wammen, Mr Tajani, Baroness Ashton and Mr Barroso, who have proven that they are examining measures with which to tackle this situation. The more planned, strategic and organised measures we adopt, the greater and better our response will be to this crisis.

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

  Raül Romeva i Rueda, Blue-card question. – (ES) Mr President, I agree that we are in a situation of crisis, but Mr Mayor Oreja forgot to mention an important aspect, which is the climate and environment.

Bearing in mind that the burning of fossil fuels is one of the main causes of climate change, would it not be more relevant, more appropriate and more reasonable for these two countries – and, in this case, two regions – to cooperate in order to seek solutions with which to tackle this crisis, rather than competing, as they are currently doing, to continue consuming fossil fuels even though using them pollutes the world for all of us in some way?

  Jaime Mayor Oreja (PPE), Blue-card answer. – (ES) Mr President, the climate crisis cannot be used as an argument to cover up an injustice of this kind. The fact that we are experiencing harmful climate change should in no way allow us to hide the injustices, arbitrariness and legal uncertainties that are taking place in a country such as Argentina.

One day, we shall have the debate you want on climate change and – you are not really listening to me – on the crisis of values and principles that we are having in the EU and European countries. We can talk about climate change and the crisis of values whenever you like, but today we must address an injustice that is being carried out in Argentina, which is damaging European prospects and investments in the countries of that region.

  Enrique Guerrero Salom, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (ES) Mr President, the Argentine Government has begun the process of expropriating the YPF majority shares belonging to Repsol, a European company based in Spain. According to what we know so far, this was a selective expropriation process. If that were the case, then it would also be discriminatory.

In recent weeks, there has been no lack of deliberate deceit, false promises, errors of judgment and inaccurate calculations. All of that has resulted in the non-existence and failure of any serious negotiation that could have avoided this expropriation.

However, we all know that this was not an impromptu, unexpected or hasty decision. On the contrary, it was prepared very carefully and gradually, causing obvious damage to the company’s value, which was a key element in the expropriation.

The Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament wholeheartedly shares the view expressed by Baroness Ashton yesterday in this House. We also share the concern expressed by Mr Barroso, the Spanish Government, and also, just now, by the Danish Presidency.

This decision is a bad sign, not only for European and Spanish investors, but also for international investors. It could also mean that we are heading down a path of insecurity that will damage relations between Argentina, Spain and Europe, which have traditionally been good.

The measure taken by the Argentine Government requires a clear, immediate and unequivocal response, but also an intelligent, continued response rather than a hasty one. The European institutions should join the Spanish Government in making this response. Our response should defend the interests that were legitimately acquired by European companies, but it should also be a measured response that avoids fuelling a confrontation between Latin America and Europe.

The companies that operate on that continent contribute to its growth, and they should respect environmental principles, but respect must first be shown for the rules that are agreed internationally. The Argentine Government has contravened those rules, and that is the underlying reason for Parliament’s response.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (ES) Mr President, there are three basic reasons why I wish to express our total disagreement with the expropriation that has affected European shareholders in the YPF company in Argentina. It is a violation of international law; it is a decision weighed down by misunderstood, ineffective protectionism in order to boost development; and finally, it causes major legal uncertainty for all the European operators who are investing and collaborating in the development of Argentina.

The S&D Group also wishes to express its concern over the process that has led to this expropriation and the campaign suffered by YPF to artificially devalue its stock exchange value and attempt to justify and reduce the costs of this operation.

We are also worried about the repercussions that this decision will have in Europe for companies that have business relations with Repsol.

Finally, we are profoundly concerned about what the future might hold for other European companies based in strategic sectors in Argentina.

For these reasons, the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe would like the Argentine authorities to reconsider their decision. This resolution therefore rejects and vigorously condemns what has taken place. Furthermore, it calls for all available resources to be mobilised in order to defend EU interests, and calls for talks to begin once again.

I hope this will happen for the good of the Union, the Argentine people, and for the credibility and international prestige of Argentina. That is what I wish for, so that this decision does not hamper the trade agreement negotiations under way between our Union and Mercosur, which are vital to both parties.

I therefore hope that the European authorities will exhaust all the diplomatic and economic options available to them, so as to encourage a change of attitude and reach a mutual solution together.

  Ana Miranda, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (ES) Mr President, we are debating the legal security of European investments. More specifically, however, to honour that legal certainty, our companies should fulfil their commitments. YPF did not comply with its investment agreements despite making profits of USD 16 billion. YPF compromised the energy sufficiency of a country when it caused a drastic fall in crude oil and gas production.

Argentina has the capability to be self-sufficient, but it is now obliged to import gas and oil at a cost of USD 11 billion, an amount that could be used to meet other needs of the population.

Furthermore, we defend the right of the people to exercise their sovereignty in order to manage their energy resources, particularly when there is a discrepancy between public and private interests.

Our group calls on the European Union not to block the agreement negotiations with Mercosur on account of a one-off, isolated conflict. The Argentine Government is modifying misguided policies from the past, while the Spanish Government is confusing a company’s interests with those of the State.

Finally, I trust that this debate will help us find some common ground, and that this controversy will motivate us to establish sustainable energy models.

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

  Salvador Garriga Polledo, Blue-card question. – (ES) Mr President, Ms Miranda, in addition to your justifications of the Argentine Government’s expropriation of the YPF company, which do not appear to be shared by the Commission, the Council or the majority in Parliament, I would like you to explain whether or not you also agree that the Argentine Government does not even want to comply with the economic assessment that is anticipated for the expropriation.

  Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE), Blue-card answer. – (ES) Mr President, Mr Garriga Polledo, the decree adopted recently not only provides for but also lays down the legitimacy of a sovereign government to take decisions – and I repeat – within the framework of its own sovereignty, and provides that investors will be compensated and all agreements signed will be complied with. This issue is therefore still open.

  Patrick Le Hyaric, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, I am very surprised at the over-dramatising here in Parliament.

You would have us believe there is a problem with the legal security of European investments in Argentina. In truth, contrary to the free choice of the Argentine Government, contrary to the national sovereignty of the Argentine people, you are defending the interests of a private oil company, Repsol, of which more than half the capital is in the hands of foreign owners and which, together with its subsidiary YPF, makes considerable profits in Argentina, pays close to 16 billion in dividends to its stockholders and practises tax evasion to avoid paying taxes, all the while at the expense of Argentine workers and local populations and treating indigenous peoples and the environment with disdain. You are not here defending European citizens or even the interests of a Member State, but private international capital.

Why not turn your question round and consider whether the Argentine Government is trying to stop the theft of part of the oil wealth belonging to the Argentine people? Why not recognise the Argentine Government’s right to defend its economic and political sovereignty, when Repsol was helping to bring about a shortage of fuel in this country? Finally, it should be noted that this company was privatised in the name of debt reduction. Now, as a result of all this, Argentina has been placed under the supervision of the International Monetary Fund, which just goes to show that austerity, privatisation and the destruction of sovereignty, as in Greece, leads to disorder. For the moment, let us leave Argentina to be the master of its own destiny.

  Francisco Sosa Wagner (NI). – (ES) Mr President, this morning, I read in a major German newspaper that Spain and Argentina have clashed over an oil company. That is precisely the wrong way to raise this issue. The conflict is between Europe and Argentina and, beyond that, with the great European value of legal security and respect for international trade relations.

The European institutions have excellent lawyers who can identify the appropriate instruments in primary or secondary EU law in order to neutralise the arbitrariness of the Argentine authorities. I am a humble professor of public law, and I offer them my assistance. The European Union’s credibility in the eyes of its citizens is now at stake.

  Antonio Tajani, Vice-President of the Commission. – (ES) Mr President, on behalf of the European Commission, I would like to thank you for organising this debate so expeditiously.

Since the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force, foreign direct investments, and particularly the protection of those investments, falls within the EU’s exclusive competence, which means that the EU has both the right and the responsibility to act in defence of the European Union’s investments.

The question of the nationalisation of Repsol’s share of YPF gives cause for serious concern. We need to analyse this measure in the context of a series of protectionist measures taken by the Argentine Government in recent months, such as the wide-ranging measures to make import licences non-automatic.

We have already raised the issue of those protectionist measures with the World Trade Organisation, along with more than a dozen other countries. We are now examining the additional action we need to take against those protectionist measures, including the option of the mechanism for resolving trade disputes.

I have listened carefully to all your arguments and concerns. I can assure you that the Commission will make a thorough analysis of the situation and will vigorously remind Argentina of its obligations under international law, considering all the resources available to that end.

  Nicolai Wammen, President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, I would like to thank everyone present here today for sending a very clear signal to the Argentine Government. It is a signal sent by the Commission, the Danish Presidency and a huge majority in this House. I hope that the Argentine Government will listen, because this is not only an issue implicating a firm or a country; it is an issue between Argentina and the EU, and it is therefore important that we see it that way.

The Council will now discuss the matter at the Foreign Affairs Council next Monday, under the leadership of the High Representative, Lady Ashton. As I said in my first intervention, we will take full account of the debate this afternoon. I might add that the issue will also be dealt with in several other forums at a technical level in the Council, and the options that the EU has will be examined here in order to take concrete action against the plan to nationalise YPF. Against this background, we will be working closely with the Commission and this Parliament to make sure the right solution is found.

  President. – Motions for resolutions to be tabled in accordance with Rule 110(2) of the Rules of Procedure will be announced at a later date.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Friday at 12.00.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Erminia Mazzoni (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The Spanish reaction to no less than the expropriation of the oil company YPF by the Argentine Government has led the EU Minister for Foreign Affairs, finally, to request that the Foreign Affairs Council meet to discuss EU-Argentina relations, in order to clarify our economic and financial relations. Many European investors have, for some time, been calling on the European institutions to take action to protect their rights, which have been violated by the decisions taken by the Argentine Government following its default. The Committee on Petitions has dealt with the issue in the course of its work, having received a large number of petitions. The Commission’s statement of non-competence as regards the regulation of financial relations with Argentina, relegated to a corner of the bilateral negotiations, forced me to redirect the request for intervention to the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, and I invited her to review our trade relations and use them as leverage to obtain due compliance from the Argentine Government. Undoubtedly, privatisation of the capital of the group, of which the Spanish company Repsol owns 57.4%, is an action that will have severe negative repercussions on the markets. However, the negative repercussions from the failure to pay millions of citizens have also played a not insignificant part in exacerbating the financial crisis, on a broader but no less incisive scale.

16. Common consolidated corporate tax base (debate)

  President. – The next item is the debate on the report by Marianne Thyssen, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on the proposal for a Council directive on a common consolidated corporate tax base [(COM(2011)0121 – C7-0092/2011 – 2011/0058(CNS)] (A7-0080/2012).

  Marianne Thyssen, rapporteur. – (NL) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, tomorrow, we will have the opportunity to vote in favour of a common consolidated corporate tax base. This will mean the introduction of a new Community tax framework which will contain a complete set of rules for the calculation of individual results for every company and branch of a company, wherever they are established in the European Union.

Under this system, group profit and loss results will be consolidated and that consolidated tax base, if it is positive, will be allocated across all relevant Member States. Member States will then be able to apply their own tax rate to the portion allocated to them using a system where the entire administrative process will be managed by a single main tax authority.

With this CCCTB, we will be making it fiscally simpler and administratively cheaper for companies to develop transnationally, which will definitely open up new opportunities for SMEs. Moreover, we will be making taxation more transparent. We will be preventing overtaxation and double taxation, as well as any manipulation undertaken for the purposes of tax evasion. And, we will undoubtedly be making Europe more attractive for foreign investors.

Ladies and gentlemen, our report retains the architecture of the excellent proposal drafted by the Commission, but it shows more ambition. That fits in perfectly with the double battle we are fighting today and have been discussing all afternoon.

If we want to revive our economy and make it more competitive, we need to be prepared to do away with all barriers in the internal market, including those in the field of direct taxation. And if we want to resolve the debt crisis, we also, obviously, have to ensure that Member States are able to collect the taxes due to them. With this proposal, we will be helping to achieve both of these things.

Let no one here, therefore, invoke the crisis in order to kick everything into the long grass or take the soft line. No, if anything, the crisis should make our ambition and our sense of urgency even stronger.

Ladies and gentlemen, I would draw your attention to three points in particular: first of all, the optional nature of the system. Though the CCCTB will start out as optional, we do think that, if the system proves to be good enough for optional use, it will also be good enough to be made compulsory. Indeed, its benefits will increase with the number of users. And that is why we have proposed a road map which will gradually make the system compulsory over a period of five years for all companies, except for SMEs. For SMEs, we first want to assess the practicality of the system and develop an instrument to guide them in the use of the system.

Secondly, we need to consider the scope of harmonisation. This proposal does not address rates, but only the taxable base, the basis on which tax is levied. As regards tariffs, Member States will retain their full sovereignty. However, we do explicitly ask that this matter be included in the revision clause, in a way that will subsequently enable us to examine whether or not, and to what extent, any continuing tax competition between Member States is beneficial or harmful for the Europe that we want to develop together – one that seeks to establish a social market economy.

Thirdly and finally, Mr President, we think that we have to make headway. If the Council fails to reach consensus with the 27 Member States – and it is a pity that the Council is again not being represented here – we will ask the Commission to immediately start the procedure to implement the proposal with close cooperation.

  Algirdas Šemeta, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, I wish to thank you and, in particular, Marianne Thyssen, for her work on this report. I welcome the positive views from the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection on our proposal for a CCCTB. It was one of our flagship legislative initiatives for 2011.

A system of common rules for calculating the tax base across the EU is expected to significantly improve the business environment in the single market. It will contribute to the efforts for bringing the Union back to growth and prosperity.

I would like to address five main points in the report.

First, the Commission proposed the CCCTB as an optional system. I believe that an obligatory scheme would introduce a significant burden by obliging businesses with purely domestic activities to bear the cost of switching into another tax system.

Second, I am convinced that an apportionment mechanism based on a formula of three equally weighted factors – sales, assets and labour – is the most appropriate solution. It creates a fair balance between the states of origin and destination. I would also say that there is no economic evidence which suggests that a weight of 10% for the sales factor is a better option.

Third, the Commission would not be opposed to the idea of setting up a forum with tasks similar to those of the Joint Transfer Pricing Forum, provided that the outcome of such an effort does not create a risk of incompatibility with the Treaty. In this regard, the reference to a ‘dispute settlement body’ with possible binding decisions could be found to conflict with the Treaty.

Fourth, the Commission has consistently made it clear that the CCCTB proposal is only meant to deal with the rules for computing the corporate tax base and should not touch upon minimum tax rates. Increasing the exemption threshold to 70% in certain anti-abuse clauses would inevitably and unnecessarily raise arguments at a political level about a minimum corporate tax rate in the EU.

I should finally mention that the review clause as suggested by the Commission (five years after the directive entered into force) can offer opportunities for improving the CCCTB scheme. Its scope is very broad. By listing the issues to be addressed, we would lose the flexibility we need to analyse the points raised in your report.

These were my main points of concern, but in general, I welcome the report very much and I am looking forward to a very positive vote tomorrow.

  Olle Schmidt , rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection. – (SV) Mr President, a common consolidated corporate tax base is an important first step towards improving the competitiveness of European companies and a more efficient single market. It will provide more jobs, reduce companies’ costs and eradicate unnecessary red tape.

In the opinion of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, we proposed amendments to the Commission’s proposal. Ms Thyssen has included several of these in her compromises, which is something we welcome.

These include the establishment of a joint forum for dispute settlement, which is something that Commissioner Šemeta also mentioned.

In the committee’s opinion, we also stated that the introduction of a common consolidated corporate tax base should be voluntary. It is beneficial to have competing tax systems and institutional competition.

The system should not be mandatory until we have practical experience of how it will work.

I believe that more companies than just those referred to as European companies will be willing to participate if the system is voluntary. It is therefore unfortunate that the compromise already involves the gradual introduction of a mandatory system.

This will make it harder to get more Member States to participate. Better a carrot than a stick.

  Jean-Paul Gauzès, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, the draft directive aims to implement within the European Union a common consolidated corporate tax base, known as the CCCTB. This has been under discussion since 2004. Today, Parliament, having been asked for its opinion and by way of Marianne Thyssen’s report, wishes – or in any case, the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) wishes – to send a strong message encouraging the Commission to continue its work in this area.

The implementation of a CCCTB in the European Union offers many benefits, both for economic operators – by removing tax obstacles from the internal market – and for Member States – by enabling more transparent and therefore healthier tax competition between Member States.

The report, voted through by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and presented by Ms Thyssen, is excellent. After lengthy negotiations and skilful identification of how best to address a very delicate issue, that is to say, the voluntary or optional nature of the system, she is proposing – and has reached agreement on – a phased transition, with the regime becoming immediately compulsory for European companies and cooperatives, to be extended to all companies with the exception of SMEs after five years, following review by the Commission.

Commissioner, I believe the Commission should be more demanding in this area. I know the proposal is not strongly supported by several Member States, either due to a principled opposition, such as that of the United Kingdom, to complete tax harmonisation, or due to fears that would be provoked by implementation of this system. This is the stance of Poland, the Netherlands and Luxembourg, for example. It must be disregarded. It is crucial for the European Union that this consolidated base, which does not involve a harmonisation of taxes, is implemented. That is the view taken of your proposal by the PPE Group.

  Liem Hoang Ngoc, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (FR) Mr President, I want to thank the rapporteur for the political will she has displayed in this report.

We all know that some Member States manipulate their corporate tax base more or less secretly to reduce their real level of taxation and practise tax dumping. That is why we, as socialists and federalists, have always supported the idea of moving towards tax harmonisation in the European Union. Unfortunately, by proposing a consolidated base that was merely optional, the European Commission did not seek to take a first step towards harmonising corporate tax, but simply to create a tax optimisation instrument. This was not acceptable to our political grouping, since the Europe we believe in is not a self-service Europe serving only corporate interests. It is, above all, a political and social Europe built for all, involving everyone.

As shadow rapporteur for the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, I have fought for months to change the logic of the Commission’s text radically, namely, to move from a voluntary to a compulsory system and introduce a minimum level of taxation. Negotiations were not easy but we succeeded in reaching agreement because, beyond our political differences – which are significant – all of us around the table shared an ambitious vision of Europe.

Despite her initial reluctance, the rapporteur ultimately accepted the principle of a compulsory common consolidated corporate tax base for all large companies in the EU. Unfortunately, we did not manage to establish a minimum rate but the report clearly identifies the problems posed by too large a spread in rates and calls for the issue of rates to be re-examined when reviewing the application of this text. We will monitor this closely, because for us, it is an indispensable second phase.

Therefore, ladies and gentlemen, I call on you to give overwhelming support to Ms Thyssen’s report. In doing so, we will send a strong message to the Council and, above all, to citizens, who are the first to suffer from the evils of tax competition.

  Carl Haglund, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur for a good report. Our group is also very supportive of the lines taken in the committee; this is a possibility to actually enhance the internal market and to ease the administrative burdens of companies which really want to push for cross-border activities in their field.

In general, I think that the development in committee has taken this report in the right direction. We can, of course, debate whether it is a good decision or not to make this scheme compulsory for companies, but if we want to actually succeed, I am convinced that the voluntary scheme is not necessarily going to activate as many companies as one would hope.

The discussion about whether we should harmonise corporate taxation or not does not belong here, but the fact of the matter is that we already have the minimum and maximum type of taxation solutions, for instance, in the field of value-added tax, and we should definitely consider this. But that is another report.

Last but not least, I am happy that we were able to change the way we are weighing the different ways of distributing, because having too much weight on sales is not going to give us a good result for countries that are competing within the export sector.

  Philippe Lamberts, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (FR) Mr President, I think that from a political point of view, this is an extremely ambitious report. I believe, Ms Thyssen, that you have gone as far as you can if you wish to gain a large majority in this Parliament.

If we truly want to put an end to tax optimisation, then this is the first step in terms of corporate tax. Clearly, it is unthinkable for us to establish a voluntary 28th corporate tax system alongside the 27 Member State systems, as evidently who will use it if it is optional, other than companies for whom it would constitute a lower effective tax rate than if they were to use their national system? Indeed, I think that it is essential to make this system obligatory for large companies and I thank the rapporteur for having included that in the report.

As for the Council, which once again on the subject of tax is conspicuous by its absence, I would simply like to say one thing: by playing the game of tax competition with each other, we will all end up losers and all our public purses will suffer. It is not a zero-sum game, but a negative-sum game. This is why I hope that the message to be sent by this Parliament tomorrow will be heard by the Council.

  Ivo Strejček, on behalf of the ECR Group. – (CS) Mr President, when listening to the debate, I made three observations, so to speak, which will not surprise members of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, at least, as they are familiar with my observations.

First, European conservatives firmly believe that tax competition is a good and healthy thing, and any attempt to harmonise tax rates is unacceptable to us. Secondly, we consider this report a breakthrough in terms of a direct taxation system, since, from a purely accounting perspective, if there are two variables in a formula – the rate and the base – and you change one of the variables, then you change the entire calculation. This is the way to the breakthrough. Thirdly, we insist that this system must also be strictly voluntary in the long term, and it should be up to individual businesses whether or not to join the system. I have many other observations, but these are the main ones.

  Godfrey Bloom, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Mr President, harmonised taxation is simply a ploy to enable bureaucrats to steal even more money from the wealth-creating sector. Like vampires, they prey upon ordinary folk, sucking the lifeblood out of the economy – and for what? Tax-free salaries, non-contributive pension schemes, winter sunshine trips to Durban and Cancún, suicidal remote energy policies and constant rescue packages for failed banks.

Without tax competition, Europe would be bled white in pursuit of a maniacal political crusade. High tax would banish manufacturing to the Far East, the Indian subcontinent and North America. The Baltic States, Ireland and fellow entrepreneurial ex-Warsaw Pact countries would slip back into the abyss. Athens and Madrid would become Dublin and Warsaw, but I suspect that before that time, ordinary folk will have cried enough and the parasites will have to head for the hills, as well they may. For certain the Irish, I suspect, will have their own way of dealing with them when they eventually awake from their slumber.

  Theodor Dumitru Stolojan (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, I wish to say a special word of thanks to Ms Thyssen for her efforts in producing this excellent report. Even though the development of economic integration requires a system for creating a common consolidated corporate tax base for companies operating in more than one Member State, even though the draft directive makes it optional for companies to join this system, and even though every Member State is entitled to apply the tax rate it wants to the part of the consolidated tax base which is apportioned, we still have a situation where some national parliaments have lodged objections, including the parliament in my country, giving the violation of the principle of subsidiarity as the reason. Some governments are also against this draft directive.

I call on the Commission to give this matter its full attention, in particular, the position of the national parliaments. I believe that it is useful to meet with these national parliaments which have cited the violation of the principle of subsidiarity, and we in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs are ready to take part in this dialogue.

  Antolín Sánchez Presedo (S&D). – (ES) Mr President, it has been said that the fiscal sector remains unfinished business in European integration. We need to make progress on that unfinished business in order to consolidate our successes, face the current challenges and achieve credible economic governance. Furthermore, if this is to be done with full democratic legitimacy, then Parliament should not play a merely consultative role.

The creation of a common consolidated corporate tax base (CCCTB) is a long awaited step and a vital initiative for combating harmful tax competition, eliminating tax arbitrage and fairly attributing the profits and losses of companies of the same group located in different Member States. Its introduction could contribute to transparency, which will facilitate comparison of fiscal effort, and simplification, which will reduce administrative and management costs caused by disparate legislation; it will also establish a level playing field so that resources can be used more equally and fairly. All of this will help our objective of promoting growth and sustainable employment.

The Commission’s proposal provided greater fiscal consistency in an area in which there are already bilateral initiatives, but it offered an optional system and à la carte consolidation for national companies.

The compromise reached in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs is satisfactory because it allows for the gradual implementation of the measure and, at the same time, it considers the possibility of a review clause that includes the analysis of minimum rates. I therefore wholeheartedly support it.

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

  William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD), Blue-card question. – Surely experience has shown that low taxes mean more jobs and more growth. Why, therefore – as you stated – is fiscal competition harmful?

  Antolín Sánchez Presedo (S&D), Blue-card answer. – (ES) Mr President, I do not share that experience. I do not believe that the Member States – Europe being a clear model offering the best results – can exactly be counted among those countries with lower fiscal participation.

However, in any case, it is clear that harmful tax competition does exist and that initiatives such as this can help reduce it and eliminate it, and in the area of taxation we need to intensify cooperation and solidarity within the EU.

  Derk Jan Eppink (ECR). – (NL) Mr President, the differences between Member States in terms of corporation tax are large, whether we are talking about rates or revenues. For that reason, the Commission has opted for harmonisation by the back door.

A uniform corporate tax base has its advantages. Companies will pay tax more cheaply and more easily. Who ultimately receives the tax revenues is none of their concern. It is the concern of Member States and that is where the shoe pinches. When Member States collect corporation tax from companies operating in several Member States, they have to divide the revenue between them. The allocation key which the Commission has devised for this purpose adversely affects competitive and exporting countries. They are fiscally punished and lose revenue from corporation tax.

Ms Thyssen’s report already explicitly states the solution that will soon be submitted to these countries, namely minimum corporation tax rates and, yet, we have not carried out any thorough research into the fiscal effects of the allocation key proposed by the Commission.

I therefore say: I am not going along with this and I believe that a large part of the Council will agree with me.

  Diogo Feio (PPE). – (PT) Mr President, taxation issues are always controversial when discussed at European level; it is no accident that the Treaty of Lisbon provides for a unanimity rule in relation to the majority thereof. It is also no accident that most EU-level provisions in this area have related to indirect taxation. However, as this relates to taxation issues, we are debating the workings of the internal market, the workings of the concept of sovereignty, and own resources in the EU budget.

Parliament has adopted a very clear stance on these issues, always with a view to the need for balance between these decisions and maintaining the tax burden on individuals and companies.

Parliament has already mentioned the need for EU-level taxes several times. Harmonisation of accounting rules – first and foremost, for corporation tax – and also here through Ms Thyssen’s extraordinary report, which tackled the issues of voluntary tax neutrality, of simplification for businesses and less bureaucracy, of anti-abuse rules, and of less evasion. The ball is now in the Council’s court. We hope that this crisis will also be an opportunity to defend the internal market and to defend companies.

  George Sabin Cutaş (S&D). – (RO) Mr President, the report which we are going to vote on tomorrow sends a powerful message to the governments of the Member States which support the introduction of a company taxation system at European level. This request has been submitted by Parliament on several occasions as it marks a step towards completing the European internal market and achieving Member States’ economic integration.

We must not forget that many companies are doing business nowadays in more than one EU country. As a common set of rules in this area, the common consolidated corporate tax base will cut companies’ administrative costs significantly and increase transparency, which is bound to make the EU, in practical terms, a more attractive place for investors. The Commission estimates that the costs involved in legislation compliance will fall by EUR 700 million a year, along with a drop in the number of tax evasion cases. Based on this, I support this proposal and I think that it is necessary in the future to apply the system to small and medium-sized enterprises and introduce a minimum European taxation level. I also hope that Parliament’s proposal will be given full consideration by the Council of Ministers.

  Ashley Fox (ECR). – Mr President, at this time of crisis, Parliament should bring forward proposals that assist growth and job creation, and instead we have a proposal to harmonise the corporate tax base. This is a very bad idea. Tax competition is good. It keeps governments honest. It stops them taking too much money from the productive sector of our economy, and we in the EU should aim to keep corporate taxes as low as possible. This is a backdoor step to try and ratchet corporate taxes up. This proposal also treads on the powers of the nation states. We should remember in this place that it is for the nation states to decide what taxes to levy on their citizens. Long may that remain so.

  Krišjānis Kariņš (PPE). – (LV) Mr President, Commissioner, in my view, one of the most important tasks we face in Europe today is to secure economic growth. I know of at least one European politician who, in fact, hopes to destroy economic growth completely with his initiatives, by proposing a 75% tax rate. This legislative initiative takes the opposite direction in my opinion. It would directly encourage economic growth, not hinder it.

What is the situation? Currently in Europe, any business operating in several Member States must deal with a different tax system in each of those states. That means time, that means money, that means costs. With this legislative initiative, all this would be simplified, and businesses would have the possibility of dealing with the tax system of a single country. Where tax would be payable, this Member State would also apportion this amount among other Member States where the business operates, according to a formula. So, ladies and gentlemen, we do not need to move in the direction that would hinder the development of entrepreneurship and economic growth. We have to take a direction and do everything that we can that will encourage economic growth in the European Union. This legislative initiative is exactly of the kind that would help us attain that objective. Thank you for your attention.

  Edvard Kožušník (ECR). – (CS) Mr President, Commissioner, I would like to stress that the area of taxation falls exclusively within the competence of the Member States. I am very concerned about the attempts to apply a consolidated tax base.

On the one hand, the submitted proposal argues that a consolidated income tax base will reduce the administrative burden on businesses. Unfortunately, it overlooks the fact that the common tax base would necessarily be broader than the existing one in some countries. The tax burden would thus be indirectly increased in these countries, without increasing nominal tax rates. The submitted proposal is a stalking horse, through which the Commission is trying to breach the tax sovereignty of Member States. It introduces tax rate harmonisation by stealth.

All of this at a time when Europe is haunted by the spectre of stagflation. Instead of trying to encourage competition between the individual states of the Union, we are trying to stifle competition through tax harmonisation by stealth.

  Zuzana Roithová (PPE). – (CS) Mr President, as the shadow rapporteur for the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) in the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, I promoted an arrangement that was intended to guarantee the fiscal neutrality of the directive. In a time of crisis, it is unacceptable that Belgium, for example, should have higher payments to the state budget at the expense of others, for example, the Czech Republic. The formulation of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs is not a practical solution but a political declaration. However, I hope the Council will respect it.

I welcome the fact that the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has accepted our proposals concerning the fight against tax evasion, stricter rules for tax havens, simplification of the administration of cross-border businesses, flexibility in out-of-court dispute resolution and retention of the voluntary nature of this EU regime for small and medium-sized enterprises. I also support the introduction of a unified tax formula, and I would like to express my thanks for it. I am delighted that the proposals for introducing a minimum tax rate did not get through, and that, quite the contrary, the tax sovereignty of states, including tax rates, was unanimously confirmed, thus confirming the principle of tax competition.

I do not welcome the fact that the individual requirements as to what a future review of this directive should include are so general. I do, however, strongly support the common consolidated corporate tax base. This version of the directive will undoubtedly be of great benefit to businesses. I hope Czech entrepreneurs are able to choose this intelligible and stable European system. We can expect the Council to veto the proposal, however, so that it continues only within the framework of enhanced cooperation, and is applied in just a few countries. I hope that the European system will serve as an example for other countries, including the Czech Republic, of what can be sensibly included in the tax base and how it can be included, so that businesses are not discouraged from paying tax in the Czech Republic.

  Gay Mitchell (PPE). – Mr President, I would like to thank my colleague, Marianne Thyssen, for her work on this report, although I have concerns about the report itself.

While my country, Ireland, has constructively engaged in the CCCTB process to ensure that all the arguments are looked at closely, I would like to stress two issues of EU law. One: the Treaty requires unanimity in matters of taxation policy, and two: the principle of subsidiarity allows Member States to keep taxation within national legislation. My main concern is that this is transgressing national competence.

While the report does not specifically call for the harmonisation of tax rates (albeit Amendment 10 comes close), the introduction of common rules across all Member States for the calculation of the tax base of companies is nonetheless, in my view, a matter for the Member States.

About ten of the amendments go too far. Furthermore, we are block-voting, so few choices are available. I also want to point out that I do not believe that it is necessary for us to seek another report on the merits of taxation as a form of competition. I believe former Commissioner Monti has dealt with that very well.

Lastly, Rule 38a(1) of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure on the examination of respect for the principle of subsidiarity states that ‘during the examination of a proposal for a legislative act, Parliament shall pay particular attention to respect for the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality’. I do not believe we have done so on this occasion. These are my reservations.

IN THE CHAIR: GEORGIOS PAPASTAMKOS
Vice-President

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Nadezhda Neynsky (PPE). – (BG) Mr President, I oppose the proposal to make the consolidated corporate tax base compulsory for all companies. This would violate the principle of subsidiarity, triggering an adverse impact for some national economies, including Bulgaria, which depends on its competitive advantage to attract investors based on simplified tax rules and low tax rates.

Of course, the idea for a consolidated tax base as a measure to complete the single market, which will facilitate the development of international business, reduce the administrative burden and save the time and money needed to learn 27 different tax systems, is understandable. I believe, however, that this scheme must remain voluntary because it leaves the decision of whether to join it or not in the hands of corporate taxpayers.

The best way for us to judge whether the system is successful beyond the theoretical considerations I listed would be if the voluntary principle is embraced by business. The compulsory nature of this regulation risks killing off competition.

  Petri Sarvamaa (PPE). – Mr President, I will say two things, one very realistic and one extremely idealistic. The realistic thing is that we have to praise Marianne Thyssen for doing something finally to take us from talk to action. I think every cloud has a silver lining and here I see such a case, where economic crises have led us from talk to action. This CCCTB is a chance to stimulate businesses and at least do something about Europe’s competitiveness collectively. But then, idealistically speaking – and I know we are maybe 100 years from this – I would like to see this as the first step towards harmonising much more. This act does not have anything to do with harmonising the tax rates but perhaps one day it will be seen as the first step towards that. It is not realistic in today’s Europe and in today’s situation, and to many ears I know it sounds naïve, but idealism is basically what we are here for.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D). – (SK) Mr President, the proposal for a uniform set of rules for determining the tax base for businesses certainly contains a number of positive aspects. The proposed rules will increase the competitiveness of the European Union and stimulate economic growth and job creation. The EU would also become more attractive for other foreign investors. I would also like to underline that an important or positive aspect must also be the resolution of the issue of evasion using tax havens. During the current economic crisis, with the significant impact that it is having, particularly on the most vulnerable groups in society, we cannot allow European multinational corporations to move their profits to countries with minimal tax burdens; what is more, the loss of such financial resources also significantly weakens our national budgets. Strict taxation will greatly help the weakened economies of the Member States, and this can have a very positive effect on their social policy. Tax harmonisation, however, will be effective only if the CCCTB enters into force in all EU Member States.

  Andrew Henry William Brons (NI). – Mr President, if pushing for greater political and economic integration and harmonisation were a criminal offence, the EU would be pulled in as the first and only suspect. Its fingerprints would be all over the scene of the crime. However, more charitably, we can see it as a repeated nervous tic or obsessive-compulsive disorder.

A demand for a common consolidated tax base can be seen simply as a different example of the same tic, another obsessive desire for greater political integration. This morning, it was integration by coordination of the social security system; in the early evening, it is integration by a common corporate tax base; later this evening, the target for integration will be taxation on electricity and energy products.

Do these people dream about greater political and economic integration? When they are invited to parties –if they are – and see an attractive member of the opposite sex – or the same sex, if you prefer – do they try to sweep them off their feet with coded references to political and economic integration, possibly coupled with an unpleasant leer? I only ask out of curiosity.

End of the catch-the-eye procedure

  Algirdas Šemeta, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, I would like to thank you for the views you expressed during this debate. Your strong support and constructive approach in this area is an important signal for the Member States.

As you may know, the technical work in the Council progresses. Discussions are now focused on how to calculate the tax base. The Presidency hopes to have a progress report on the CCCTB for the May ECOFIN. I believe that your approach points in the right direction for the future of corporate taxation in the Union. We need to sustain the political momentum towards a competitive and robust pan-European tax regime for the benefit of our companies and in order to attract foreign investments in the EU through a simple and efficient tax system covering the entire single market.

I take note of your call in the report – and repeated by many of you today – to make the CCCTB compulsory five years from its adoption. As I have already mentioned, the Commission is well aware of the burden that this would involve for companies that do not wish to operate cross-border. The review clause would nonetheless help us to assess the system as proposed within five years. This review may well cover the success of optionality.

I also take note of the request of Mr Stolojan to meet with national parliaments that have expressed doubts in respect of the principle of subsidiarity. I can reassure you that every visit I pay to a Member State includes a meeting with the national parliament wherever possible. Romania will not be an exception.

The rapporteur and some Members have raised the issue of enhanced cooperation. The initiative to launch an enhanced cooperation lies exclusively in the hands of the Member States. I therefore do not find it appropriate to speculate on this issue now. The Commission will therefore express its views on this matter when it is required to, according to the Treaties.

Again, I wish to thank you, honourable Members of the European Parliament, for your broad support in moving forward with this initiative. I am convinced that this is the only comprehensive solution for tackling cross- border tax obstacles in the area of corporate taxation. I personally feel reassured and willing to pick up on the strong encouragement to progress in this area, for which I thank you.

  Marianne Thyssen, rapporteur. – (NL) Mr President, I would, of course, like to thank all of the speakers for their comments. However, ladies and gentlemen, I would just like to make a few additional remarks.

Major reforms are often carried out in periods of crisis and I think that we now need to seize on the current crisis, both the economic one and the crisis of public finances, in order to push ahead with the work on this dossier.

This is a dossier that we could conclude tomorrow in Parliament, as far as our part of the work is concerned, and that is indeed what we have repeatedly asked for in the past. The European Commission has worked on it for more than ten years. And let us not forget that this issue has been raised in practically every conclusion of the recent European summits and that the European Council and euro area summits have repeatedly declared themselves in favour of the CCCTB. Let us therefore remain hopeful.

Mr President, it is a fact that, with this, we are completing a part of the internal market. I cannot follow the logic of those who claim, all of a sudden, that the internal market no longer stands for growth and jobs. What we are doing here is really dismantling an obstacle in the internal market and I believe that growth and job creation are worthwhile ambitions. This is a good reason why we should continue to pursue them.

Finally, ladies and gentlemen, I was very happy to put my name to this report. I firmly believe that all of the choices we have made in this report are right and that is the case because we worked constructively together and because we listened very carefully to each other across the group lines. It is true that there are differences in emphasis. Here and there, we differ in basic assumptions, but we have shown what we are able to achieve together.

I hope that we will vote with as much unity tomorrow and that, in so doing, we will be able to whet the Council’s ambition a little. Because, again, if the Council is consistent with itself, and if the ministers of the Ecofin are consistent with their political leaders, then they will have to respond positively to this. If not all of the 27 are able to do so – which I still hope will be the case – then fewer than that, but I do hope that we will have all 27 on our side.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Thursday at 12.00.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Liam Aylward (ALDE), in writing. – (GA) Taxation is an issue of subsidiarity and the Commission and Parliament must put an end to the incessant efforts to indirectly introduce European competence to taxation. The attention given to France and Germany’s request to the President of the Council to bring an end to talks on the CCCTB before the end of 2012 should not be given more attention than the major concerns of those Member States who are worried about the CCCTB initiative. The Franco-German CCCTB initiative should not be used to undermine Member States’ individual competence, under the guise of efforts to tackle the economic crisis. The CCCTB would not improve the functioning of the single market in any way, and small open economies such as Ireland’s could even be damaged as a result. A change in the rate of corporation tax would interfere with a strong aspect of the Irish economy that is crucial to the Ireland’s recovery and growth potential. According to a study recently undertaken by the European Centre for Economic Studies in relation to the implementation of the CCCTB in Europe, it would be impractical, impossible to implement and politically undesirable.

  Jiří Havel (S&D), in writing. – (CS) An effective tax system is an important component of a functioning single market, which is a key pillar of EU competitiveness. The debate on a common consolidated corporate tax base (CCCTB) is therefore a step in the right direction, particularly in view of the current economic problems in the EU. I therefore welcome the Commission’s objective of unifying the CCCTB in the EU, which falls within the process of rethinking tax systems and shifting to more growth-friendly and green taxation, thus supporting the aims of the Europe 2020 strategy. I would like to point out that the tax revenues in question would be allocated by the individual Member States on the basis of a clearly defined mechanism – working from the parameters of employment, assets and revenues – that has been established sensitively on the basis of a political consensus that has taken more than 10 years to negotiate. For this reason, I hope that the planned assessment of the impact of the CCCTB five years after it enters into effect will be positive, and that it will also serve as an example of good practice for countries outside the EU. Overall, it can be said that the report submitted by Ms Thyssen presents a detailed analysis of this issue, makes reference to the relevant legislation, and also contains adequate recommendations in the area of the CCCTB, and I therefore recommend that the report be approved in its draft form.

  Jim Higgins (PPE), in writing. – I intend to vote against this report. The governments of the Netherlands, Bulgaria, Ireland, UK, Malta, Sweden, Poland, Romania and Slovakia all raised concerns regarding the Commission CCCTB proposal. Unfortunately, the majority of 18 Member States was not reached in order to require the Commission to re-examine their proposal. The argument in favour of this report is that the level of the tax rate will remain a decision for national parliaments. The objective of the report is to enhance the system of taxation of companies, not to harmonise tax rates. It is respectfully submitted that harmonisation of the tax base and the tax base rules is a form of harmonisation. The report explicitly underlines that CCCTB only concerns the tax base, not corporate tax rates. However, it does not exclude that, in the future, further steps may be taken towards tax rate harmonisation. I strongly oppose Amendment 10 which outlines that, although the harmonisation of tax rates is not at issue now, we must not entirely exclude the possibility for the future. This only serves to further aggravate subsidiary concerns already espoused by Member States.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. – The Commission have assured us that it is not their intention to harmonise rates of corporate tax across Europe. Nevertheless, this proposal represents the EU encroaching on an area which properly lies within the competence of individual Member States. This raises questions not just of subsidiarity but, more fundamentally, of national sovereignty as the Dáil Éireann and others have noted. These problems are compounded by calls in this House for harmonised tax rates in the future. Such calls only serve to turn our citizens against the EU. The ability to set tax rates must remain one of the fiscal tools available to each independent Member State.

  Iliana Ivanova (PPE), in writing. – (BG) The EU must take decisive measures to improve its competitiveness on the international stage. The proposal we are discussing today aims to create a mechanism for a common consolidated tax base for corporate taxation. However, this directive will not enable the EU to become more competitive: quite the opposite – it will deprive the European Union of the competitive advantages provided by having a variety of tax rules and rates. Some countries will benefit and others will lose out from the introduction of this common base, but one thing is certain: the end result will be to make the EU less competitive as a whole and cause an outflow of foreign investments to third countries with more favourable tax conditions.

Europe needs tax competition if it wants to attract foreign investors. The introduction of a common consolidated tax base throughout the EU will deprive individual Member States of their important competitive advantages and, in the long term, will lead to a mechanical alignment of tax rates as a result of the decrease in revenues in some of them. The EU must approach this carefully and focus its efforts on decreasing the administrative burden and improving the business environment. Unlocking the full potential of the single market is the key to economic growth and creating new jobs.

  Danuta Jazłowiecka (PPE), in writing. – (PL) No one is in any doubt how important it is in a crisis to use measures which help improve economic growth and create new jobs in Europe. The idea to introduce common European rules for calculating the tax base for companies operating in the European Union is one which would undoubtedly help to improve the competitiveness of the European market and to reduce the administrative burdens and costs associated with having to comply with different national taxation regimes.

Unfortunately, the draft directive on a common consolidated corporate tax base, alongside good and legitimate measures, also introduces provisions to which, particularly during a crisis, we should not agree. One such idea is allowing for consolidation of profit and losses by groups of companies, which will cause a fall in tax revenues in many Member States and will divide Europe into countries which have ‘won’ and ‘lost’. This solution represents too great an interference in the tax systems of the Member States, and the possibility of action to compensate for losses by raising tax rates poses the threat of tax competition in the internal market. Instead of creating legislation which is inconsistent with the principle of solidarity and which favours certain Member States, we should rather encourage the Member States to establish a common tax base as soon as possible, as some of them have committed to do under the Euro Plus Pact. This is a method which is neutral in terms of revenues and which ensures consistency between national tax systems while also respecting national taxation strategies.

  Vladimír Maňka (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The aim of the proposal to create a common system for calculating the tax base for companies active in the EU is to significantly reduce the administrative burden, the costs of complying with legal regulations and the legal uncertainty faced by EU firms at present.

When determining their taxable income, enterprises must comply with 27 different national systems. The proposed common consolidated corporate tax base means that enterprises would be able to take advantage of the ‘one-stop shop’ system when filing their tax returns and could consolidate all of their profits and losses incurred throughout the EU.

Member States would retain their full powers when determining corporate income tax rates. This system will save businesses across the EU hundreds of millions of euro every year in the cost of complying with legislation. In addition, enterprises with ambitions to expand beyond borders will benefit through savings of up to EUR 1 billion. The system will help create new jobs, help in the fight against tax evasion, will be beneficial for the EU’s global competitiveness, and will increase the attractiveness of the EU in the market for foreign investors.

  Sławomir Witold Nitras (PPE), in writing. – (PL) The plan to establish a single corporate tax base throughout the European Union is one which is both ambitious and necessary. It is ambitious because legislation on this tax differs significantly between Member States not only in terms of how it is structured, but also in the level of detail and the economic priorities of individual Member States as reflected in the tax. It is necessary because it will allow companies which do business across borders to make significant savings and will also make their work easier.

However, introducing consolidation of revenues is not such a good idea, at least not for all the Member States. The formula for apportioning the consolidated tax base means the emergence of a group of ‘winner and loser’ Member States, or those whose budgetary incomes will rise and those whose incomes will fall after this measure has been introduced. Therefore, it will be extremely difficult to work out a compromise which would satisfy all the parties, and if a compromise were to be reached, the resultant situation might, in any case, have an adverse effect on relations between Member States.

Therefore, I think that establishing a common tax base should be a priority, but the idea of consolidation should be rejected. This would be a much better solution because it would accelerate the process of building the single market without unnecessary delays, particularly in view of the fact that the Euro Plus Pact shows there is a broad consensus to begin such a plan.

17. Taxation of energy products and electricity (debate)

  President. – The next item is the report by Astrid Lulling, on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, on taxation of energy products and electricity (COM(2011)0169 – C7-0105/2011 – 2011/0092(CNS)) (A7-0052/2012).

  Astrid Lulling, rapporteur. – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that the debate on energy taxation in Europe should commence with the acknowledgement that tax harmonisation in the European Union has only ever made minor steps forwards. Therefore, in our position as tax advisor and not taxpayer, it would be illusory to call for a major overhaul of the tax system.

In my view, the European Parliament has an ever greater role to play in finding a compromise that is acceptable to as many Member States as possible, or even one that is acceptable to them all, as unanimous support in the Council is required, rather than in carrying out an exercise in style.

The draft directive, which has been submitted for our review, is much more than an update of the 2003 text. This time, it calls to support the aim of a low carbon economy, and by introducing a CO2-based element, in order to advance the European Union’s commitments to combating climate change.

Can we contribute, by means of a tax system, to achieving these objectives? Maybe, but things are not as simple as some people have us believe.

I certainly support, as does my group, the Commission’s methodological approach, which seeks to tax energy on a dual basis, taking into account both their CO2 emissions and energy content. This point was subject to a wide agreement within the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, as well as within other committees for opinion.

However, the other innovation, proportionality, has, on the other hand, been deeply divisive. It does not seem wise to me that Member States who set their rates higher than the minima should be forced to uphold the proportionality between the various applicable minimum thresholds for each type of energy. This slightly abstract term would have very tangible consequences and in general, this proportionality would lead to an increase in energy prices, which have already soared. More specifically, proportionality would lead to a substantial increase in the price of diesel in virtually all Member States, which would be required to replicate the new tax difference of 9% between diesel and petrol. Citing simply the example of Germany and France, the increase would exceed EUR 0.22 per litre of diesel.

A further consequence would be the increased cost of transporting people and goods, a sector that is wholly dependent on diesel, and the penalisation of the European automotive sector, which is a global leader in diesel technology.

Consequently, my group decided to reintroduce an amendment calling for the principle of proportionality to be scrapped. If, in the unlikely event, we are not successful tomorrow in scrapping this principle, we propose a second amendment, which is not my preferred option, of course, but which is the bottom line of what we deem acceptable. This would be the implementation of a very conditional proportionality that would only be applicable from 2030, that would only be introduced following the reassuring conclusions of an impact study, on European industrial competitiveness for example, and that would allow each Member State to maintain a distinction between commercial diesel and non-commercial diesel.

Mr President, allow me to speak for a little longer as I still have another point to cover, which is that of the exemption of air and maritime transport. Through an unhappy combination of circumstances, the amendment that was adopted by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs was the most extreme one. It calls for the end of the exclusion of air and maritime transport from the scope of the directive. Yet, the European Commission has clearly indicated that this full inclusion is not legally possible due to international conventions. Therefore, a return to the Commission’s original text is necessary.

Ladies and gentlemen, the European Union is not an island, even less so in the global air and maritime transport sector. Moreover, I ask my colleagues what true sense there is in these political initiatives that lead to us shooting ourselves in the foot in terms of the competition, which is more than they could hope for.

To conclude, I have tried, within the framework of this report, to defend a realistic vision of things that is not opposed to progress. If this vision prevails, it would allow us to be heard by the Council, where, for that matter, a very large majority of Member States continue to have their reservations.

  Algirdas Šemeta, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I wish to thank the honourable Members and Ms Astrid Lulling for the report and for the speedy and thorough treatment of this proposal.

Its main purposes are to meet the EU’s priority goals of combating climate change, improving energy efficiency, stimulating renewable energy sources and ensuring fair competition within the internal market. To achieve this, the proposal bases taxation on objective criteria – CO2 emissions and energy content.

This will offer many advantages. First, taxation of energy products will be more coherent. Second, consumers will receive a consistent price signal to reduce emissions and to save energy. Third, double taxation and overlaps with the EU emission trading scheme will be removed. Fourth, use of sustainable biofuels and products from biomass will be promoted, since they will be exempt from CO2 taxation. Last but not least, taxes on polluting activities are a means of shifting taxation away from labour, thereby supporting growth and competitiveness.

The impact of such far-reaching changes is addressed by providing for transitional periods up to 2023, when appropriate.

Turning to the amendments, the Commission welcomes the support for the main features of its proposal, in particular, the introduction of a CO2- and energy-related element, a gradual increase of minimum rates by 2018 and the principle of equal taxation of all fuels put to the same use. The Commission would insist on keeping the ‘proportionality principle’, which means equal taxation of petrol and diesel. There is no reason to subsidise the use of diesel over the use of petrol.

The impact on demand for diesel cars should not be overestimated: the efficiency of conversion technology in current diesel cars is higher than in petrol cars, and it would still remain attractive to purchase diesel cars. Moreover, long transitional periods should ensure time to adjust. It is neither the cars of today nor the cars of tomorrow that are at stake. It is the cars of our children, or even our grandchildren.

I would like to reassure you that many of the amendments accepted by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs concern issues which are already covered by the proposal and do not require changes to it. The Commission will continue to defend the spirit of those issues in the negotiations in the Council.

The Commission understands the call for longer transitional periods, particularly in terms of respecting the principle of equal taxation, and would support them in the Council, as part of an overall compromise. It would insist on keeping automatic indexation in order to keep the agreed level of rate harmonisation intact and to avoid an erosion of Member States’ revenue by inflation.

The Commission could accept an automatic alignment of the minimum CO2 tax level to the price of ETS allowances, if a legally sound reference index can be referred to.

The Commission welcomes the phasing out of the tax advantage for commercial diesel in order to achieve full internalisation of external costs. The Commission does not, however, see the need for a specific transitional period for this. Long transitional periods up to 2023 are already provided for and could be extended until 2025 in the context of an overall compromise in the Council.

As for energy consumption by households, the Commission is not now in favour of agreeing on an end date for phasing out optional tax exemptions or reductions. It also feels that it would be premature to remove the exemption for commercial aircraft and shipping fuel now, taking into account the fact that the aviation sector is covered by the EU ETS and that developments on tackling emissions in the maritime sector could take place in the near future. Both these issues will, in any case, be reviewed in the regular Commission report on the application of the new framework for energy taxation.

In conclusion, the Commission is open to discuss amendments to its proposal, provided that they do not undermine its main objectives and that they preserve its key principles.

  Angelika Werthmann, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Budgets. – (DE) Mr President, I was the rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Budgets on the matter of the taxation of energy products and electricity. Alongside many important issues in the debate, I call to mind the fact that, following intense debate, the Committee on Budgets adopted its opinion unanimously across all groups. The essence of this opinion is that the revenue from any future taxation of energy products, or a proportion thereof, could form a basis for a future system of own resources for the EU budget. This point, which is of great importance for the European Union, should therefore also be taken into consideration in all future debates.

In closing I would like to express my thanks to all the shadow rapporteurs for their positive cooperation on this report and also to Ms Lulling, the rapporteur for the lead committee.

  Kathleen Van Brempt, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety. – (NL) Mr President, I would actually like to come back to the essence of this story and to why the Commission has made this proposal. The way in which we tax energy in the European Union today does not provide an incentive for us to switch to renewable energy, nor does it promote energy efficiency in any way.

That is why the Commission has put forward a proposal in order to achieve just that; it is a proposal in which that ambition really comes to the fore. I have to say, ladies and gentlemen, we in this Parliament are very good about voting on fine resolutions on the sustainable and green economies, but when it comes to real dossiers, to specific things, and to showing a little courage, then we quite often find ourselves lacking in that department.

If I look at the outcome from the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, then it, too, does not go far enough, in my view. I wanted to go further, but I can live with what we have now because the Commission’s key proposals have been retained, such as taxation of energy based on both content and CO2, the phasing out of commercial diesel and other important principles.

I call on all my colleagues, especially those from the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and some delegations, especially the German one, to think carefully about that and, above all, to be courageous tomorrow, and support the Commission’s key proposals.

  Béla Kovács, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy. – (HU) Mr President, although I was rapporteur for the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, I would rather present my own personal opinion this time, and would like to bring it to the attention of the European Commission. I must say that in this instance, the ITRE Committee has approved the subject which we had eventually closed after 123 motions for amendment. I would like to thank Ms Lulling for her continuous cooperation, my colleagues for their work, for our joint work, in preparing this report, and I hope that it will be approved by both the European Parliament and the Commission.

  Werner Langen (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, Mr Kovács, naturally you are allowed to express your own personal opinion. However, if you are speaking here as rapporteur for the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, then where there is no consensus, your job is to represent the decision of that committee, not your own personal opinion. Mr President, please would you emphasise how important it is that the rapporteurs for the committees abide by this internal rule. Otherwise, there can be no justification for giving speaking time to the rapporteurs outside of the speaking time for the groups.

  Inés Ayala Sender, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Transport and Tourism. – (ES) Mr President, I should like to thank Ms Lulling for all the work she has been doing, and all the different Members who have spoken.

On behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, I would like to remind the Commission, and specifically Mr Šemeta, that what is being proposed in this time of major crisis in the economic and financial sectors, as well as in European industry, is the creation of a market in which the EU is not yet a leader and on which we are also dependent, trailing behind other experiences and technologies.

This would mean creating a biofuels market at the expense of another market in which the EU is an unquestionable leader, and in which our exports continue to increase to countries such as the United States and India.

The EU is a clear leader in diesel technology, where we have invested enormous amounts in innovation, in creating vehicles and engines that are more efficient, less noisy, less polluting and that consume less. Reducing CO2 emissions is so obvious and so attractive to users that, right now, 76% of vehicles made in the EU have diesel engines.

In addition, the Commission is well aware that even during a period of transition, shall we say, we have to rely primarily on diesel, even to meet the 2020 goal of reducing CO2 emissions to 95g/km. In other words, with all of these positive elements, during this time of severe crisis, why would the Commission try to create a new market by killing off another one? I therefore believe that it should think again and give us a chance to reach an agreement and a consensus.

  Sergio Gutiérrez Prieto, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. – (ES) Mr President, the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development agrees with the final objective of this directive – to try to adapt the composition of our energy mix through taxation – but we are facing a very complex debate full of difficulties in economic, social and environmental terms; it is important to maintain a balance that helps us to progress in environmental matters, of course, but we want to avoid causing any damage to the economy and creating greater social crises than the ones we are already experiencing.

That is the case with agriculture. As you are all aware, energy costs account for an increasingly high proportion of fixed costs for agricultural holdings, at a time when we are also debating the crises taking place in the raw materials markets – with the prospect of a loss of subsidies – and an increase in health and environmental demands, which reduce their profit margins.

We have therefore called for two things. Firstly, to maintain the zero level of taxation for the energy component, which is currently linked to drafting and complying with strategies for energy efficiency and energy saving in the rural sector; and to incorporate agriculture in the sectors considered to be at risk of carbon leakage so as to be able to have access to the reductions allowed for CO2 emissions.

In other words, we want a policy that is more demanding in environmental terms, but which maintains the balance that makes our agricultural sector viable at a time of change and uncertainty in that sector.

  Markus Ferber, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we should stop acting as if we can save the world every time we get together in Strasbourg. Once again, we have a proposal on the table, and once again we are saving the world, the climate, our resources and who knows what else – even though we have already done it before elsewhere. It makes no sense to do the same thing over and over again.

That is why I want to state very clearly that it makes no sense – as the Commissioner has said – to burden aviation, where we have a functioning emissions certificate trading system that we hope will also soon be effective internationally, with an additional tax. It makes no sense to include shipping, which has ideal alternative options, in this tax. It makes no sense to engineer a compromise between energy density and CO2 emissions. Excuse me for saying so, but as an engineer, I must point out that high energy density means lower CO2 emissions per kilometre travelled. Penalising this correlation twice is equally non-sensical.

I therefore have to say that the Commission proposal has not been fully thought out. What the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs approved by a majority – against the wishes of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) – only makes a half-baked proposal worse still. There is not the slightest chance that unanimity will be achieved in the Council of Ministers. That is why we need to be honest here in the European Parliament and say that we reject the report. We need to throw out this proposal. It is half-baked, unusable, and there are better ways of saving the world than through tax legislation.

  Olle Ludvigsson, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (SV) Mr President, the Energy Taxation Directive is out of date. It needs to be brought up to date and improved so that it can function in an efficient and balanced way.

The regulatory framework for taxation needs to be brought into line with the increases in our ambitions in energy and environment policy since the directive was adopted in 2003, and it needs to be adapted to new conditions on the energy market.

Most importantly, we must stop discriminating against renewable fuels. The conditions provided for these fuels must be as good as those granted to fossil fuels in order for their development to be sustainable. Energy taxation also needs to be coordinated with emissions trading.

An ambitious revision of the directive is an essential element of a credible energy and environment policy. If we do not revise the directive, we will struggle to meet the Europe 2020 target, nor will we be demonstrating responsibility towards future generations.

The outcome of the reading in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs is a positive one. The committee’s report retains the central elements of the Commission’s logical and well thought-out proposal.

The most controversial aspect, the principle of fiscal neutrality, means that the Member States must ensure that all fuels that are used for the same purpose are subject to the same tax. This is an excellent way to establish fair and predictable competitive conditions. All fuels are given equal opportunities on a flexible energy market. Sound ground rules like these are crucial when it comes to promoting technological development, growth and the creation of jobs.

In the short term, the principle of fiscal neutrality could create problems for the motor industry. The report by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs solves this problem by means of a long phasing-in period lasting until 2025 for this sector.

If the principle should give rise to tax imbalances, the Commission could put forward proposals for compensatory amendments to other vehicle-related taxes. In my view, this is a model that is both rational and viable.

The vote tomorrow concerns the credibility of our energy policy. We cannot establish a sustainable economy without a modern system of energy taxation.

I would also like to express my sincere thanks to Ms Lulling. We worked well together, despite our differing opinions on a few matters.

  Philippe De Backer, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (NL) Mr President, tomorrow, the European Parliament will give its final opinion on the reform of current taxes on energy products. I support the Commission’s desire to split the existing energy tax into two components, energy content, on the one hand, and the CO2 component, on the other.

With this dual tax, it is essential that we eliminate competitive distortions that exist in Europe today. Together, these two components will determine the rates at which various energy products will be taxed. Energy efficiency plays a very important role here, as do environmentally friendly products that we hope we can promote in this way.

I therefore hope that Parliament will support the Commission’s proposal for fairer energy taxation. Member States should be encouraged to tax competing energy products that are used for the same purposes, such as motor fuels, on an equal and proportional basis; equal calculation based on their CO2 emissions and their energy content, because that will result precisely in the creation of a technology-neutral landscape. It will also result in us leaving the choice of the energy product to the market. It is consumers, companies, that will choose their energy products and no longer we politicians.

When that happens, we will also be allowing new sources of energy to get a fair chance on the market and greater market access. That will also serve to encourage innovation; it is an incentive for us to seek out the most energy-efficient energy products.

Tomorrow, during the vote, I will, in any case, be thinking of the future and asking Member States to tax energy products on an equal basis, without giving preference to certain fuels, as has actually been the case in the past. I call on my colleagues to do the same, not to look to the short term, but to strive for a sufficiently long transitional period, so that companies and consumers, as well as providers, can adapt to the new situation.

Parliament’s opinion to the Member States is not binding, of course, but I would, nonetheless, call on Member States to opt for a fair and sustainable tax structure which is based on an equal and proportional treatment of all energy products.

  Philippe Lamberts, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (FR) Mr President, like Ms Van Brempt, the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance would really have liked to have made this proposal more ambitious. I think that the Commission’s proposal is moderate and we would have liked to make it more ambitious.

In saying this, what do we mean? We hear the rapporteur, Astrid Lulling, and Markus Ferber, who has done us the honour of no longer being here, criticise us for wanting, in one way or another, to make the world a better place and, on the other hand, announce to us the end of this world, as ultimately, from what we understand from you, this proposal would result in the collapse of the European economy.

So, what do we mean? We propose lowering taxes on energy products on actual elements, that is to say, halting the current subsidies on one type of fuel to the detriment of another, on the basis of nothing other than industry lobbying. We then proposed introducing a little rationality into the system, and yet you rejected this outright, even though you are often the one who preaches rationality to us. Then we talked to you about a system that would come into force between 2018 and 2025. As if industry and society could not adapt if we were to make a start, and I simply mean make a start, in six years time. Come on. In your eyes, this would destroy our economy.

I have often heard German MEPs, in particular, those from the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and the liberals, giving lessons in good governance to the rest of Europe and indeed to the rest of the world. Today, I note that it is the same MEPs who have become trade representatives for the German automotive industry. This happens all too often and, I would like to say to those German MEPs, it has destroyed your credibility.

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

  Hans-Peter Martin (NI), Blue-card question. – (DE) Mr President, I have a question for you, Mr Lamberts. Taxing CO2 is all well and good, but how, in your opinion, does the mechanism you propose as having a quasi-neutral effect in the market, where the tax increase will mean that consumers will simply be offered the products in a different form, take account of the problem that nuclear power stations do not actually produce CO2 and therefore may be hugely advantaged by this directive and other measures witnessed in this House?

  Philippe Lamberts (Verts/ALE), Blue-card answer. – (FR) Mr President, we cannot resolve all our problems with a single instrument – Mr Langen, your turn will come – and, in fact, the nuclear industry causes externalities, if I may use economic terminology, of a different nature and scope to the climatic externalities that we have discussed for renewable energy, and it must also help in the process of remedying these externalities. We know all too well that the sums involved are on a different scale and a whole new level, but nevertheless, in the Member States where we are permitted to do so, we can be relied upon to implement this type of taxation. Some countries have already started and will show that this type of energy is not economically viable.

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

  Alexander Graf Lambsdorff (ALDE), Blue-card question. – (DE) I simply wanted to ask Mr Lamberts whether he might consider assuming that the Members of the House, whatever their nationality and whatever their political affiliation, pursue honest motives in their political activities, and whether he might refrain in future from slanderous and belittling remarks.

  Philippe Lamberts (Verts/ALE), Blue-card answer. – (FR) Mr President, I have been delighted to observe in the last few days the German Association of the Automotive Industry (VDA) and the French automotive industry, as well as others, engaging in intense lobbying.

This industry even has a track record, as it refuses to accept change, rejects CO2 emissions standards and which, today, undertakes intensive lobbying. Who does it lobby? MEPs, clearly to prevent restrictive measures being taken. I simply wanted to state that I have noticed this influence.

You will, without doubt, say that I am drawing fairly far-reaching conclusions, so I must draw my conclusions from the statistical evidence. I am watching to see who reacts and in what way.

  Evžen Tošenovský, on behalf of the ECR Group. – (CS) Mr President, the directive submitted is an important part of the key debate on EU energy policy. The submitted draft again, unfortunately, involves heavy administrative intervention in the energy sector. With the current preference – and the sometimes exaggerated direct financial support – for renewables, the situation on the market may get even worse. In some countries, for example, we have seen excessive support for solar power, with long-term commitments to purchase electricity at inflated prices. It is now clear that this results in huge business with highly negative impacts. The result is often dramatic, unsustainable increases in energy prices for firms and individuals, and an attempt by governments to rein in this fiscally dangerous development.

I am therefore concerned about this heavy regulatory intervention, which may lead to a downturn in manufacturing opportunities in many countries, and may also have significant and incalculable social effects in Member States. Overall, this may put at risk the global competitiveness of the EU.

  Claudio Morganti, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is fine to defend and safeguard the environment, but I should like to know just how far we want to go. The cost of energy products has reached record levels in many countries, like Italy, where filling up a car has become astronomically expensive.

The solution proposed would undoubtedly lead to further increases in fuel and energy costs, and the people who would have to pay would be the usual ones, the people for whom a vehicle is essential for working and getting about. I do not believe that the European Union can allow such a situation to happen, as it would bring many strategic areas of production to their knees and lead to a rise in energy and fuel bills.

In Italy, the Monti government is also thinking of introducing a nationwide ‘carbon tax’. One blow leads to another and if we do this, citizens and businesses will go under in the name of a false and extreme environmentalism which, in Italy and elsewhere in Europe, is just a way of raising money indiscriminately.

  Sabine Wils, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (DE) Mr President, the fundamental tenor of the Commission’s proposal and of the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs in relation to the Energy Taxation Directive would facilitate the uniform handling of all sources of energy by 2023 by following a technically neutral approach with a minimum tax rate for all traded fuels and electricity, based on CO2 and energy content. At the same time, incentives would be established for the use of less polluting energy products for the transition to a low carbon economy.

The proposed directive would provide three important tax incentives: firstly, for the reduction of CO2 emissions, secondly, for the saving of energy, and thirdly, for the promotion of a changeover to more energy-efficient fuels and more environmentally sound energy production. The adjustment for diesel fuel to bring it into line with the taxation of petrol could place pressure on the motor industry to develop more energy-efficient engines. In the United Kingdom, both fuels are already taxed to the same level. The EU’s objective of minimum taxation establishes equal conditions for all.

  Hans-Peter Martin (NI). – (DE) Mr President, of course Brussels is a battlefield! The difference is that, rather than armies, we have battalions of interest groups. We have heard reference to the motor industry. However, the nuclear lobby has been particularly vociferous on the issue of CO2.

Which brings me to a fundamental problem with this report. As long as a technically neutral approach is not adopted and as long as CO2 emissions are measured wholly in terms of reduction, nuclear power stations in France and elsewhere will come off very well indeed and will be subject to very low levels of taxation. Of course, that is completely the wrong way to go about things. The fact is that if we actually consider CO2 emissions on the basis of the energy units produced, then nuclear power stations are by no means as CO2-friendly as this lobby would have us believe. Comparative figures relating to upstream and downstream processes in uranium production and in the reprocessing of fuel rods show that nuclear power stations fuelled by Russian uranium produce about 65 grams of carbon dioxide per Kilowatt-hour, placing them far behind the renewable energies we all favour, whether hydropower or wind energy. If we approve this report in its current form, then we shall be knowingly buying a pig in a poke.

I tabled a corresponding amendment in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, demanding that emissions during the degradation processes involved in the reprocessing of the fuels required for energy production in nuclear power stations should also be taken into account. This amendment was shot down. Accordingly, if we follow the Lulling report, written as it is by someone who openly supports the widespread use of nuclear power, we shall be moving backwards towards a radioactive past, rather than forward into a rational future.

  Mario Mauro (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in the belief based on Mr Lamberts’ speech that the best way to scupper the opinions of those opposing these rules is to identify them as dangerous lobbyists, I shall build my argument on a car-oriented framework. I think we are basing our conduct on the principle that ‘the polluter pays’, which is a good principle, a sacred principle, and sometimes applies to the Formula One circuits.

In Formula One, you race to win. When some people, rather than racing to win, race to push their opponent off the track, accidents happen. At this point, the safety car comes onto the scene to restart the race on a fairer basis. I believe that unless we also approve the rapporteur’s approach, and therefore approve the amendments, we shall approve this new tax indiscriminately, and by doing so we shall have raced to push our opponent off the track. Our opponent in this case is our businesses and our citizens, who have the right not to view these taxes as a way of taking possession of their life, and we shall also be doing a disservice to the principle of ‘the polluter pays’.

I believe that we need to have a balanced approach, and therefore we support the rapporteur’s approach and should like the amendments she has proposed to be approved, precisely so all of Europe can be given not only the possibility of having a better environment, but also of having a better environment while continuing to compete with the other great world powers. Otherwise, our proposals to our citizens shall be lacking in credibility and they will punish us by considering all our standpoints to be merely abstract.

  Marita Ulvskog (S&D). – (SV) Mr President, the targets we have set for climate policy are not castles in the air. They are legally binding for the Member States and they are crystal clear. We have decided to reduce climate-relevant emissions by 20% by 2020. Today’s decision concerns how we are to do this. All research shows that putting a price on carbon dioxide results in cost-effective reductions in emissions. The price of carbon dioxide is driving progress in technological development and essential adaptations in society. Therefore, every Member who voted for our climate targets should support the principles in the Energy Taxation Directive and, conversely, anyone who rejects this directive also rejects our climate policy targets and structure, because without this directive, we will continue to live with rules that result in a higher rate of taxation on biofuels than on fossil fuels, that do not provide cost-effective reductions in emissions, and that run the risk of double taxation on account of the poor coordination of the emissions trading system. The proposal we have received from the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs is not as ambitious as it could be, but it retains the key elements of the Commission’s proposal for a new Energy Taxation Directive. This cautious proposal for amending the structure of energy taxation takes a belt and braces approach and also contains a few safety nets.

Parliament is merely being consulted on this matter now. The Council will decide with unanimity, and what we say here will have no formal significance. Nevertheless, the vote tomorrow is crucial, because it is a question of the credibility of decisions we have made in the past in relation to climate and environment policy. I believe it is time for the European Parliament to accept its responsibility. Tomorrow, we will have the opportunity to demonstrate that we do not vote only when there is absolutely no substance to the decisions being made.

  Alexander Graf Lambsdorff (ALDE). – (DE) Mr President, what do Düsseldorf and Dortmund, Herten and Essen, Arnsberg and Würselen have in common? They are all places where the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) Members of the European Parliament for North Rhine-Westphalia live. The people of North Rhine-Westphalia hear from Ms Kraft that the SPD’s aim is to protect and promote both industry and the region as an industrial heartland. At the same time, these Members from Dortmund, Düsseldorf, Essen and other places are now about to vote for a massive increase in the price of diesel, this despite the fact that Germany and Europe lead the world in this energy-efficient and environmentally friendly drive technology.

The consequences of this price increase are clear: rising prices, a decline in internal demand, a threat to technological superiority and to the survival of the industrial base. If this really is the Social Democrats’ industrial policy, then we can say good night to North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany and Europe. The truth is that this makes no economic or environmental sense. If we consider rising fuel costs, which have already reached record levels, then we must recognise that we are inhibiting internal demand, despite the fact that the Social Democrats are always looking to stimulate growth in this area.

This makes no sense from an environmental perspective either. We all know that diesel-powered vehicles travel further on less fuel than petrol-driven vehicles. That is why I would call on the Social Democrats to reconsider the consequences for the people, the consumers and the drivers of Germany and Europe of their vote tomorrow. It is high time that the SPD espoused an economic policy that targets success, not just on election posters, but also in specific political action.

  Bas Eickhout (Verts/ALE). – (NL) Mr President, of course, it is always nice to see that when we discuss our tax system in general terms, we are always in favour of greening our taxation system. We always want to include environmental costs in the pricing, until it becomes concrete. According to some of my colleagues, this is the point at which we have to, all of a sudden, stand up for the internal market. If that is the case, do stop, in future, this environmental rhetoric which appears to be purely for show. Then we will know once and for all that, from now on, we will never have to listen to it any more.

However, do let us make proper use of the facts. It has been said that the diesel price will increase for everyone. That is simply not true! Perhaps for Luxembourg, which now has a tax of 32 cents per litre. Yes, that tax will have to be increased to 40 cents in 2018! Luxembourg will, no doubt, find this difficult, but Germany already has a 47 cent tax. This means that Germany will not have to make any changes whatsoever until 2018. Why has no one mentioned this?

And the suggestion that this could spell the end of the diesel engine, what nonsense! Where is petrol the most expensive? In the Netherlands! 70% more expensive than diesel. Where do you have the smallest number of diesel vehicles? Exactly, in the Netherlands! So, let us use the facts properly; this is a very modest proposal and let us please, for once, translate this rhetoric about including environmental costs in the pricing into action.

  Roger Helmer (EFD). – Mr President, there is so much wrong with this proposal that in sixty seconds, I hardly know where to start.

First of all, it is a move towards tax harmonisation. But tax harmonisation is a cartel operated by governments against the interests of citizens. The United Kingdom Independence Party, which I represent, is in favour of tax competition, not tax harmonisation.

Secondly, the proposal aims to increase energy taxes. This will reduce the profitability of European companies and undermine Europe’s competitiveness in global markets.

Thirdly, the proposal adds yet another layer of complexity to the existing multiple layers of energy taxes and regulations. Fourthly, taxation is, and must remain, a national competence. This measure represents an unwarranted interference by the Brussels institutions in the internal affairs of Member States.

For all these reasons, I call on colleagues to reject the proposal.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, I believe that taxation is an interesting tool for bringing about behavioural change. I think that energy consumption must include an indicative price signal for consumers and, above all, I think that in order to prevent any distorting effect on the internal market, we must try to harmonise our tax systems. The principle of proportionality of different levels of taxation on energy products therefore seemed to me to be a necessity. In the case in hand, for example, this would allow us to put an end to the current diesel tourism that we are witnessing, which is not an acceptable practice. Therefore, I share the thinking behind the proposed revision of the Commission’s directive.

Nevertheless, while we have to find a way to meet our objectives in terms of reducing CO2 emissions or of energy efficiency, we must equally ensure that our collective decisions do not penalise citizens or sectors that are particularly vulnerable to the price volatility in global markets, for example, the agriculture sector

The draft directive would have an effect on the price of diesel; obviously, this would vary according to the level of taxation of each Member State, but it would have an impact all the same. The question is this: at the end of the day, who will have to shoulder this price increase? Are there any real practical, realistic alternatives available to the consumer? As shadow rapporteur for the Committee on the Environment, Public Heath and Food Safety, I support an ambitious position but, above all, one that is sustainable for all.

Therefore, I call for a more progressive report and entry into force of the proposal and its principle of proportionality in 2030, with a new impact study updating the one on which the Commission bases its judgment, which was, however, carried out five years ago.

  Bernd Lange (S&D). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, you will have noticed from Mr Lambsdorff’s remarks that the issue here is not an objective debate, but rather the elections in Germany. All I can say here is that for a party on the political defensive, a debate like this, with so many wrong-headed arguments, may be one way to stay afloat. However this is to ignore the facts. The situation in Germany is that the government supported by Mr Lambsdorff’s party already levies a tax rate on diesel above the future minimum tax rate. At present, we have a minimum tax rate of EUR 0.33 in Germany, which would be increased to EUR 0.41; however, the German Government already takes EUR 0.47. In other words, there would be no immediate change. Thus, it is wrong to say that the price of diesel fuel will sky-rocket in the morning.

The second point is proportionality. We Social Democrats have always said that proportionality is not unconditional. We have tabled Amendment 15 precisely with this in mind. We must not drive the diesel engine to extinction through taxation. We Social Democrats proposed this amendment, which the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs was happy to adopt. But what happens next? Obviously our Liberal and Conservative colleagues distrust their own governments because the definition of the absolute tax rate is still a matter for the Member States and their governments. The level of distrust is so great that they believe that if this resolution is adopted, the governments they support will increase diesel taxes. That is why I can understand it when people say that this distrust will result in the rejection of proportionality. If your distrust really is so great, then I believe it is right to reject proportionality in this case.

I have one final word to add. If everyone is suddenly a supporter of diesel, then I find myself wondering why these governments are not moving to switch from taxing cars to taxing CO2 emissions, benefiting the more economical diesel engine. You can do this immediately without consulting Europe. What is stopping you?

  Sven Giegold (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, Mr Langen has already set out the objective arguments. The arguments that we have heard here in this debate and in the German media are, in fact, anything but objective. The central point is that this directive largely leaves it to the Member States to decide on the level of taxation on diesel and petrol. In essence, we are establishing a level playing field here. Effectively, only the general tax and fuel tax havens will have to increase their taxes. It is up to Germany to decide for itself whether or not to increase the tax rate for diesel fuel.

What I find disturbing, Mr Lambsdorff, if I might address you directly, is this: like me, you are a supporter of Europe. However, to ignore the fact that Germany lays down the rules itself is an anathema for Europeans and, in the final analysis, engenders a feeling of aggravation with Europe among the Germans, instead of contributing to an objective discussion of the matter to be decided here.

IN THE CHAIR: ALEXANDER ALVARO
Vice-President

  Gunnar Hökmark (PPE). – Mr President, the main problem, if you take a global perspective, is not the use of energy as such but emissions as regards their effect on the climate and the environment.

We know that some energy fuels or sources produce lower emissions: renewables, bio-fuels, nuclear power, and that some emit more: gas, oil and coal. The problem is, of course, that if we tax the energy more than the emissions, we are creating a situation where we are hindering the emergence of competitive new renewable energy resources.

The problem is that if we do not tax the environmental consequences, we get a situation – as has been mentioned in this debate – where diesel, for example, becomes more expensive than petrol. That is, of course, a problem for those who use diesel cars. But the main problem is that we have a system of taxation that is hindering the best energy sources while supporting the old energy sources. That is the problem with this proposal: it is not doing these things straight by supporting the emergence of new energy sources.

  Sławomir Witold Nitras (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, Mr Hökmark said the price of diesel is a problem for those who use diesel cars. I think there are at least two reasons why it is also, to a large extent, a problem for the European economy. Firstly, a few days ago, I had the opportunity to look at the balance of trade between Taiwan, for example, and Europe and to talk about this. Well, it turns out that we are buying their computers and trying to rescue our balance of trade by selling them meat.

It seems to me that when it comes to cars, diesel technology in particular was developed by European concerns and is a European technology – I do not mean it is a German technology, because I am Polish and do not represent the German lobby, although I did once have a German car which, Mr Lamberts, was made in Belgium – and in terms of diesel, Europe is a world leader, diesel is a technology in which we have a competitive advantage, and if we are going to try to kill it with administrative requirements and taxation, this will be done to the cost of the European consumer and the European economy.

We have to say clearly – because different figures are being bandied about, here – that this piece of legislation means the cost of diesel in Europe will rise by not less than 10%, and, of course, we have agreed to reduce the level of CO2 by 20% or even 30%, but – I am speaking here to those who have appealed for consistency – no one has agreed that the remaining 70% should cost 15% or 20% more.

We have a similar problem with coal: 30% of the European economy today is dependent on the production of coal, and raising the cost of energy by 25% or 30% from one day to the next – because five years in economic terms is from one day to the next – will mean Europe will have to bear a great many economic consequences.

  Richard Seeber (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, I would like to tell the Commission clearly that the timing of this proposal is wrong and that it does not go far enough. I would also like to ask a question of Mr Lambsdorff, who has taken the opportunity for a bit of electioneering. He has praised Germany’s liberal stance, but what about his liberal colleagues in other countries? Perhaps he should look to put his own house in order there, too.

Mr Eickhout and Mr Giegold have also emphasised that we opposed specific environmental taxes. However, I would like to ask these gentlemen a question: what about revenue neutrality? Does it make sense to keep on introducing new taxes? We are open to discussions on this. However, the overall effect must be revenue neutral, even when it comes to environmental taxes. I would also ask the Social Democrats the same question: suddenly, now that the story has hit the media, you are getting cold feet and no longer have the confidence to stand behind your arguments. I think this is a pity.

I believe that when we come to discuss these matters, we must take a global approach. By a global approach I mean that we should not focus on the energy content and CO2 emissions of fuels, but rather that we should look at the overall tax situation in the Member States – with regard to cars, for example. Mr Eickhout said that the Netherlands has a small proportion of diesel. Why is that? That may be the case, but we need to take a look at registration taxes and day-to-day taxes. In Austria, we have a very high NOVA levy, an additional tax on top of Value Added Tax, based on CO2 emissions. If we wish to discuss these taxes, then we need to look at the overall concept, not isolated interventions. That is precisely what we need. The Commission should also take this into consideration. That is why I am a little disappointed to see support for such a patchwork approach in the clear knowledge that we will not find a majority among the Member States.

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

  Bernd Lange (S&D), Blue-card question. – (DE) Mr Seeber, I have a supplementary question. Are you unaware that we Social Democrats tabled an amendment in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs drawing attention to precisely this problem – namely, that this could lead to problems with industrial policy and the questioning of the CO2 reduction strategy for cars – and that this amendment was adopted by the Economic Affairs Committee?

  Richard Seeber (PPE), Blue-card answer. – (DE) Mr Lange, we now need to clarify how things stand in relation to these technologies. As an expert in cars, you will know that there is a lot of debate as to whether diesel really is the more harmful fuel over a particular distance and at a particular engine speed. We should discuss these fundamental questions from the start. You will no doubt agree with me that we need a consistent overall approach.

I am unaware of the specific amendment submitted to the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. It would perhaps have made sense to vote in favour of it. However, let us talk about the overall approach, and perhaps you would be so good as to tell your constituents that you are in favour of increasing the price of diesel.

  Werner Langen (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, I would like to point out that the Commission seems to have lost its way. In 2008 and 2011, we agreed on strict rules for cars and small commercial vehicles. This enabled us to promote diesel technology, producing more fuel-efficient engines and achieving genuine progress. We demanded that the efficiencies should be achieved in the engine itself. The opposite tack is now being taken. We are now proposing an artificial increase in tax rates, and whether the rates are above or below this in Germany is irrelevant; the point is this will lead to a further distortion of competition.

We are leaders in diesel technology. This has nothing to do with the lobby groups from the motor industry or with nuclear energy in Russia; the issue at stake is whether we should impose stringent energy-efficiency measures on industry, whose interests we represent here, bringing about measurable successes, only to do away with them again with the other hand. This is a contradictory approach. This is a matter for the Commission and I hope, Commissioner, that we reject this particular policy point with a clear majority tomorrow. It will be rejected by the Council anyway, just as all similar attempts have failed over the last 20 years. I believe and hope that this attempt will meet with a similar fate tomorrow because the Commission’s proposals are contradictory and lack a clear approach.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Zofija Mazej Kukovič (PPE). – (SL) Mr President, as an experienced businesswoman, I feel strongly about the economic crisis affecting companies today and I sympathise hugely with economic operators who do not have a lot of influence over external factors. Employees are naturally worried about their jobs and, in this respect, I very much agree with the rapporteur and recognise her desire to make progress while remaining grounded in reality. As Mr Seeber said, this directive has come at a difficult time. We must take this difficult time into account alongside these minimal changes, to ensure they are acceptable today and acceptable to Europe’s economy and to its citizens.

  Spyros Danellis (S&D). – (EL) Mr President, I wish to comment on the recent abrogation of the tax exemptions that apply in the shipping and aviation sectors. As an objective, limiting carbon emissions in these two sectors is not only desirable; it is absolutely necessary. The demand for services in both sectors is predicted to double by 2050 and, of course, it would be criminal for us to allow carbon emissions to rise commensurately.

However, our approach should guarantee the final result. Both sectors, especially ocean-going shipping, will present a very serious risk of ‘carbon leakage’ if fuel is taxed at EU level by bunkering their ships outside the European Union and modifying their transport routes. That is why, if it is to be effective, fuel taxes on ships should be introduced solely at global level.

  Cristian Silviu Buşoi (ALDE). – (RO) Mr President, I think that the proposals tabled by the Commission and the amendments proposed in the report will help, to a large extent, adapt this directive to the environmental and climate change objectives which the EU has also taken on, based on a taxation system encouraging energy products with the least environmental impact. However, just like other colleagues, I have serious reservations about the principle of proportionality and the impact which it could have on the price of diesel. At a time when European consumers are, in any case, under pressure from fuel prices, I do not believe that it would be the ideal time for this diesel price increase. It would also dampen the interest shown by consumers in vehicles running on this kind of fuel, thereby also having an impact on the European Union’s car manufacturing industry. Given that diesel engines are one of the assets of European industry, I think that we could lose this comparative advantage, not to mention that we will not enjoy the environmental benefit either because of the difference in energy terms between using petrol and diesel.

  Paul Rübig (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, an energy minister from a non-European producer country once proposed giving Europe all his energy free-of-charge if we were prepared to share the tax revenue with him. This says a lot about the issue at stake here, namely, that we need to remain competitive in relation to energy. This is also why I am unsure about what reliefs Commissioner Šemeta has in mind with this proposal, because it is naturally important to relieve the work- and performance-related tax burden if consumption and energy-related aspects are to be taxed more heavily. The main problem is that this move should be revenue neutral. However, we have no proposals for how we can relieve some of the tax burden on European workers and companies. On the contrary, I am constantly hearing proposals for new types of charges. If we are to remain competitive, then we must put forward proposals to reduce the tax burden as well.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D). – (SK) Mr President, the current draft directive is certainly important, and is also necessary. Building a low carbon, energy-efficient economy is more than important. Adherence to ‘proportionality’ between the various minimum thresholds set at EU level would, for example, lead to a substantial increase in the price of diesel in many Member States. Moreover, in Slovakia, in my country, the downturn in the sector involved in the manufacture of diesel engines would result in the loss of hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of jobs. Proportionality would also have a negative impact on retail prices, and this is something we really cannot afford in the current economic crisis. During policy making, we should think, in particular, about burdening the citizens of the European Union as little as possible with increased levies and charges that are not absolutely necessary. Let us focus instead on the big energy companies, Commissioner, which every year report high profits, and let us not burden consumers with higher levies and charges.

End of the catch-the-eye procedure

  Algirdas Šemeta, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, I would like to thank you for your views expressed during this debate. As you may know, the Danish Presidency views this file as a high priority. However, the positions of Member States on major issues are still very divergent and even opposing. In particular, support for, and opposition to, the principle of the split in the tax base, with a CO2 and energy content element, remains fairly evenly distributed.

Your strong support and constructive approach in this area would therefore be an important signal for the Member States. As mentioned by Ms Van Brempt, it is time to show some backbone in our objectives. After all, this proposal reflects what Parliament has been calling for for years. I would like to remind you all that this proposal is a key initiative in the Single Market Act. Everybody supports the Single Market Act, and the proposal on the Energy Taxation Directive is one of 12 key initiatives in this.

As I said earlier, the Commission can accept some of the amendments adopted by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON), including some proposing longer transitional periods. It will endeavour to take these amendments into consideration as much as possible during the deliberations in the Council. Several other amendments are already covered by the proposal. As regards the treatment of agriculture, I would like to make it clear that the Member States will retain the possibility of exempting agriculture, provided that some environmental counterpart is ensured.

The debate today has concentrated on transport fuels. However, I would like to stress again that isolating the CO2 element in energy taxation would allow companies that are subject to the ETS to be exempt from it. This would mean lower taxes and increased growth. Again, I wish to thank you for your broad support in moving forward with this initiative, and I hope that the vote tomorrow will be very positive.

  Astrid Lulling, rapporteur. – (FR) Mr President, as you know, if something is exaggerated, it is worth nothing. That is why I will not respond to those fellow Members who have spoken about what I accept is a very controversial subject, but without the necessary seriousness and objectivity and, unfortunately, by engaging in poor-taste populism – especially on the part of the Greens – or by talking about the wrong topic, as some Non-attached Members are doing.

We have to get used to the situation. At a time when crude prices are soaring, it is not good enough to say that on top of that we need to increase taxes, which already represent up to two-thirds of pump prices. Do you want to be complicit in the message that the European Parliament would now be sending to our citizens and our industries – that fuel prices, especially diesel prices, would have to sky-rocket? You will live up to your responsibilities tomorrow; we will see that. For my part, I am convinced that the European Parliament will send the right signal to the Member States.

(DE) I would like to tell Mr Lambsdorff that I am happy he has recognised that it is important that the German Social Democrats – not just the Members for North Rhine-Westphalia – should stand up for what they believe and listen to the Industrial Union of Metalworkers (IG-Metall) and its works councils. This will put you on track.

I would like to make a correction regarding Mr Giegold’s contribution. What he said is incorrect. Germany cannot increase the price of diesel. If proportionality is to apply, then Germany, irrespective of how high its taxes are, must tax diesel at 9% higher than petrol. I needed to correct this. Tomorrow, we shall see how the House views the issue.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Thursday, 19 April 2012, at 12.00.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Arkadiusz Tomasz Bratkowski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) The crucial area of energy policy was, is and will continue to be determined by the state, and introducing universal measures for the whole of Europe in this area, while each country has a different energy mix, may lead to a situation in which one or many EU Member States are adversely affected by the decision taken. In the context of restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity, I would like to call attention not just to action for better protection of the environment, but also to measures which meet the expectations of the citizens and industry, and which, as a consequence, affect such areas as economic growth, unemployment and energy prices.

In the final analysis, the measures we employ should take account of the interests of the citizens we represent. With reference to Poland and the Lubelskie Voivodship, I would like to appeal for the right of my country to an optional application of the emission factor component of the amended Council directive, and also to call attention to Poland’s right to use its substantial resources of coal on a competitive basis and – here I would like to draw attention to terminology – in the framework of a low emission economy, not a low carbon economy, because, of course, in view of the technologies available, using coal does not have to mean a rise in CO2 emissions.

  George Sabin Cutaş (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The proposal for a directive on the taxation of energy products and electricity is certainly ambitious in terms of environmental protection. I agree that we need to cut CO2 emissions significantly, not only from the aspect of environmental sustainability, but also for the sake of European citizens’ health. However, the proposal is being made at a difficult juncture for the European economy. Raising the levels of excise duties on energy products and electricity could cause budget receipts to increase. However, it is again the EU citizens already affected by the implementation of tough austerity measures who would bear the brunt of such decisions, vulnerable households in particular. There are also plans to raise the minimum level of excise duty on diesel from 2013, with the current level of duty being lower on diesel than on petrol. This is not a realistic deadline for implementing such a measure without upsetting the market in Member States where diesel is preferred by car owners, precisely because it costs less. Therefore, I call for the Commission’s proposal to be opposed as it does not represent European consumers’ interests fairly.

  Robert Dušek (S&D), in writing. – (CS) While the current Directive 2003/96/EC on the taxation of energy products and electricity lays down rules for products that are subject to taxation, tax exemptions, and minimum rates of taxation for fuels and electricity based on the amount of energy consumed, the new draft prioritises linking energy policy to the objective of a low carbon economy. Under the Commission proposal, energy taxation would be divided into two parts. One of these would be a tax on CO2 emissions (EUR 20 per tonne of CO2) and the second would be a payment based on product energy content. Member States will be able to increase both parts of the tax above these minimum rates. I welcome the fact that agriculture, as a strategic sector securing the population’s food supply, will continue to enjoy the same reduced rates as before. I accept the arguments for the better use of energy sources and the greater use of cleaner energy. Just like the rapporteur, however, I am concerned about the sharp increase in prices of energy and fuel, particularly diesel. The increase will be a burden not only on direct consumers, but also the entire European economy. It is also essential for us to view this issue from a global economic perspective, and to consider the consequences of our decisions even more carefully than in the past. Setting a fuel and energy tax that will be applied only in the Member States of the EU will introduce further inequalities on the global market, and our economies will consequently be saddled with an even greater burden.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I believe that it would be a big mistake to impose additional burdens on citizens during the current crisis. Unfortunately, this is precisely what this directive could do as it could result in rising energy, electricity and fuel prices. The report adopted by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs rejected the suggestion made by the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy to reduce the high price imposed on CO2 emissions, and this will be reflected in the prices charged to consumers. Furthermore, although some references are made to groups of people on low incomes, the measures for protecting them remain vague and ineffective. This new directive could have a very serious social impact, especially in Member States like Romania where tough measures have already been imposed on citizens, such as mass redundancies, salary cuts or tax hikes. This directive would double the additional fiscal burden imposed on these people: they would pay both the direct energy taxes and the cost generated by the inflation which would be fuelled by these taxes. I believe that these are legitimate concerns, which is why I think that we should reconsider our support for this directive.

  Elisabetta Gardini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) One of the aims of the amendment to this directive concerns the introduction of a tax component linked to CO2 emissions in order to give a tax benefit to cleaner products. However, the Commission’s proposal, which would require Member States to tax products used for the same purpose at the same rate and remove the possibility of exemption for some products, risks having the sole effect of increasing the tax burden to unsustainable levels precisely on fuels which, in fact, help to reduce environmental pollution. For example, in the case of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) used as a fuel, there would be an increase of approximately EUR 0.37 per litre. It is superfluous to add that LPG vehicles would lose any economic advantage over comparable petrol-run vehicles. The same goes for natural gas and methane. More tax on these two products would not only be counter-productive in terms of environmental protection, but would also jeopardise the introduction and more widespread use of a sustainable, clean fuel like biomethane. I therefore hope that the principle of proportionality of excise duties will be eliminated in order to guarantee that Member States have the necessary flexibility to set tax levels in accordance with their own energy policies.

  Adam Gierek (S&D), in writing. – (PL) This legislation is a way of doing damage dreamed up by officials in the Commission, who supposedly carried out extensive consultations with society while drafting measures to extend the Climate and Energy Package. This cannot be the truth. In spite of the fact that each Member State has its own means of promoting sustainable development, a standardised route to achievement of the 3x20 objectives has been imposed, with complete disregard for the subsidiarity principle. The Climate and Energy Package has put the brakes on energy investment in Poland, creating a situation which threatens the country’s energy security. While the package, which was to have been vetoed, will, from 2013, hit at ordinary people by causing a rise in the price mainly of electricity, this legislation will affect them even more strongly by causing a rise in the price of fuels needed for heating and transport.

Households in Poland, and rural households in particular, use mainly coal for heating and, from 2013, the price of coal – in accordance with the scandalous proposal submitted by the Commission – will rise by around 50%. Both the Climate and Energy Package and this anti-Poland legislation are a form of camouflaged protectionism for certain Member States which have low carbon economies, and those who are saying they are only interested in climate protection are downright hypocrites. We should categorically reject the tax being proposed by the Commission because it is anti-social, and we should also make appropriate modifications to the ill-advised Climate and Energy Package because it, too, is anti-social and is already causing unemployment.

  Edit Herczog (S&D), in writing. – (HU) The decisions we made on the taxation of energy today will have a serious impact on Europe’s competitiveness in the coming decades. Vital issues like the taxation of energy must be examined in every detail, including from an environmental, energy, industrial and even a social policy perspective. Additionally, it is crucial to ensure that the reform of taxation results in a clearer, more transparent tax policy with no excessive administration. A tax structure encouraging both energy efficiency and low carbon dioxide emissions can serve not only to reinforce the EU budget but also to facilitate the financing of future Member State projects related to green energy development and research into renewable energy sources. Similarly, this revenue could also be used to support efforts to increase European nuclear safety.

Moreover, a single tax system could also assist efforts such as the training of energy users, the measurement and improvement of the efficiency of green energy and any necessary alternative energy sources, and not least the support of green small enterprises. As a Socialist MEP, my chief concern is for European citizens to have access to affordable and safe energy. While we do need sustainable development, renewable energy sources, efficient taxation of energy, and sufficiently secure energy reserves, we must not for a single moment forget about the population’s burden-bearing capacity.

  Vladimir Urutchev (PPE), in writing. – (BG) The existing taxation of energy products according to volumes of consumption is not in line with the EU’s long-term energy targets. The introduction of two tax components for carbon dioxide and the energy content of fuels is a step in the right direction – towards reducing carbon emissions, decreasing fuel consumption and achieving its most efficient use. However, why does the Commission, in the midst of an economic crisis, when fuel prices are constantly rising, dare to propose a tax increase on energy products right now? Could it not plan a smooth transition to the new tax rules without increasing taxes? Nowadays, when two thirds of the price of fuel can be attributed to taxation, why are we raising it? Who will ultimately pay for these increases? Why have we targeted diesel where we have invested the most money and made the most innovations to make it have the lowest emissions and run the most efficient engines? This money has not even been recouped yet. This is why I, along with many colleagues, am against dealing right now yet another blow to the economy, its competitiveness and citizens’ incomes through an unnecessary, harmful and artificial tax increase on energy products, especially on diesel. On the contrary, let us keep more tax breaks, including under the new tax rules being proposed.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The proposal for amending the directive on restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity introduces two energy taxation components: one with taxation relating to carbon dioxide emissions and the other relating to the general consumption of energy. Introducing taxation based on carbon dioxide emissions is tantamount to introducing a carbon tax, which will affect industry, households and European competitiveness. I think that abolishing the exemptions and reductions which currently apply will be difficult for households to bear, especially during the current economic crisis when unemployment is at an alarming rate and there has been a drop in the quality of life for many European households. The rise in diesel duty will also have an adverse impact on both car owners and the car industry which has already invested, in keeping with European regulations, in cleaner engines. I welcome the adoption of the amendments tabled, through which we called for an exemption to apply to electricity used for irrigation and for a tax exemption to be applied up to 1 January 2023 for electricity used to charge electric and hybrid vehicles. I think that setting a carbon dioxide-related tax at EUR 20/tonne is arbitrary. This value should be set by the market and not altered arbitrarily by the Commission simply to make investments in renewable energy profitable.

18. Risk sharing instruments for Member States experiencing or threatened with serious difficulties with respect to their financial stability (debate)

  President. – The next item is the report by Danuta Maria Hübner, on behalf of the Committee on Regional Development, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 as regards certain provisions relating to risk sharing instruments for Member States experiencing or threatened with serious difficulties with respect to their financial stability [COM(2011)0655 – C7-0350/2011 – 2011/0283(COD)] (A7-0067/2012).

  Danuta Maria Hübner, rapporteur. – Mr President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, over the last two and a half years, I have started most of my statements in this House by saying that Europe needs growth, and once again I say it today.

Austerity packages in those economies most strongly affected by the crisis have not generated growth because of a dysfunctional banking sector and high risk-aversion. Therefore, there is an urgent need to unlock EIB loans and guarantees to enable the private sector to become involved in important growth and job-creating projects, especially those cofinanced by the EU cohesion policy. In this context, mobilising all the potential resources that can become growth triggers requires special measures, and this is what this legislative proposal is about. It provides for the establishment of a risk sharing instrument with a view to facilitating the absorption of the European Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund resources allocated to Member States covered by EU and IMF financial assistance programmes.

In these countries – and primarily in Greece – there are infrastructure and productive investment projects whose implementation has been blocked by the lack of private cofinancing. This is particularly the case with transport and environmental infrastructure projects which generate revenue from the collection of charges from users and whose value cannot be covered by grants financed through the cohesion policy. This is also the case with those productive investments for which the maximum allowable public aid is capped by State aid rules. These projects are at risk of not being implemented because private sector investors and banks either lack the liquidity to lend to projects and project promoters or are no longer willing to bear the risks of investing in the present circumstances.

The measure also foresees the possibility of financing other projects which are not cofinanced by cohesion policy programmes but which contribute to the achievement of the objectives of cohesion policy and bring important added value to the Union’s strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. The proposed measure will be implemented by the Commission at the request of the Member State concerned in agreement with the EIB or with another public or private institution with a public mission. The Member State concerned should address a formal request to the Commission identifying the projects and the funding needs to be covered by the risk sharing instrument. The Commission will assess the request and will set up and manage the facility jointly with the EIB.

The regulation provides a detailed description of the procedure to be applied for the establishment and implementation of a risk sharing instrument. We have also specified the budget ceiling for the risk sharing instrument, and we have specified that there are no contingent liabilities for the Union budget or the Member State concerned beyond the financial allocations dedicated to the risk sharing instrument. The Commission shall ensure that only projects for which the EIB or another interested institution with a public mission has taken a favourable financing decision are eligible for financing through this instrument.

I hope that, following tomorrow’s vote in the European Parliament, the Council will adopt this regulation promptly, allowing for joint signature by the European Parliament and the Council in May, as well as publication in the Official Journal of the European Union and entry into force on the same day.

  Algirdas Šemeta, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, in June 2011, the European Council encouraged the Commission and the EIB to enhance the synergies between loan programmes for Greece and EU funds. The aim was to increase Greece’s capacity to absorb EU funds and to stimulate growth and employment creation.

In July 2011, the Heads of State or Government of the euro area and the EU institutions extended the scope of that political mandate. They invited the Commission and the EIB to enhance the synergies between loan programmes and EU funds in all Member States benefiting from EU or International Monetary Fund assistance.

In January 2012, the European Council invited the Council, the Commission and the EIB to consider possible options for enhancing EIB action to support growth, including the possibility of using the EU budget to leverage the EIB Group’s financing capacity.

In October 2011, the Commission adopted a proposal to amend Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006. The objective was to enable the use of available allocations under programmes cofinanced by the European Regional Development Fund and Cohesion Fund to back up guarantees and loans granted by the EIB or by other national or international bodies with a public mission offering adequate guarantees – the so-called ‘risk sharing instrument’.

The target Member States are those experiencing serious difficulties with respect to financial stability and which have been granted financial assistance according to one of the existing mechanisms. The measure is intended to address the serious obstacles faced by some Member States, particularly Greece, in raising the private financing needed to implement infrastructure and productive investment projects, which can only be part-financed by public funds. This is particularly the case for infrastructure projects which generate net revenues, the value of which cannot be covered by grants financed through cohesion policy instruments. It is also the case for productive investments, for which the maximum allowable public aid is capped by State aid rules.

The recent approval of an increased rate of cofinancing by the EU to 95% is part of the EU response to the crisis. However, it is not enough, in particular, for the revenue-generating projects, since the investment costs covered by revenues are not eligible for EU cofinancing. The measure proposed is an exception to the normal framework in which cohesion policy is implemented and is justified by the circumstances imposed by the crisis. Since the publication of the Commission’s proposal, there has been intense debate with the Council and Parliament.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the members of the Committee on Regional Policy and, in particular, its chair, Ms Hübner, for her support in this process. I would also like to thank the members of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and of the Committee on Budgetary Control and their rapporteurs for their support.

The adoption tomorrow of the Hübner report will open the way to securing strategic investment projects financed by cohesion policy without increasing the EU budget allocated to it and without having a significant impact on the EU budget. It will facilitate the implementation of important transport and environment infrastructure, as well as other economic infrastructure projects which will provide a much-needed boost to economic activity and job creation in Greece.

In Greece alone, the effective implementation of important infrastructure projects in the transport sector will, it is estimated, create some 50 000 new jobs. Other Member States most affected by the current financial and economic crises may also benefit from this legislative proposal.

In recent years, cohesion policy has been mobilised several times to contribute to the changing needs of Member States under severe crisis conditions. Excellent interinstitutional cooperation made it possible to shape tailor-made crisis assistance, which was available within a short time. I therefore call on the Members of the European Parliament to give their support to this legislative proposal.

  Crescenzio Rivellini, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Budgetary Control. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the proposal to amend Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 could make it possible to transfer to the direct management of the Commission funds allocated to Member States experiencing financial difficulties and at risk of losing part of their resources allocated to programmes cofinanced by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) to the Cohesion Fund.

The extension of this proposal to all Member States, which I proposed in my capacity as rapporteur for the Committee on Budgetary Control, would be strategically relevant for countries like Italy, which, while not in the same debt situation as Greece or Portugal, also have to combat the crisis.

The picture is therefore clear, and while there have not been cutbacks in funding, the planning is extremely inadequate and does not allow positive results to be achieved. The possibility the amendment involves would therefore not already be to transfer funds, or lose resources, but an act of humility that would allow some countries to organise their expenditure better and orient it towards objectives and aims in line with the community’s needs.

The financial crises have affected every country in Europe, and restricting this opportunity to a few countries only would be a serious mistake.

  Georgios Papastamkos, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (EL) Mr President, I consider the proposal to create risk sharing instruments to support infrastructure projects and productive investments made by the rapporteur, Ms Hübner, to be a very positive proposal. Indeed, there is an urgent need to create conditions of growth at this crucial juncture, in an economic climate in which fiscal cuts are also having a significant impact on Greek public investments, while the lack of liquidity and access to financing is making it equally difficult to forge public-private partnerships.

Critical economic indicators in Greece have deteriorated drastically, despite unprecedented sacrifices by Greek society. I refer, primarily, to the rocketing unemployment rate, which is now close to 50% among young people. I trust that both the Commission and the European Investment Bank will ensure that the terms, such as the leverage ratio and eligible investments, are such that the best possible use can be made of this instrument, with exponential benefits for the real economy.

Finally, apart from the fiscal consolidation required, I believe that we also urgently – I repeat urgently – need an integrated plan for a creative leap forward out of the vicious circle of austerity and recession.

  Mojca Kleva, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (SL) Mr President, the implementation of programmes financed by the Structural Funds requires the cooperation of public and private investors. In Member States that have been seriously affected by the financial and economic crisis, the downgrading of credit ratings for both public and private debt mean financing from private individuals has also stopped. The measure proposed is therefore an exception to the normal cohesion policy framework, justified only by the exceptional circumstances imposed by the crisis. European risk sharing instruments will enable both the European Commission and the European Investment Bank to cover part of the risk associated with lending to banks. By adopting this measure, we hope to maintain the involvement of private investors and overcome significant obstacles in the implementation of cohesion policy programmes that have already been approved, which are aimed at developing European regions and countries, and which will therefore not impose any additional requirements on the European budget.

The purpose of this proposal for a regulation is therefore to ensure the continuation of the implementation of the programmes cofinanced by the European Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund. An example of this is Greece, which has already planned projects using this mechanism and is simply waiting for our go-ahead. It is important to point out that the initiative to propose the measure in question came from the Member States most affected. Therefore, we must, as the people’s elected representatives, give consideration to such a proposal and enable its quick, effective and transparent implementation. In this way, the European Parliament can directly contribute to tackling the effects of the crisis in those Member States that currently need us the most.

  Ramona Nicole Mănescu, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (RO) Mr President, any amendment to a regulation designed to facilitate the rapid implementation of programmes under the cohesion policy will certainly have an immediate, tangible impact on the economies of the Member States hardest hit by the crisis. This is why it is of paramount importance for us to adopt tomorrow the report on risk sharing instruments for Member States experiencing serious difficulties with respect to their financial stability, so as to offer them the financial support they need to continue their projects and the process of economic recovery. In addition, it is vitally important for the Council also to adopt it as soon as possible. Although this is a highly technical report, the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe supports the current compromise, since we regard it as a balanced proposal which takes into account the problems that have been identified during the debates.

In addition, it is also extremely important for the European Investment Bank to adopt a very strong position in using this financial instrument which the countries involved in a financial assistance programme will have the chance to use in the next 18 months. We give our support to the actual instrument, but we must ensure that funding will not be granted to projects which do not make economic sense. I think that it is particularly important for us to carry out a cost-benefit analysis on the projects being funded so as to ensure that they are targeted at increasing the number of jobs and, by extension, the competitiveness of Member States.

  Elisabeth Schroedter, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, the risk sharing instruments proposed by the Commission is welcomed by the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance. In technical terms, this proposal is based on the Greens’ proposal for project bonds. In our view, investment in the real economy is the sure way for Greece to emerge from the crisis. We could happily vote in favour of such a financial instrument. The amendments to the regulation in no way guarantee the quality of these investments, however, as they do not provide for sustainable development or stable employment. In the final analysis, these amendments to the regulation will simply result in the further expansion of the existing motorway network. We want to see such incorrect plans revised and believe that the investments underwritten by all our citizens should be truly forward-looking and sustainable. Therefore, we are unable to vote in favour of this proposal in its current form.

  Oldřich Vlasák, on behalf of the ECR Group. – (CS) Mr President, we are debating measures today through which the Commission will try to address the effects of the high levels of debt of some Member States, in which there are problems with liquidity and with the actual provision of loans.

It is clearly important for the European economy to facilitate the approval of loans, whether from the European Investment Bank (EIB) or other financial institutions. I firmly believe, however, that too much interference in the lending market is not a good thing. Every bank, including the EIB, must assess credit risk according to its own current criteria and set interest rates accordingly, so that it can cover all the costs for money lent. If applicants only obtain loans in future because we are now pouring cohesion policy funds into guarantees, then that is not ideal, in my opinion. We may address the current problem of low liquidity, but we will soon have to address the problem of unpaid loans, and that is no way to help the economy.

I would therefore like to make a call for the greatest possible emphasis to be placed in future on boosting the effectiveness of the cohesion policy, as opposed to ‘mere’ financial absorption.

  John Bufton, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Mr President, the creation of a risk sharing instrument to enable the full take-up of regional funds through private-matched funding is not objectionable in its purposes. But the fact that the Commission has had to resort to the creation of such a facility to underwrite loans from the private sector further demonstrates that the approach to the financial crisis in the euro area is simply not working.

This is yet another example of the Commission seeking to equip themselves with a legal tool to fight a particular battle while the war still rages because the bigger issues are not being addressed.

Ardent pursuance of homogenised policy making reflecting European ideology places a stranglehold on growth and is responsible for the ongoing euro crisis. The risk sharing instrument enables the Commission to blindly pursue European ideals through regional funding that may or may not reflect the best interests of the Member State concerned, while continuing to live in denial, since it is actually the absurdity of the whole European project that is creating this mess in the first place.

  Ewald Stadler (NI). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this regulation will ultimately make cohesion policy part of the euro rescue package policy. That is something we reject. This is nothing less than a kind of debt sharing, intended as a sort of mini-Euro bond under the fig leaf of cohesion policy. I agree with Ms Hübner when she says that the austerity packages have not had the desired effect. That could have been predicted from the outset, however. Austerity packages, particularly in Greece, have actually weakened the domestic economy, if not actually destroyed it in some cases. It is evident that the policies of the European Union in relation to rescuing the euro in Greece are slowly reaching impossible levels.

Giving this regulation the title of ‘Risk sharing instruments for Member States experiencing or threatened with serious difficulties with respect to their financial stability’ is a first-class example of euphemism and spin. We are now all experiencing difficulties – all of us who have accepted shared responsibility and who will continue to bear this shared responsibility thanks to the ESM. We are dealing with countries that are, in fact, on the verge of bankruptcy. This mini-instrument is intended as a way of avoiding state bankruptcy. This is beyond ridiculous. It will not help Greece in any way. What we have here is a series of placebos that are being distributed on a piecemeal basis.

The financing of these infrastructural projects and operational programmes is already putting too much strain on a country like Greece to fund itself, not to mention the cofinancing, which will cost one-and-a-half times as much. How can this work? I can assure you it will not work. This is a socialist approach that is doomed to failure. We must recognise that Greece can only return to economic growth if it is granted competitive advantages. The most meaningful competitive advantage it could have at present would be that deriving from having its own currency, enabling it to control its own economy once again and to make the most of the associated competitive advantages. That is precisely what is not happening. Hence, this policy is fundamentally wrong.

  Iosif Matula (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, the economic and financial crisis which is persisting across the whole EU is affecting the macro-economic stability of many Member States and their access to finance. The intention of the proposal for creating a risk sharing instrument is to enhance the synergies between loan programmes and EU funds in the countries receiving assistance from the EU or IMF: Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Romania. The aim is to find solutions for viable revenue-generating projects. Examples of this would be obtaining the necessary private funding for infrastructure projects which generate net revenues, such as toll motorways, or productive investments for which the maximum State aid allowed is capped. The solution being proposed is, of course, an exception, but it is a concrete measure during this crisis for sharing the risks with the European Investment Bank and other financial institutions so as to maintain the involvement of private investors and overcome the major obstacles faced in implementing cohesion policy programmes. Deploying this mechanism offers an additional solution for using the Structural and Cohesion Funds which might not be absorbed by the end of the current 2007-2013 programming period. Applying a limit to it of 10% from these funds is an excellent idea which must be adopted. I congratulate the rapporteur for the outstanding job she has done in handling this report.

  Georgios Stavrakakis (S&D). – (EL) Mr President, I should like to thank the rapporteur and chair of the Committee on Regional Development, Ms Hübner, for her methodical work and exceptional report, and my colleague, Ms Kleva, for her excellent report. I do not intend to refer to individual points in the report, which have been analysed in detail by previous speakers.

However, I should like to emphasise that, following previous changes, cohesion policy is again making the biggest contribution to efforts to bring about economic recovery and growth and create jobs. Tens of thousands of new jobs are expected to be created in Greece alone; at the same time, the Greek section of works on Priority Project 7 of the Trans-European Transport Network will be successfully completed. Of course, in order to unblock the major regional development projects that have ground to a halt in countries affected by the crisis and for the best possible use to be made of these specific resources, leverage needs to be at least two or three times greater than the amount earmarked under cohesion policy funds.

  Nikos Chrysogelos (Verts/ALE). – (EL) Mr President, this sort of risk sharing instrument is certainly the right idea, provided that it aims to bring about changes that make the economy more viable and more compatible with ecological objectives. That is why the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance proposed that this instrument should help to strengthen investments in trains, urban railways, energy saving and renewable energy sources.

However, it would appear that the compromise between the Commission, the Greek Government and the European Investment Bank is going to result in yet another agreement that basically relates to the completion of motorway projects which are not economically viable and not ecologically necessary today. When there is a major fiscal crisis, motorway traffic drops and many economists maintain that these projects are no longer economically viable. If I am not mistaken, the European Investment Bank has said as much.

Therefore, we would like this instrument to be used to support the green economy. As the Commissioner said this morning that the green economy has huge potential and could create 20 million jobs in Europe, why should such an instrument not be used to create jobs in Greece?

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE). – (PT) Mr President, as Ms Hübner – whom I would take this opportunity to congratulate on her excellent work – rightly stressed in her report, this is an exceptional measure, justified by the exceptional times we live in. The global financial crisis and the unprecedented economic recession mean there is a need to take measures to counteract the negative effects of the crisis and impact thereof, which are being widely felt in the real economy and the labour market, as well as by the public.

The crisis has increased the pressure on national financial resources, so it is more important now than ever to ensure sound cohesion policy, as an instrument with a multiplying effect on the economy. I would therefore congratulate the European Commission on its proposal, which is intended to increase even further funding under the European Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund. This will contribute to clearing the way for mobilising the private finance necessary for making productive investments, which can only be partially financed by public funds. With this risk sharing mechanism, the European Commission and the European Investment Bank will start making capital contributions to cover losses resulting from loans and guarantees to the Member States in receipt of financial assistance, such as Portugal.

I hope now, in all honesty, that this measure will be just one of the many needed to stimulate recovery and growth in those Member States, thereby also enhancing the competitiveness and cohesion of the European Union itself.

  Joachim Zeller (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this proposal concerning risk sharing instruments will certainly not succeed in preventing state bankruptcy in cases where such an eventuality is almost inevitable. Nonetheless, it is better to do something than to simply sit on our hands. Sometimes, unusual situations call for unusual measures.

The budgetary and debt crisis in some countries has meant, unusually, that several important cohesion and structural policy projects and measures cannot be implemented because the banking sector is unable to provide backing and private investors are no longer available. I see the current proposal for establishing risk sharing instruments for the continued financing of structural policy projects as an extraordinary measure. The cohesion and structural policies available to the countries that wish to avail themselves of these risk sharing instruments can be used to secure those projects that are already ongoing.

I am very grateful to the rapporteur, Ms Hübner, for making such a valuable contribution in tightening up the details of the Commission’s proposal, once again making it clear when and how these instruments are to be used. I also believe that these risk sharing instruments should only apply in the current situation and should not provide a precedent for the future subsidy period.

  Marie-Thérèse Sanchez-Schmid (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the technical nature of this report must not be allowed to obscure the urgency of adopting it.

Given the seriousness of the crisis and the scarcity of financing, Greece is now being suffocated by delays in major infrastructure projects. These major projects are essential to the country’s economic development and to restoring growth there. The Greek State is facing the threat of heavy fines – estimated by some to amount to more than EUR 1 billion – from its contractors as a result of the delays, and also from the European Union for not respecting a number of directives, environmental directives in particular. On top of this, Greece is experiencing difficulties in making use of its Structural Funds, despite the efforts being made by the Union to accelerate the absorption of these, in particular, by increasing European cofinancing by 10%.

Thus, we find ourselves in a paradoxical situation where the States receiving financial assistance not only cannot spend the money available, but are also at risk of being fined by those who are trying to help them.

I would therefore like to pay tribute to the work of the rapporteur, Danuta Hübner. She has managed to convince the Council to accept the Commission’s proposal which aims at using the Structural Funds as a guarantee fund to facilitate financing for infrastructure projects and, thus, to attract private investors.

I unreservedly support this report, but I would like to go further. The European Union has been accused, wrongly, of being merely a tool for implementing rigour and austerity. On the contrary, this report shows that Europe can be effective if it uses all the tools available to it to restore growth, to help improve the situation of the public finances, and to support investment in future projects.

  Iliana Ivanova (PPE). – (BG) Mr President, there is no doubt that the crisis has seriously damaged both public finances and the banking sector in EU countries. Financial institutions’ liquidity problems have limited access to funding for major infrastructure projects. Naturally, these problems have also affected the Structural Fund and Cohesion Fund programmes.

I support the Commission in creating a new risk sharing instrument because it could become a serious catalyst for improving liquidity and ensuring access to funding for the projects under these programmes. I must emphasise, however, that the existing difficulties are not confined to just the six countries that have already received such aid.

Why should the countries with good fiscal discipline, which are making serious efforts, not have access to such tools? At the same time, some of these Member States are among the countries with the lowest per capita income. If we restrict the new tools only to countries with problematic public finances, we will send the wrong signal because the liquidity problem affects all Member States.

I urge the Commission to make such tools accessible to all countries that wish to use them. This will improve the overall implementation of the projects under the programmes and result in economic growth and job creation throughout the European Union.

  Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE). – (EL) Mr President, the report we are debating this evening and the proposal by the European Commission constitute an important, intelligent response to efforts to address the economic and fiscal crisis, especially in countries which have been particularly severely hit, such as my country, Greece. I therefore welcome the proposal on this instrument, this risk sharing instrument, which gives countries the potential to utilise EU funds and obtain capital from the European Investment Bank or other organisations to finance projects being implemented with contributions from the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund.

It will give the private sector the potential to contribute to wealth production and job creation, especially – I repeat – in countries such as Greece, in which public investments are being slashed. Greece has expressed an interest in this instrument, mainly for motorway franchises, and I believe that this will be a good opportunity to kick-start the economy, which is vital if my country is to get back on the road to recovery and growth.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, the lack of confidence and reluctance of investors from both the private and financial sectors have meant that there is a good chance of a number of strategic projects not being carried out in some Member States. The main projects affected are those involving the infrastructure, and the analyses carried out show that the financial resources required to develop the European Union’s infrastructure during the period 2010-2030 amount to more than EUR 1 500 billion. In view of this figure, we can imagine that considerable efforts are required to have an efficient European transport network, and a variety of funding sources are needed to achieve this, from both the public and private sectors.

A risk sharing instrument will provide a tangible solution to these problems that we are facing and will allow us to continue implementing European programmes, with additional funds being injected into the economy by the EIB and other financial institutions. Funds earmarked for cofinancing projects implemented with the support of the Structural and Cohesion Funds will have an instant impact on the economy, making a considerable contribution to job growth.

  Jaroslav Paška (EFD). – (SK) Mr President, I understand the Commission’s efforts to help countries that have serious problems with their financial stability through new risk sharing mechanisms for the implementation of infrastructure and productive investment projects.

The justification states that many investments in which the private sector, out of caution, no longer wants to participate, could be realised if the Commission assumed the risk and redistributed it across the whole of the European Union. Proposals are formulated as an exception to cohesion policy, which is supposedly justified by the current situation in the indebted countries. Even Commissioner Šemeta, in his opening speech, acknowledged that the proposals presented circumvent European rules on the granting of State aid to a certain extent. I admit that I am not entirely confident in the fairness and correctness of this regulation. For if the private sector assesses an investment project as being sensible and having the required return, it will find adequate financial resources for its implementation. I am, therefore, not certain that it is prudent and wise to burden the European Union with guarantees for investments in which the private sector no longer believes.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Mr President, this is a European Commission proposal aimed at those Member States in serious difficulties. What is now being proposed, and I quote, is that ‘the transfer of part of the financial allocations available to these Member States back to the Commission would be allowed’. These sums, withdrawn from the initial allocations to the Member States in difficulties from the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund, will go towards covering losses resulting from loans and guarantees given to any private investors and banks financing projects cofinanced by these funds. This is yet another uniquely European exercise in solidarity. Instead of increasing the allocations to these countries, as was necessary, what is being done in practice – surely in anticipation of the upcoming financial perspectives – is reducing the overall sum available to these countries. There were other ways to overcome the severe limitations from the private investment side.

Fundamentally, in addition to the exorbitant interest rates charged under the IMF/EU programmes, what the Portuguese, Greek, Irish and Romanian peoples are seeing increasingly clearly is for what they can and cannot count on the European Union.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, I welcome the coordination between the loan programmes and EU funds for Member States facing difficulties in respect of their financial stability. It is important to ensure that the programmes cofinanced through the ERDF and Cohesion Fund continue in the countries subject to budgetary constraints. I think that this proposal will have a positive impact on the economies of the crisis-stricken Member States. It will enable major infrastructure projects to be carried out, thereby contributing to the economic recovery through investment. Romania is one of the states receiving financial assistance from the IMF. The economic problems have also affected the infrastructure projects in my country. In this situation, I welcome the measures being discussed today, especially as the IMF and European Commission have recommended that Romania uses as much European funding as possible in its national infrastructure development programme.

End of the catch-the-eye procedure

  Algirdas Šemeta, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I would like to thank all the Members for their remarks. I am glad to see that we share the will to help those Member States most threatened by the economic and financial crisis.

In terms of extending the proposal to all Member States, I know that this issue was raised during the discussions in the different committees and during today’s debate. Let me underline that this is an exceptional crisis response measure, justified primarily by the severe situation of Greece, even if some of its elements may also be present in other Member States receiving financial support. On the other hand, at a time of strong budgetary constraints, extending the proposal to all Member States would potentially have a strong budgetary impact.

Regarding the scope of the legislative measure, initially, the Commission proposal addressed only national strategic reference framework projects. After discussions with the Member States, the EIB and MEPs, it was agreed to enlarge the measure to operations which contribute to the objectives of the national strategic reference framework of the requesting Member State and the Community strategic guidelines on cohesion. In the Commission’s view, this is a good compromise that will secure cohesion policy projects, taking into account other projects which fall under cohesion policy objectives. The Commission expects that a significant number of projects will be in the environment sector, including renewable energy.

I would like to draw your attention to the fact that covering projects which are not related to cohesion policy would raise a series of questions, mainly of a policy and legal nature. The risk sharing instrument is a specific response mechanism addressed to a specific number of Member States. It cannot be considered to be a mechanism that offers an easy way out of reprogramming Structural Funds or accelerating absorption.

In conclusion, I would take this opportunity to underline that cohesion policy has again proven that not only is it a structural investment, it can also provide short-term assistance. I therefore call on the Members of the European Parliament to give their support to this legislative proposal.

  Danuta Maria Hübner, rapporteur. – Mr President, I would briefly like to make two points. First of all, it is clear from the discussion we had, and from what the Commissioner said, that this new policy instrument will necessitate good cooperation between the implementing institutions and the Member State concerned.

In the light of this, I would like to express my hope that this new unlocked financing will enable countries like Greece promptly to resume the implementation of top-priority projects. We expect the EIB and the Commission to finalise the required operating arrangements as a matter of urgency.

My second point is that, from my point of view as rapporteur, we had an extremely effective dialogue with the shadow rapporteurs, with colleagues from other committees who delivered opinions, and with the Danish Presidency and the Commission. I would like to thank everybody.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Thursday, 19 April 2012, at 12.00.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) This situation of prolonged financial and economic crisis, as well as the constantly increasing pressure on national financial resources, require measures ensuring the proper implementation of cohesion policy. With the intention that the Member States and their regions will continue implementing the programmes of the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund, the objective is to create provisions enabling the creation of a risk sharing mechanism. If this mechanism is to be feasible, there is a need to authorise the transfer of part of the financial allocations available to these Member States back to the Commission. I agree that the measure is intended to enhance the synergies between loan programmes and EU funds in the Member States that are or could come to be under EU and IMF assistance, and to contribute to attempts to overcome the major obstacles faced by some Member States in mobilising the private finance necessary for investing in infrastructure and production. However, I am bound to stress that I have some reservations about how this will be processed, as well as a certain amount of apprehension that this mechanism will, for example, do further damage to the less favoured regions.

  Constanze Angela Krehl (S&D), in writing. – (DE) Targeted investment in business, infrastructure and renewable energies will be required in Greece in order to get the country back on its feet. This is precisely the purpose of the funds provided for under European cohesion policy. In order to implement our projects, however, we need money from private investors. These are unable to raise the necessary loans at present, however, because the banks mostly view any investment in Greece as too risky. That is why I believe we should use part of the funds already allocated to Greece to secure such loans. The banks can rest assured that they will get their money back, while investors will get their much-needed loans and can therefore participate in EU projects, enabling Greece to create several thousand jobs. The advantage of the report is also that it enables very efficient use of the precious funding that is available: by simply using these resources to secure the risk, we can generate more investment than if the money were to be invested directly in projects. Finally, this report makes one thing clear: the European Union is right behind Greece and private investors can rely on this fact.

19. Agenda for next sitting: see Minutes

20. Closure of the sitting

(The sitting closed at 21.10)