Francesco De Angelis (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the creation of a risk-sharing instrument must provide tangible assistance for the Member States worst-hit by the economic and financial crisis. The European Union must do more and support the Member States facing major difficulties in enacting projects such as infrastructural works.
Consequently, we must ensure the continued implementation of the programmes cofinanced by the European Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund. This has to be done because these are key projects – especially those capable of generating net revenues, such as the construction of motorways – which can contribute to the economic and productive recovery of the affected countries.
Giommaria Uggias (ALDE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission’s proposal to amend the provisions on risk-sharing instruments is extremely timely for those Member States at risk of suffering great difficulties as a result of the current financial instability.
Its arrival during this period of serious economic crisis is perfect. Hence, in this amendment to the regulation on risk-sharing instruments, countries such as Ireland, Portugal, Hungary, Romania, Lithuania and above all Greece will find an alternative to the threat of losing funds already assigned and therefore the chance to carry on with programmes cofinanced by the European Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund that are proving difficult to implement in these Member States.
This will result in the projects being carried out and jobs being retained across the parts of the European Union most affected by the economic crisis, without eating into the EU’s budget in any way but instead making a major contribution to growth in Europe.
Erminia Mazzoni (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this highly important regulatory amendment takes into account the interests of those countries struggling more than others and in particular those that are subject to a financial assistance programme.
We supported this regulatory amendment in the belief that it is important for the European Union to guarantee its support at times of difficulty in the Member States and above all to ensure that its important resources are not wasted at a time of financial crisis, because this amendment makes it possible for countries that have trouble spending such resources to invest them profitably.
Moreover, of particular importance is the amendment introduced following the Commission’s proposal, which alleviates the fears of net-contributor countries because this deal will have a neutral effect on the European Union’s budget.
Kay Swinburne (ECR). - Mr President, we are all aware that the current financial crisis has had an adverse impact on the macroeconomic stability of many Member States and has thus made it difficult to access finance. Whilst I understand that this lack of readily-available finance is making it difficult for many projects under the cohesion policy to continue, it can be argued that having this additional instrument alone, as proposed in the report, may not be entirely effective in addressing this difficulty.
Although this instrument does address the immediate problem of making funds available for investment, it does not tackle the underlying issue of why some projects are not as successful as they should be. The issue of how the project is being implemented has been entirely overlooked, and solely addressing the financial issues that Member States face will not guarantee the success of the projects.
A clear vision, a clear programme for implementation, and specific measurable outcomes which generate economic returns for the Member State in question need to be ensured, as well as full accountability and transparency on risk-sharing. Without these assurances I cannot support this report.
Iva Zanicchi (PPE) .– (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the third amendment to Regulation 1083/2006 presented by the Commission over a short period contains provisions for the creation of a European risk-sharing instrument.
The goal is to address the obstacles faced by some Member States in raising the private financing needed to implement investment projects which can only be part-financed by public funds.
Even though the road out of the economic crisis is still long, I think we can take a lot from the work done to reach a compromise text that sets a ceiling for the funds that can be used for this financial instrument and has better defined the risk-sharing instruments.
Daniel Hannan (ECR). - Mr President, from the moment that the euro crisis struck, the leaders of the EU have been asking the wrong question. They have asked themselves, ‘how do we save the euro?’ rather than ‘how do we rescue the people who have to use the euro?’
It is now obvious that the single currency is a recessionary mechanism. By sustaining it in the way that they are, the leaders of the EU and in the palaces and chancelleries of the Member States are inflicting preventable poverty on the peoples of the eurozone.
This is obvious, not least in your country, Mr President, one which, as you know, I admire very deeply. There are many opportunities available to Spain in a clean default, a decoupling and a reissuing of a more competitive currency. But that debate is not even being contemplated, because people begin from the proposition that the euro is an end in itself, an absolute imperative.
A result of this is that, I am afraid to say, the leaders of the EU are now consciously working against the recovery because they know that, although Spain might begin to take off the day it left the single currency, their own credibility would not recover.
Peter Jahr (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, risk-sharing instruments can improve the involvement of the private sector in the financing of important projects in EU Member States affected by the crisis in order to secure jobs and growth. This involves calling on the Member States to transfer part of their allocation from EU funds for regional development to the Commission so that they can then be used for risk sharing.
The allocation of funds from the Cohesion Fund and mid-term financial planning will not be affected by this. For me, this is all very positive, and I also see it as an opportunity. I would merely ask that we and the Commission take care to ensure that the risk-sharing instrument does not become a risk-shifting instrument. In other words, we must ensure that the involvement of the private sector rests on a firm foundation.
Julie Girling (ECR). - Mr President, I would like to lodge this explanation of vote on behalf of the British Conservative delegation in the European Parliament.
Greece and those countries subject to the EFSM are not going to face an easy task exiting from the crisis. Naturally we would wish to support measures which would have a meaningful and long-term impact in terms of increasing the competitiveness of their economies through targeted structural reforms to sclerotic labour markets.
This proposal, whilst well meaning, does not address the underlining economic and financial difficulties in these countries and could possibly make the situation worse. In this period of austerity, taxpayers’ money must be well spent and we must seek to contribute to the employment and growth which will drive the EU out of crisis. Yet this top-down proposal has received only a lukewarm reception in those very Member States it seeks to support. Moreover, it is openly doubted whether some of the proposed projects to benefit from this scheme would pass the necessary EIB due diligence requirements before the risk-sharing instruments could be created. Whilst the proposal now contains a budgetary ceiling, it is still of great concern that public money will be used as the first loss in case of the failure of any other projects planned.
This continues. I will lodge the rest of it in writing.
Raffaele Baldassarre (PPE) . – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I very much appreciated Ms Hübner’s report, which offers a useful way to stop essential resources for countries in crisis being decommitted.
This is a regulation of fundamental importance which, without making any changes to the European Union’s budget, will provide an alternative to the risk of losing funds already assigned under the cohesion policy to Member States involved in a financial assistance programme that have problems with cofinancing.
I especially agree with the precise definition of the instrument’s ceiling and the policy decision to favour projects that have generated revenues and those that could contribute to achieving the Member State’s strategic goals in order to improve its chances of economic recovery. I believe that this measure will contribute to balancing the need for investment in development and growth with the excessively-revered austerity solution to the sovereign debt problem.
Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR). - (PL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, any measure that in our view can help countries that are struggling with today’s crisis is necessary. Almost every day brings media reports and information from financial institutions showing that, despite often optimistic data, we are nevertheless still a long way from overcoming the crisis. For this reason I supported this proposal even though I have certain doubts about it. My doubts stem from the fact that I believe that the economy should be separate from ideology. Thinking about the economy should be free from ideology, but this should work both ways. In the same way that I am unhappy when supporters of the euro suggest that the euro is not a currency but in some way a divine being, I am also unhappy with the views of opponents of the euro. Sometimes it seems to me that they want this project to fail just for ideological reasons. I supported this proposal and believe that we should work together in this Parliament so that European Union Member States can escape from the crisis as soon as possible.
Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the unprecedented global financial crisis and economic downturn have seriously damaged growth and financial stability and provoked a strong deterioration in financial, economic and social conditions in several Member States.
To alleviate those problems and speed up the implementation of the operational programmes and projects, as well as to strengthen the economic recovery, I think it is appropriate that the managing authorities of the Member States which have benefitted from financial assistance according to one of the financial assistance mechanisms provided may contribute some of the resources from operational programmes to the establishment of risk-sharing instruments providing loans or guarantees in support of projects and operations foreseen under an operational programme.
It is our duty to enhance the synergies between the loan programmes and Union funds in those Member States which are under Union or International Monetary Fund assistance. The creation of a risk-sharing instrument is necessary for this, since it would provide additional liquidity to implement infrastructure and productive investments projects without modifying the overall allocation under the cohesion policy for the period 2007-2013.
Andrea Češková (ECR). - (CS) Mr President, at the present time, with the economic and financial crisis persisting and with banking institutions positively averse to risk, there are problems in the area of lending. Financial institutions have problems with liquidity and are restricting the funding for interested parties that are implementing relevant projects. I therefore agree that the possibility of using risk spreading instruments in cooperation with the European Investment Bank will ensure better access to funding and will partially solve the liquidity problem, making it possible in the short term to continue implementing cohesion policy programmes.
However, I am afraid that this form of assistance is unlikely to have an immediate positive effect on economic growth and employment in states which have substantial problems with financial stability and which are unable to monitor the progress of project implementation with due diligence. I was therefore unable to support this motion for a resolution.
Charles Tannock (ECR). - Mr President, I abstained on this report on risk-sharing instruments for those Member States suffering financial difficulty. While I believe that the text of the report has been improved following negotiations between Parliament and the Council, I still do not believe that the proposal is in any way viable.
The only Member State so far to express any desire in making use of a potential risk-sharing facility is Greece. While I would back the use of targeted investments under the EU cohesion policy in order to help those States that are in financial difficulty, Greece’s record – sadly – in implementing cohesion policy projects is particularly poor. Anyway, my view is that the structural funds need a complete review and, in many ways, repatriating. I would not, therefore, be convinced that investments under such a policy would have any immediate short-term effect on economic growth or employment, particularly in distressed states like Greece.
Anna Záborská (PPE). – (SK) Mr President, cofinancing of projects seeking support from the Structural Funds should increase the efficiency of the use of European money. A private bank or other company that invests its own money in a project will not only want its money back, but will also want to see a profit. They therefore carefully consider the profitability of each project, thereby reducing the risk of wasting European taxpayers’ money. I understand that the Commission is looking for a way to continue funding structural projects even in the current difficult situation. However, the mechanism that it proposes undermines the push to obtain the effectiveness of the expended funds. If the EU pays a large part of the investment, whilst also providing a guarantee of business risk, nothing will prevent banks and private companies from entering into senseless projects. They will not lose their money. This is precisely the path to irresponsible spending, the effects of which we can see today in every EU Member State.
Ryszard Czarnecki (ECR). - (PL) Mr President, I decided, together with my colleagues in my political group, not to support this proposal and this is for fairly obvious reasons. We think that this kind of financial planning at European level, without any real and serious in-depth public debate on the matter, this type of decision about our taxpayers, electors and citizens, without any real consultation, is a decision that, instead of clearly bringing benefits to these taxpayers, may essentially just show them that European institutions take decisions over the heads of citizens, in the same way as has happened many times in the past. I am also sceptical about the solutions put forward, hence my vote.
Opinion from the Court of Justice on the compatibility with the Treaties of the Agreement between the United States of America and the European Union on the use and transfer of Passenger Name Records to the United States Department of Homeland Security B7-0200/2012
Julie Girling (ECR). - Mr President, this is a contentious area and it goes right to the heart of the public debate on preserving the freedoms of individuals, or groups of individuals, while maintaining the security of both individuals and wider society.
It is, as ever, a question of balance. I was happy to support this measure this time round because I believe that the actions and agreements on the passenger name records data as agreed are now proportionate and reasonable.
There has been significant improvement since the 2011 proposal, including in the areas of data protection, data retention, deadlines and redress. I will always jealously guard the liberties of my constituents whilst balancing the wider security benefits of measures such as this.
Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR). - (PL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this is a very important moment in discussions on the fight against terrorism, in which we are talking about how to protect the freedom of our citizens. Often in such situations there is a kind of paradox in that, while defending citizens’ freedoms and their right to life, their right to security, we are forced in some way to restrict their civil liberties. It seems to me that the subject that we are discussing today is one of the most important debates taking place in the Western world.
Where is the boundary between what we, as national or international institutions, have to do to protect our citizens, and their right, the right of all of us as citizens, to freedom, to the preservation of citizens’ rights? I believe that unfortunately in today’s world the threat of terrorism is so great that this boundary is being moved rather uncomfortably, also for me, in the direction of the rights of the state and against the rights of the individual. However we must always give consideration to respect for citizens’ rights, even when we know that what we do is necessary.
Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, following the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 the United States adopted legislation that requires airlines operating flights to, from or across its territory, to provide the US authorities with the Passenger Name Record (PNR) data in their automated systems. Australia and Canada have adopted an equivalent initiative.
Even though the text to be voted on this morning is far from perfect, in my view the biggest concern is the length of the data retention periods as put forward in the last agreement of 2011. Indeed, the 2004 agreement stipulated that unused PNR data was to be destroyed after three and half years. The 2007 agreement extended the retention period to a total of 15 years.
However, although the current draft agreement of 2011 provides for the data to be disguised after six months, it allows PNR data to be retained indefinitely, even if access to it will be gradually restricted. The question is therefore how to reconcile European citizens’ right to privacy with such a decision?
Ryszard Czarnecki (ECR). - (PL) Mr President, I voted against this proposal in the full knowledge that those who were in favour acted with the best intentions and wanted to do good. However, we have to weigh up very carefully matters involving, on the one hand, the rights and freedoms of individuals and citizens and, on the other hand, security. Of course, I am aware of the fact that certain politicians and certain countries might treat questions of security in an inappropriate and expansive manner in order to gain greater control over their citizens. We should all be against such approaches but, on the other hand, terrorism is not just some fairy tale, it is not something from a film, it is not political fiction. Terrorism is a real threat. We have to have instruments to counter terrorism and this is why I voted the way I did.
Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, perhaps there has been an error in communication, but I had asked to speak to explain my vote. In the past decade we have witnessed a series of well-known dramatic events which have led to a consequent increase in the number of controls and restrictions in air travel.
Meanwhile, the European Union, the USA, Canada and Australia have signed a variety of international agreements on the processing and storage of passenger data. Parliament already expressed its willingness to revise such agreements in May 2010, when it decided to reject the outcome of the negotiations between the countries involved.
I am aware of the fact that the competent parliamentary committee has judged this agreement unsuitable, nonetheless I think it is more useful to maintain this new agreement, rather than referring to the current legislation. Since it is not possible to start new negotiations, it would be better to adopt these new measures and improve the previous framework with regard to data protection and the respect for individual rights. The rejection of these new results would deprive Europe of any minimum law in this field, and of any effective tool in combating terrorism and organised crime.
Ewald Stadler (NI). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I find it regrettable that we have rejected the motion for a resolution by Ms Ernst and her group, as it would have clearly proven, and provided evidence in support of, the opinion of the Court of Justice of the European Union that this agreement is in violation of the Treaties of the European Union.
Every means possible is currently being used to encroach on citizens’ rights in the name of combating the risk of international terrorism. Kowtowing to the United States is not a very good signal for Europe to be sending to its citizens. We are moving towards mass surveillance, with information being held about people. It is not just about these data in particular; it is about the association of an incredible amount of data – including bank data – so that mass surveillance is, in truth, getting ever closer to becoming a reality. It is yet another brick in the wall for civil liberties. I therefore voted with deep conviction against this agreement, all the more so given that there is also a lack of reciprocity. Europe is paying for this again, and we are once again drawing the short straw – there is no reciprocity. The volumes of data that are available to the US will not be transferred to us. I have therefore rejected this agreement, and I find it regrettable that the majority in this House did not do likewise.
Jens Rohde (ALDE). - Mr President, as a liberal, I am not very fond of the mass collection of personal data; it is an instrument which is to be handled very carefully. However, I could not support the position of my own rapporteur. If we go to the bottom line of this dossier, it was all a question of whether the EU should stay in the picture or not. By not giving consent to the PNR Agreement, we would have left air carriers and passengers in a no man’s land, and – knowing that we would not get a new negotiation – I think that would have been irresponsible.
Finally, as a liberal, I want to compliment and congratulate our Commissioner on the result and the achievements of the last two years. This is not a perfect agreement, but we all know that a good political agreement is never perfect, so congratulations, Commissioner.
Paul Murphy (GUE/NGL). - Mr President, this passenger name records agreement represents an attack on civil liberties and the right to privacy. It does so using the Trojan horse we have seen before of the threat of terrorism, the same Trojan horse that has been used to justify so-called ‘extraordinary rendition’ and what happens in Guantanamo Bay. The agreement will not only hand over the personal details of European citizens travelling to the US to the Department of Homeland Security, but it will in effect give this agency free rein to access information on passengers as they see fit. It will allow for data to be stored indefinitely and to be used in court cases even if they are not related in any way to terrorism.
The complete lack of democratic checks and balances in this agreement will leave citizens with no right to access, correct or control the data which this agency holds. The Commission has in no way demonstrated that these measures are proportionate or even useful in combating terrorism, nor have any guarantees been given that the US will not forward the data to third countries. I, together with my political group, will continue to fight to have this agreement revoked.
Kay Swinburne (ECR). - Mr President, the sharing of passenger name record data has become a controversial issue, as we are hearing today. However, I have decided to support this report, since I feel that the recommendations made are necessary and entirely proportionate.
The agreement between the US and the EU on the transfer of passenger name records has undergone significant improvement through negotiations, particularly in relation to increasing protection and to the retention period of passenger data, which has been one of the main concerns for my constituents back home in Wales.
It is also worth noting that this sharing of data has already proven to be instrumental in providing vital information on a number of criminal activities, including illegal drug trafficking, and in assisting in the capture of those responsible for the atrocious 7/7 London bombings in my own Member State.
As long as there are adequate safeguards on protecting personal information, it is a justified and worthwhile agreement that should be supported by all.
Jim Higgins (PPE). - Mr President, I am sorry that our colleague from Ireland, Mr Murphy, has left the Chamber because, like his predecessor here, he continues to jump on the populist bandwagon.
I support the US-EU PNR agreement, given that it concerns the transfer and use of personal data and the specific and detailed provisions dealing with their privacy, the processing of personal data, data security, transparency and accountability. It also makes provision for redress for breaches of the agreement’s provisions. These provisions have been developed very carefully and are the result of extensive cooperation between the US and the EU authorities, something which is very welcome.
These forms of protection build on the additional protection which we have in place, and I agree with Ms Swinburne. We have had no terrorist attacks since 9/11, Madrid and London because of these forms of protection, which build on the existing mechanism while at the same time having transparency and protecting the rights of the public in relation to their personal data. I greatly welcome the agreement, and this is a very significant day in terms of combating terrorism.
Daniel Hannan (ECR). - Mr President, since the attacks on 9/11 we have seen a barrage of dangerous, disproportionate and declamatory legislation: measures designed not to be proportionate with the need to address the threat but rather to be proportionate with the imagined level of public concern; measures designed in order to signal what very serious people the legislators are; or, indeed, measures designed simply to agglomerate more powers at EU level.
This particular measure is a very rare example of where specific criticisms have been addressed and where a lot of the problems that provoked my group to vote against the first draft of this bill have now been looked at and improved. It is now a much more proportionate measure. A number of the concerns we had about privacy and data retention have been dealt with. It is therefore very sad to see a number of people in this House who are normally the first to demand measures of this kind opposing it, I have to say, simply because it involves the United States.
Ask yourself: if this were a proposal to share data with Switzerland, would there have been any row about it at all?
Josef Weidenholzer (S&D). – (DE) Mr President, I voted against the Passenger Name Record (PNR) agreement, because the security of air passengers is an important concern for me. This agreement will lull us into a false sense of security. It claims that it is possible to provide this security by collecting enormous quantities of data. The establishment of such an excessive collection of data is more likely to endanger the security of citizens. It will enable a wide range of statistical analyses to be carried out on the data that no longer have anything to do with the original purpose. What we require, above all, for the fight against terrorism are security forces that are as near to the potential threat as possible. The person who carried out the attack in Toulouse, for example, was on a US no-fly list. Despite this, he was able to carry out his dreadful act.
However, I also voted against this agreement because our transatlantic relations are important to me. These relations ought to be based on a spirit of partnership and, in my opinion, this is lacking in this context.
Raffaele Baldassarre (PPE). - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of the agreement addressing the need to strengthen transatlantic cooperation in fighting terrorism after the 11 September attacks.
I do not share the intransigent position taken by the rapporteur who, despite the positive opinion of the Commission Legal Service and of the Data Protection Working Party, has continued to assert that the agreement was unnecessary and disproportionate.
I am aware of the limits of this agreement and of the room for improvement; nonetheless I believe that its requirements in terms of data protection have greatly improved. The agreement obliges the US authorities to share their data analysis with the judicial authorities of the European Union, explaining in detail its permitted use, namely the fight against terrorism and transnational crime. I therefore believe that it would be unnecessary and detrimental to start new negotiations, at the risk of a rejection of the agreement which might deprive Europe of any law in this field.
Peter Jahr (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, I voted in favour of the Passenger Name Record agreement quite simply because an agreement that provides for data protection and legal certainty is better than no agreement at all. Even if we Europeans were not able to achieve everything we wanted, the United States has taken a huge step towards our position, in particular with regard to storage time, area of application, legal protection, the method of data transfer and, most importantly, the handling of sensitive data.
Those who voted against this agreement are leaving both the citizens and the air carriers in a fog of legal uncertainty. It would be entirely wrong to believe that, without the agreement, no data of any kind would be transferred any more. All we can do is determine the framework of the data protection standard, and without the agreement this standard would have been considerably lower. Therefore, as I have already said, I voted in favour of this agreement with a clear conscience.
Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR). - (PL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted wholeheartedly in favour, remembering so many conversations with American politicians of various political persuasions who asked me repeatedly why there is still a problem regarding the protection of personal data of passengers on transatlantic flights and why it is that Europe is unable to come to an agreement with the USA. To be frank, there is no way that I can disagree with the previous speaker, my colleague Mr Hannan, that this is a clear example of the anti-Americanism that exists in certain circles in this Chamber. I believe that Europe should cooperate with the USA – the United States is our natural partner in so many areas – but in particular it should cooperate with the USA in areas relating to the tragic battle currently under way against our civilisation, where terrorists wish to destroy the very foundations on which our Union – and the USA – are built. Thank you.
Pavel Poc (S&D). - (CS) Mr President, I recognise the importance of the fight against international terrorism and international crime. I understand the need to have certain instruments for this, but this agreement – over which I have been lobbied even by people from the US embassy in my own country – is no such instrument.
Leaving all the legal manoeuvres aside, the fact remains that this agreement allows the US side to download personal data on European citizens, and this sensitive data will then be available in the US without any real control over what happens to it thereafter. The data may include your home address, mobile telephone number, flight information, email, credit card or account numbers and also details of ethnicity or nationality.
The justification that the agreement is good because the bilateral agreements of Member States are worse is bizarre. The justification that the agreement is good because otherwise the US will force European airlines to provide the data themselves is appalling. If someone wants to develop a police state, they can do it alone. The European Union must be free and democratic. I have therefore supported neither the report nor the agreement, and I would like to thank the former rapporteur for her courage.
Mitro Repo (S&D). - (FI) Mr President, this is a very difficult matter, where, on the one hand, the protection of data of our citizens and, on the other, the fight against terrorism and people’s right to security, are in conflict. It is absolutely important that the EU works together with the United States closely and over the long term. There need to be effective ways to combat terrorism and serious transnational crime. At the same time, however, we have to remember the importance of respecting people’s fundamental and human rights.
I voted against the Agreement, because it is flawed to an extent that I find totally unacceptable. I see a problem, first of all, in the broadly defined purpose of Passenger Name Records. For example, there is no adequate definition of terrorism in the text of the Agreement. There are problems too with the retention of periods for data and the loophole in the protection of personal data, if it is passed on to third countries.
Diane Dodds (NI). - Mr President, as political representatives, what greater duty have we than to do our utmost to ensure the safety of our constituents? Faced with the terrorist threat across Europe and the US, which remains dangerously high, I believe that we must give careful consideration to any measure deemed helpful in assisting in that daily battle to protect the lives of our constituents from those who seek to inflict murder and mayhem.
The exchange of passenger name records is but a tool in this fight. Therefore, while we weigh up concerns around data protection and privacy, we must balance that against the benefit to global security and the fight against international crime. It is my view that the benefits of this agreement outweigh the concerns and, while improvements can and should be made, it represents progress. I am content to support it on this basis.
Anna Záborská (PPE). – (SK) Mr President, this Parliament often tries to speak on matters that are not within its competence, often in a manner which I consider to be harmful. With respect to personal data, it is good that the European Parliament has consistently guarded the freedom of EU citizens. The fight against international terrorism and organised crime cannot lead to a situation where everyone becomes suspicious of everyone else. Prevention is important, but equally important is the protection of civil rights. I supported the report because, as the lives of millions of people are at risk, prevention is more important than repression. Nothing can return life to the victims of the terrorist attacks on New York’s Twin Towers and many others, but we can prevent similar acts of violence by monitoring suspects and sharing information about them. However, we must scrupulously see to it that information about private citizens is used only under strictly defined conditions and that its use is monitored and monitorable. Otherwise freedom and democracy replaced by dictatorship, which is exactly what the terrorists want, will come to fruition.
Charles Tannock (ECR). - Mr President, I voted in favour of this report on the transfer of passenger name records data to the US Department of Homeland Security. I believe that the agreement is a proportionate measure and is a necessary one for US security. Various safeguards have been secured so that the processing of PNR data can only happen if they are used for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and transnational crime.
The agreement is particularly pertinent to me as an MEP for London, as PNR data were used in the capture of the 7/7 London bombers, following the attacks on my city in 2005. There are several other examples of their successful use, not only in terrorist cases but also in the capture of other serious criminals caught whilst trying to leave the United Kingdom.
For these reasons I would strongly oppose any arguments put forward by other groups claiming that the necessity of this agreement has not yet been proven. The USA is our indispensable ally in the fight against international terrorism.
Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, I voted to sign the agreement because it marks a step forward in anti-terrorist cooperation between the EU and US. The current document provides passengers with more guarantees compared to the 2007 text, ensuring greater protection for personal data. For example, those concerned have access to the information stored and can make changes, if necessary. In addition, it is mentioned that the passengers concerned have the chance to delete some of the information. I should also stress that the principles of proportionality and reciprocity have been included. This means that the US authorities are obliged to transfer data relevant to European authorities. Respect for the right to privacy is ensured by clearly defining the circumstances under which access is granted to information, and setting different penalty thresholds is a significant improvement on the previous text.
Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR). - Mr President, this agreement has been a long time in the making. Because of concerns regarding civil liberties and how passenger name record data are used, it is important that we get it right – and I believe we have got it right. We must carefully balance the interest of individual privacy with the need for collective security. We must not forget that PNR data helped identify associates of the 2005 London bombers. PNR helped bring to justice those who plotted in the 2008 Mumbai attacks. PNR led to a number of arrests – some murderers, paedophiles and rapists – and it helps keep drugs out of Europe.
Clear and strict rules have been prepared on how PNR is handled. It can only be used in the fight against terrorism and serious transnational crimes. With these safeguards in place, I am pleased to be able to vote for this report.
Kay Swinburne (ECR). - Mr President, I firmly believe that tax policy is a matter for Member States and should not be regulated at EU level. Yet this proposal from the Commission, in its original form, took an approach that would have been optional for companies and perhaps might have made it easy for companies to operate across the single market. It could, furthermore, have been adjusted by the Council to ensure that it did not step on their sovereign rights.
However, this Parliament has gone from this original optional mechanism to the extreme of arguing for a mandatory tax that would end up covering all Member States and all companies, except for their SMEs.
This report is a prime example of why I am glad that this Parliament does not have codecision powers over taxation, and that – rightly – any new proposals require a unanimous decision by the Council in order to be enacted. Taxation is a fundamental power of each sovereign Member State and should remain so.
Daniel Hannan (ECR). - Mr President, tax harmonisation is really a euphemism for higher tax. I mean, hands up anybody who thinks that tax harmonisation means that it is going to be harmonised downwards. Tax harmonisation removes the external competition which is the usual curb on a government wanting to raise more money. It is bizarre that this becomes our solution to every problem. We are in the mess we are in because the government was spending too much and we will not get out of this mess by raising even more money, transferring even more resources from the private sector into the public.
Of course, the reality is that the reason we want tax harmonisation is because the EU wants to give itself a dedicated revenue stream so that it does not need to come cap in hand and beg from the Member States. Behind all this talk about spending money at Brussels level (so you do not have to spend it at national level) is the need to keep fuelling the bureaucracy that has grown up at the top of the EU. That of course is what is going to choke the system; it is going to bring us down as it has brought down every over-centralised and over-taxed imperium in the past. Generations from now, when archaeologists are looking for the last documents from our era, I suspect that the most recent one they are going to find is some tax demand from some Brussels official.
Ivailo Kalfin (S&D). - (BG) Mr President, I voted against Ms Thyssen’s report on the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base. I am in favour of simplifying the economic environment and creating greater transparency. Such a step would really help some multinational companies.
There are, however, two main problems in the report. The first one mentioned is tax rate harmonisation, and I totally concur with my colleagues that the European Union cannot impose tax rates on individual Member States. This is not normal and defies any economic logic.
The second problem concerns the formula for distributing tax from holding companies. It is based on criteria that, although slightly improved by Parliament, are far from logical economically and do not create conditions for making companies more competitive and for distributing taxes more fairly.
A common tax collection system only makes sense when there are fiscal transfers involved too, and such transfers have not been proposed.
Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR). - Mr President, once again this Commission is straying out of its remit. This is the first attempt by the EU to enter into the realms of corporate taxation. This report is being sold as a positive step towards the single market and as enhancing competitiveness. In reality, this report oversteps the mark and impinges on Member States’ sovereignty. The UK Government has opposed this report from the very beginning. I stand by my government and I, too, am here standing against this report today.
Raffaele Baldassarre (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I fully agree with this report, through which Parliament is trying to send out an important message on simplifying and harmonising corporate taxation.
The existence of 27 different legislations on corporate income tax does not only mean high costs and red tape for businesses operating in different countries, but also the serious risk of tax evasion and tax discrimination. This intervention is essential to reduce the costs for businesses operating in several states and to promote economic growth and economic recovery within the internal market.
Finally, the optional nature of this measure, which gives companies the possibility to assess the benefits and costs when choosing the new system, neutralises the reluctance of some Member States that fear their sovereignty in taxation and revenue may be at risk. In the interests of citizens and businesses rather than solely on the basis of calculations of national self-interest, I therefore hope that the Council will be able to reach an agreement without resorting to enhanced cooperation.
Julie Girling (ECR). - Mr President, I voted against this measure to give a clear and visible signal that I do not support the mandatory introduction of a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base. I do not agree with the view that it is a vital measure to complete the single market. If companies operating cross-border between Member States wish to consolidate their results and follow a common formula, that should not be excluded, but I do not support the proposal, as agreed by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON), to set out a roadmap making this mandatory after five years.
Yet again, those elected by the citizens of Europe and given the privilege of the responsibility to lead us out of the mess we are in into recovery and growth are leading us down a blind alley of political dogma and harmonisation. It will get us nowhere. It is unnecessary regulation and will not help to increase business or GDP in Europe.
Gay Mitchell (PPE). - Mr President, I wish to give an explanation on my own behalf and on behalf of Mr Higgins and Miss McGuinness. I would like to thank Mrs Thyssen for this report, but we have concerns about its contents.
While Ireland has constructively engaged in the CCCTB process, the Treaty requires unanimity in matters of taxation policy, and the principle of subsidiarity allows Member States to keep taxation under national legislation.
My main concern is that this is transgressing on national competence. While the report does not specifically call for the harmonisation of tax rates – although Amendment 10 comes close – the introduction of common rules across all Member States for the calculation of the tax of companies is nonetheless a matter for Member States.
I would also like to point out that Rule 38a (1) of this Parliament’s Rules of Procedure 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 in this case that this report meets that.
Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE). (IT)- Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are still far from fully completing the single market. In particular, 27 different laws on corporate income tax produce three main obstacles: high administrative costs and red tape for businesses operating in several countries, greater risks of tax evasion, as well as double taxation and fiscal discrimination, an incentive to corporate policies of ‘regulatory shopping’, with potential economic distortions and, with regard to this phenomenon, an incentive to national policies aiming at a progressive shift of taxation from mobile to less mobile grounds, with obvious social and economic distortions.
Harmonising methods of calculating taxable profits is therefore necessary to ensure that businesses operating in the 27 Member States are subject to the same regulations, regardless of the Member State where they are taxed. It is for this reason that, despite the reluctance of some Member States that fear losing sovereignty in tax matters, I voted in favour of this text.
Andrea Češková (ECR). - (CS) Mr President, I voted against this motion for a resolution because I believe that the consolidated tax base system should also be voluntary in the long term. If it were mandatory for all businesses operating on European soil, it would create an unnecessary administrative burden for businesses operating in just one country, as they would have to adjust to this system. A mandatory system might also lead to higher costs and thus less competitiveness on the European market, particularly in the case of small and medium-sized enterprises. The consolidated tax base system should therefore be voluntary and sufficiently advantageous that the greatest possible number of businesses choose to join it.
I am also unable to support this motion for a resolution because its rules will gradually lead to the unification of tax rates, and this will stifle tax competition which is a very good thing for the market. There are many differences between Member States in terms of tax regulations and tax rates, and it should be exclusively up to national Member State parliaments to decide what rates to burden their taxpayers with.
Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, I abstained from voting on this report because my country has reservations about this proposal for a directive. A standard tax base is extremely important for the progress of economic integration. This is the only possible way to ensure fair competition in fiscal matters. At the same time, harmonisation enhances EU competitiveness and has a beneficial impact on the economy and labour market.
The proposal for a directive initially envisages the optional application of the tax base, and every Member State will be able to set its own tax rate. However, several national parliaments, including the parliament in my country, have called this an infringement of the principle of subsidiarity. Romania has also requested clarifications regarding the definition of the principles and ideas behind the tax base. I believe that we need fair competition in fiscal matters, which will allow the national tax base to be protected.
Syed Kamall (ECR). - Mr President, as we see, the guise for this proposal is to lay down the rules for the cancellation of the tax base for corporates. It is supposed to be concerned with the calculation of taxation, not necessarily the rates, but this is clearly an infringement of Member States’ rights in taxation policy and also the start of a slippery slope to stopping tax competition.
First of all you harmonise the calculation base and then you start to harmonise the tax itself under the guise of a single market and getting rid of this unnecessary tax competition that we have heard about so many times.
But what are we doing during this crisis, at a time when countries want to attract foreign investment and create jobs? Why are we using measures such as this to harmonise taxation and start on the slippery slope, when we should be focusing on measures that create jobs and growth?
Seán Kelly (PPE). – (GA) Mr President, our leader of Fine Gael Members, Gay Mitchell, explained that we voted against our group on this report. Basically, as many other members have said, laying down a tax system is a prerogative of the Member States, and that cannot be changed without unanimity. That day is a long way off.
Maybe in future there will be conditions in which we can lay down a common system, when there is a high standard of living all across Europe. Maybe when the Fiscal Treaty is implemented we will have a chance then to look at the worthwhile proposals here. But until then, we are against it and it is too early to introduce such things.
President. − Mr Jahr, you asked for the floor. I will give you the floor but before I do, I want to remind you that, according to Rule 170, a request to give an explanation of vote cannot be accepted once the first explanation has started. I will give you floor anyway because I am a very good person but, according to the Rules, I should not. I will give you the floor, but do not tell anybody!
Peter Jahr (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, in order to salvage my reputation, I would simply like to say that something must have gone wrong here, as I did try to request the floor for this explanation of vote electronically. This has probably just got lost; I do not know why that should be. However, I will now be very brief.
I agree with half of what Mr Kelly said and I nevertheless voted in favour of this report, because I simply want to help to open the debate on this matter. We want a common internal market, and we want not only people but also companies to be able to move around freely. In this regard, it is not only a question of the percentage rate of tax, but also of the tax base and the basis for calculation. Obviously, small businesses in particular have enormous problems adapting to tax systems that are fundamentally different. I think it is very important that we have already initiated the debate on this matter.
Charles Tannock (ECR). - Mr President, I have raised this issue in the past. If you read the wording of the rule, it is not at all clear that it means that. It could equally well mean before the actual ‘explanation of votes’ item comes up within the sitting rather than at the beginning of the entire sitting. The previous time this rule was interpreted by one of your colleagues, he offered to refer it to the Legal Service for a definitive interpretation of the Parliament’s Rules of Procedure.
You interpret it this way, but you could equally well interpret it another, more generous way. So could we have clear guidance on what the rule actually means? It makes no sense in my view if it is just restricted to those who apply before the entire sitting begins. It should be at any stage before that actual explanation of vote comes up for debate.
President. − Thank you, Mr Tannock, but you have seen that my nature is to be benevolent.
Giovanni La Via (PPE). - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I strongly supported Ms Lulling’s report, as she sought to give feedback on a proposal by the European Commission which was certainly not in keeping with the current period of great difficulty affecting all European countries.
I believe that the content of the amendments made by this Parliament is in line with the current situation. I want to underline the importance of our vote in favour of the agricultural sector in order to maintain tax exemption on fuels used in agriculture. In particular, I want to emphasise how important Parliament’s vote has been in preserving the distinction between commercial and non-commercial diesel, to the fiscal advantage of drivers travelling from areas furthest from the centre of Europe, enabling them to benefit from tax reduction with regard to their transport of goods, to the advantage of a free and competitive market.
Jens Rohde (ALDE). – (DA) Mr President, I think many European citizens should be pleased today that elections are to take place very shortly in France and that there are also soon to be elections to the Bundestag in Germany, as otherwise we would have run the risk of there being a majority in favour of introducing proportionality in the taxation of petrol and diesel. However, it appeared that we did not want to take the risk of tackling this at this point in time, which is also very sensible, as it would quite simply result in a dramatic rise in subsistence costs for many companies and the cost of living for many citizens. We all know that if you enforce the equal taxation of diesel and petrol, the Member States will not lower the duties on petrol. No, they will increase the duties on diesel so that there will be additional money in the state coffers. I hope the Commission has received a very clear signal today – and that it understands this signal – that this form of taxation is a very bad idea.
Kay Swinburne (ECR). - Mr President, I have voted against this report on the taxation of energy products and electricity as I do not support a number of the proposals that it makes.
These include the introduction of proportionality and the removal of exemptions for certain sectors, which Member States were previously able to introduce at their discretion. The latter include agricultural fluids, known in the UK as red diesel, and the principle that all calculations on this should be based on energy consumption and CO2 emissions. I believe that is actually not correct.
Taxation needs to remain an issue solely for Member States. At a time when businesses and farmers across the EU are struggling to make ends meet, I think that it is wholly unjustifiable to impose additional new requirements on them to meet emission targets. The proposals in the report would require the measures to be implemented too quickly and would be burdensome upon my businesses and farmers in Wales.
Whilst I support the EU’s endeavours to reduce emissions, I do not believe that taxation of energy products and electricity is the right way to achieve this. It would perhaps be more prudent to encourage businesses to invest in modernising technology in order to make it more effective and efficient.
Ivailo Kalfin (S&D). - (BG) Mr President, I would like to say on behalf of my colleagues from the Bulgarian delegation in the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament that we voted against this report on increasing the excise rates for certain fuels as we believe that the report does not make adequate economic sense.
At a time when market prices for fuel are rising – a trend which will continue in the future – aligning rates and increasing the rates on diesel will have, albeit in the long term, several negative effects: higher inflation, less competitiveness among companies and a much lower quality of life. This will particularly affect countries where incomes are lower and the relative price of fuel is much higher.
What would happen if the duties are increased in line with incomes in each country? We would then see that some countries would really be affected much worse. This is why I believe that the Council must not allow this decision.
Jim Higgins (PPE). - Mr President, on behalf of my Irish colleagues, Seán Kelly, Gay Mitchell and Mairead McGuinness, I want to commend the work done by Astrid Lulling in relation to this particular report. I have to say she has done a commendable job. She has managed to dilute a considerable number of proposals from the Commission which are totally unacceptable.
As has been said by other speakers, it would play havoc with agriculture, public transport and the exports of my own country, which is a 90% export country: an island off an island. I am delighted that Amendment 53 was accepted, and by a huge majority – 524 for and 140 against. The rejection of the harmonisation of taxes on the purchase of cars is totally unacceptable.
What has happened here is that we are now seeing the benefits of the Treaty of Lisbon. In their acceptance of the Treaty of Lisbon, the Irish people were given assurances that taxation would not be interfered with by the EU and therefore, as Mr Kelly has said previously, the proposal to interfere with taxation is totally unacceptable to us. As Mrs Swinburne has said, a good balance needs to be struck between the environment on the one hand and consumers and industry on the other. The EU should not try to interfere with taxation. This is matter solely for individual Member States.
Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union and its Member States have always promoted sustainable development and the protection of the environment and human health.
The signing of the Kyoto Protocol and the Europe 2020 strategy are among the most important challenges that the EU has set itself. Taxation related to CO2 emissions is a cost-effective means for Member States to achieve the reductions of greenhouse gasses necessary according to Decision 406/2009/EC of the European Parliament and the Council.
I am in favour of Ms Lulling’s proposal on the need to ensure that the internal market functions in an optimum manner in a context of new requirements relating to the limitation of climate change, to the use of renewable energy sources and to energy savings. Consistent treatment of energy sources should be guaranteed in order to provide a genuine level playing field for energy consumers regardless of the energy source used.
Daniel Hannan (ECR). - Mr President, immediately before the vote today a friend in the EPP challenged me to say something positive about the economy in Europe. He said he was sick and tired of my explanations of vote always focusing on what we were doing wrong. So let me have a go.
There are a number of positive ways that you can jolt economies into growth. You can cut tax, you can deregulate, you can – paradoxically – make it easier to fire people so that you encourage employers to hire people in the knowledge that they will not be lumbered with employees in the hard times. One thing that always boosts economic growth, in every country and in every age, is cheaper energy. It worked in the Industrial Revolution, it worked in the oil boom. It always causes factory prices to fall; it causes an export boom and it causes people to be able to buy things – with less energy put into it, if you like.
That is why it would be crazy for us, at a time like this, when we are struggling to grow our economies, to burden ourselves with fuel taxes which will depreciate the one thing which is always, literally and figuratively, the fuel of growth.
Here is the good news: here is the upbeat ending. Just as the US has now started to nose out of its decline because of this massive increase in shale gas deposits, so we have the same opportunities in Europe. We have 120 years of gas supplies under the soil and seas of the United Kingdom alone. Energy crisis? What energy crisis?
Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE). - (ES) Mr President, the energy sources that we use for mobility in Europe are going to change over the coming decades. However, achieving that objective is incompatible with penalising the use of petrol for automotive purposes. This was the point of my vote in the vote on the directive on the taxation of energy products and electricity.
Thanks to European investment in research and development, diesel engines today consume 30% less and cause between 20 and 25% less pollution than their petrol counterparts. Europe is a world leader in diesel technology. Penalising diesel is, therefore, a contradiction of 2020 strategy. It would aggravate the crisis, impact negatively on employment in European industry and take away resources for the research, development and innovation that electric mobility needs. In short, damage that we have avoided with today’s vote.
I also supported subsidies for professional use of diesel, both for transport and in the primary sector, in order to preserve employment in these sectors and avoid inflation.
Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR). - Mr President, I recognise that climate change is a serious issue, but I often worry that those who want to save the world are actually living on a different planet.
In the middle of an economic crisis, families are feeling the pinch. Does the EU really want to tax citizens further just for driving their children to school or for turning on the heating?
I am glad this House recognised what is going on in the real world, and that it understands how ordinary families are struggling to make ends meet. The EU needs to be reminded that it should focus on economic growth and on making citizens’ lives easier, not more difficult during a downturn.
I voted against this report. My group, the ECR, voted against this report, and I am pleased that most of the House followed my group and voted against it.
Julie Girling (ECR). - Mr President, I voted against this report on a number of grounds. Not a day goes by when I do not hear from a constituent who is unhappy with the increases in their energy bills. They are very unhappy to find themselves paying to subsidise renewables without any real public debate: no acceptance of the concept or the financial hardship behind it.
I do, however, believe that it is time for a fundamental review of taxation on energy products and particularly electricity: not a review which says the EU should take more interest but one that would end up with the view that we should take far less interest from here.
This particular report ranges across a number of areas too numerous to talk about here, but I would just like to mention one: harmonised car purchase tax and harmonised CO2 emission taxes. How will this help change behaviour and reduce energy consumption? Each Member State has its own personality and traditions and, if we are serious about making progress here, Member States’ flexibility must be retained and taxation left firmly in their own bailiwick.
Norica Nicolai (ALDE). – (RO) Mr President, this report proves the positive role played by Parliament because a number of amendments which mainly concerned the principle of proportionality have been adopted by Parliament. The successful upshot of this has been to tone down a fundamentally flawed proposal which has been tabled by the European Commission at the moment. I believe that this automatic price indexing which has been successfully avoided and taxation based on CO2 emissions and the product’s energy content were fundamentally flawed, were introducing a certain amount of red tape and were leading to price rises, which definitely goes to show that there is a basic lack of a clear-cut vision on economic reform and recovery. I believe that once these amendments have been approved, Ms Lulling’s report can be regarded as acceptable.
Marek Józef Gróbarczyk (ECR). - (PL) Mr President, I voted against this directive as it has an exceptionally harmful impact on European economic growth. The last climate summit in Durban clearly showed the global trend as regards approaches to the issue of climate change and the most forceful example in this regard was the behaviour of Canada, a highly ecological country, which ostentatiously exited the Kyoto Protocol.
Our prize for being European is a tax that will further increase the already astronomical fuel and electricity prices. This, apparently, will create jobs. Tax policy is an area reserved for individual states and the creation of this precedent of joint taxation is an attempt to create a financial drain on certain European Union Member States, which could well lead to distortions in competition.
Charles Tannock (ECR). - Mr President, in my view, Member States should have the right to set their own fuel VAT and CO2 taxation levels, as long as these are compliant with the unanimously-agreed EU legislation already in place, such as the rules on minimum VAT levels.
Taxation is clearly a sovereign matter for each Member State, and efforts to transfer this power to the EU as a Community competence contravene the EU Treaties and will both hamper the competitive free market and play into the hands of increasing numbers of critics who claim that the EU is determined to build a federal superstate without acquiring first any consent from the people of the Member States.
Some Members of this House are keen to harmonise and raise taxes at Member State and EU level, but they often seem to forget the fact that they are actually very keen on spending other people’s hard-earned money.
Syed Kamall (ECR). - Mr President, inside this Chamber, the last report, this report, and the next report are all talking about taxation under various guises of how we can raise taxation or harmonise it, whereas outside, in the real world, people are worried about rising costs and about job creation. They want more jobs to be created; they want people to get back to work. One of the most social things that Europe and politicians could do across Member States is create jobs for people.
What do we do instead? We talk about taxation and about increasing taxation. We know that when you increase taxation on energy products, those costs are not only passed on to companies – which means they have less money to employ more people – but those companies then pass it on to consumers, who then find it more difficult to struggle with their weekly and monthly household bills.
Now is the time to take stock of where we are. Giving money to governments, who spent it very badly in the first place and overtaxed us, caused the problems we are now facing. Let us reduce the rates of taxation, allow jobs to be created and get citizens in European countries back to work.
Jacky Hénin (GUE/NGL). – (FR) Mr President, this is how to transform a good idea can into a punishment for employees and their families. How can one oppose the idea of reducing emissions of the fatal gas CO2? How can one be against the desire to control energy consumption and the elimination of wastefulness? Why then, in that case, should only the smallest be targeted?
Large sectors such as air transport, sea transport, agriculture and road transport will benefit from exemptions until 2023. Thus, a large transport company will benefit from exemptions while the lorry driver it employs will pay full price. Thus, a large agricultural company will benefit from exemptions while an agricultural employee with a small salary will pay full price. Small people such as these have no alternative, because for years we have shown them that diesel is the least expensive fuel and they are prisoners of their cars because they do not have the means to change.
Therefore, if money needed to be found, I can think of several ways, which I will outline to you briefly. We could have taken it out of the profits of the large oil companies, taken it out of the wastage of public money, taken it out of the profits of the large car companies, and also – why not? – taken it out of the profits of credit agencies which lend money to buy cars.
Call for concrete ways to combat tax fraud and tax evasion B7-0203/2012
Charles Tannock (ECR). - Mr President, as I have to give a radio interview at two o’clock, Mrs Swinburne has agreed that I can swap with her and speak first. Is that alright? She is okay with this. Thank you very much.
I voted against the joint motion for a resolution put forward by the S&D Group on concrete ways to combat tax fraud and tax evasion. There are many problems with this report, starting with the simple fact that taxation is primarily a Member State prerogative. But I was particularly concerned by the identical treatment given to tax evasion and tax avoidance. The report calls for measures to be taken against both at EU level. Not differentiating between the two seems nonsensical and smacks of the politics of envy, given that one is a wilful criminal breaking of the law and the other is perfectly legal.
While I would agree that tax fraud and tax evasion should be curtailed, my group does not agree with the premise that tax avoidance within the law is detrimental to tax collection. Another worrying aspect of the report is its consideration that the implementation of country-by-country reporting requirements for cross-border companies in all sectors is essential. I believe that such requirements will be too onerous a burden if applied to all EU companies in all sectors, as the report seems to propose. I would instead back a sector-specific approach, which is a far more reasonable way of doing things.
President. − These explanations of vote are a monopoly of the British Conservatives because all of you – with the exception of Mr Kelly, who is not a British Conservative – are British Conservatives!
Kay Swinburne (ECR). - Mr President, to remove any possible doubt, I fully support the motion title that we need to find pan-European ways of combating tax fraud and tax evasion. And indeed, I believe that we should find global ways of doing that.
However, beyond the title, this report has addressed many issues which I believe are not helpful, including preventing Member States from engaging in bilateral negotiations with non-EU countries on taxation matters, which presumably was aimed at addressing the recent UK-Swiss agreement on bank accounts.
It also suggests that tax competition is to be avoided as it stifles economic recovery in some countries, something I fundamentally disagree with. Tax competition is healthy and should be encouraged.
The report also suggests clamping down on tax havens but redefines them rather than using the globally-accepted OECD definition. I therefore could not support this report, despite being committed to tackling tax evasion and tax fraud globally.
Daniel Hannan (ECR). - Mr President, we would of course be delighted to have Mr Kelly in our group, maybe not as a British Conservative, but he is a great European and a great patriot and we would be very happy to have him alongside us in the ECR Group.
The way to maximise revenue from taxation is through lower, flatter and simpler tax rates. It is all very well to say, as some have in this Chamber, that we need to find ways of getting these rich tax evaders to pay their share, but the ultimate forms of tax evasion – or rather tax avoidance – that they practice are emigration and early retirement. The sad truth is that the rich do not have enough money to do all the things that modern governments want.
So when taxes on the rich are introduced, they very quickly become generalised through the population. It works every time. It worked when Ronald Reagan cut the top rates and it worked when Margaret Thatcher and Nigel Lawson did so. If you lower the rates of tax, you maximise the revenue and you also get the top decile in society to pay a much higher proportion.
People say, ‘oh, that’s only because they’re earning more’. Well yes, that is the idea – and they are thereby generating more revenue for the government to spend on things that the rest of us use.
So yes, I agree: make the rich pay more. Cut their rates.
Syed Kamall (ECR). - Mr President, thank you for catching me by surprise, and I thank Mr Kamiński for not being here to allow me to speak earlier. What is very interesting about this whole debate about tax – we have spent the last three reports talking about taxation – is that there are two different philosophies on taxation. If you are on the Left, you believe that the government has first recourse to your money. You earn your money, but the government itself decides how much to give to you while it takes the money. If you are on the conservative Right – as we are – you believe that individuals should be allowed to keep as much of their money as possible in their pocket, and that governments should really take only what is necessary for government and state services. But what do we see? In proposal after proposal, we see an increase and an attack on people who are trying to maximise the amount of their income that they can spend on their families and themselves.
The other thing we see in this place is the attack on so-called tax havens. When countries set themselves up to be tax-neutral – not to double and triple tax in order to generate revenue and to attract foreign investment – immediately that is a tax haven and is condemned. And when developing countries do it, what do we do? We try to condemn them, to make sure that they go back to poverty so that they can rely on our aid rather than trying to create wealth through tax competition. What a skewed world we are living in here in the European Parliament. It is time to ensure that tax competition is healthy in order to create jobs and attract investment.
Seán Kelly (PPE). – (GA) Mr President, as Kay Swinburne said, looking at the title of this report one would think that every Member would vote in favour of it, as we would expect, at any rate, that every Member would be in favour of fighting tax dishonesty and tax evasion.
Why, then, did we not vote in favour of it? Although we respect Jean-Paul Gauzès, we consider that his proposals were excessive, in particular introducing proposals in which we had no part, such as a common tax or ‘CCCTB’, tax competition and agreements among various countries. We cannot accept these proposals and we therefore voted against it. Let us continue to battle dishonesty and evasion.
Finally, instead of joining with my friends from Britain, perhaps they – particularly the Conservatives – would return to the EPP where they were before. They would be welcome.
President. − Ms Girling, do you want to speak? I see that your interpretation of Rule 170 is the same as Mr Tannock’s.
Julie Girling (ECR). - Mr President, there is a material difference. I have written confirmation of my request to speak from this morning on the system so I have followed the Rules, but thank you for your patience and good humour.
I would simply like to say that, like everybody else, I welcome the title of this, but when I looked at some of the detail I found myself unexpectedly unable to support it. There are many reasons; I would just mention a couple.
Firstly, why invent an EU definition of a tax haven when we have a perfectly adequate, well-used OECD definition already adopted by this Parliament? It is almost really contemptuous of this House to try and reinvent that particular wheel and serves no purpose whatsoever. Also I do not accept that all sectors need a complex cross-border reporting arrangement. There should be a proportionate approach which minimises all of the burdens on business.
Lastly, I would like to mention something which is very important for my Member State. I cannot under any circumstances agree with the proposal that prohibits the UK Government from entering into bilateral arrangements with non-EU countries which are to the clear benefit of the British taxpayer.
Written explanations of vote
Recommendation: Elisabeth Köstinger (A7-0082/2012)
Damien Abad (PPE), in writing. – (FR) As a large consumer of products derived from timber, the European Union has defined an action plan for forest law enforcement, governance and trade (FLEGT). This action plan is being implemented through partnership agreements with producing countries such as the Central African Republic. I voted in favour of this agreement, which will allow us to introduce a range of measures aimed at combating clandestine exploitation of forests by monitoring the supply chain and promoting sustainable practices.
Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I am voting in favour because a partnership tool could improve forest governance. There will have to be coordination between the partner countries and the European Commission if this agreement is to be implemented effectively. Establishing this partnership is another step towards protecting the quality standards required of Europeans for products imported from third countries, the majority of which do not comply with the same legislation as European producers. As such, this is an agreement that could lead to the establishment of other agreements with third countries, which should cover various economic sectors.
Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) In December 2005, the Council of Ministers authorised the European Commission to negotiate partnership agreements with timber-producing countries in order to implement the EU Action Plan on Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) and, in particular, to promote trade and imports of verified legal timber products into the EU from these partner countries. The Central African Republic (CAR) has 31% of its surface covered by tropical rainforests. Forestry activities are the country’s main private sector employer, contributing 4% of GDP and 40% of the country’s total export revenues. That is why the European Union has a keen interest in signing these agreements. On the other hand, we do not want to involuntarily participate in the illegal or informal activities that could take place in the Central African Republic. We must ensure that small forest enterprises serving the domestic market are professional, profitable and sustainable. That is what is provided for in this agreement, which guarantees free trade while imposing conditions.
Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I welcomed the conclusion of a Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA) between the European Union and the Central African Republic on forest law enforcement, governance and trade in timber to the European Union (FLEGT). Sixty per cent of Central African timber is exported to Europe. In the Central African Republic, forest degradation is occurring mainly due to inadequate law enforcement and monitoring resulting from lacking human, material and financial resources, which have led to illegal logging, timber poaching and bushfires. This agreement is aimed at stopping illegal logging and developing a set of laws to ensure the traceability, legal verification and licensing of timber and timber products to be exported to the EU market, and to establish monitoring and independent auditing. I welcome the calls in the European Parliament’s recommendation for more attention to be devoted to effective and timely VPA enforcement and regular reporting on progress in the implementation of VPAs.
Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted to conclude this agreement because I welcome that it will help promote good forest governance and reinforce the relevant legislation in the Central African Republic, including with regard to sustainability, accountability and effective forest management. Trade in timber accounts for 4% of this state’s GDP, with 60% of the exports in this sector being made to the European Union. The new agreement will strengthen opportunities further on the European market for timber from the Central African Republic, while allowing responsible and balanced management of forest resources. I applaud the extended consultation process with the private sector and civil society aimed at producing legality definitions for timber and timber products from the Central African Republic. I welcome that this model of involving all the stakeholders will continue through a national multi-stakeholder committee which will help implement and monitor the agreement. I should mention that the rights to the land and land ownership of the indigenous communities which are dependent on using the forest resources need to be clarified by means of legislative reforms at national level. I should highlight the importance of the agreement being enforced in time in order to make an effective contribution to increasing sustainability and ending the forest degradation caused by illegal logging and the illegal trade in timber products.
Mara Bizzotto (EFD) , in writing. − (IT) I support the Voluntary Partnership Agreement between the EU and the Central African Republic on forest law enforcement because I believe it can bring a real contribution to the development of this African country, supporting a highly important economic sector such as forestry, which accounts for 4% of the country’s GDP and 40% of its export revenues. Moreover, 60% of Central African timber is exported to Europe.
As with the agreement with the Republic of Liberia, I support the aims of this agreement and believe it can be beneficial to all the parties involved. The EU, for example, can count on the commitment of the Central African Republic to trade only in verified legal timber products into the EU.
Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this European Parliament recommendation on the conclusion of a Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA) between the European Union and the Central African Republic on forest law enforcement, governance and trade in timber and derived products to the European Union because this Agreement covers all timber products to be exported, including wood chips for fuel, logs, sawn wood, veneer and wooden furniture. The Central African Republic’s system for verifying the legality of timber and derived products shall apply to all exports, and not only those destined for the EU. Furthermore, it will cover timber imported from third countries and processed in the Central African Republic for export. Along with establishing a partnership tool for improving management standards, sustainability and accountability in the forestry sector, the VPA can be expected to contribute positively to overall development and growth in the Central African Republic, including by safeguarding income generated by timber exports to the EU and other international markets. A forest governance platform composed of representatives from non-governmental organisations and civil society will monitor VPA implementation activities and will report its observations to the EU-Central African Republic Joint Implementation Committee to oversee the full scope of the Agreement.
John Bufton (EFD), in writing. − I chose to abstain from this vote as on principle, insuring the import of legally felled timber products is vital both for environmental sustenance and the preservation of fair trade. However I do not advocate EU legislation as the mechanism for these controls. It is also important to highlight that several third country negotiations with the EU in the past have been disadvantageous for the country concerned. With the propensity for corruption and liability of the timber trade to black market negotiations, I am not confident that the EU will ensure a system that is both watertight and effective
Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Illegally logging and trading in timber harms the competitiveness of legitimate forest industries in both exporter and importer countries by limiting these industries’ ability to operate in ways that promote sustainable forest management and sustainable development; the Central African Republic (CAR) is an example of this. The Voluntary Partnership Agreement voted on today – which I support – is very important because it offers an instrument for solving this problem: it improves regulation, governance and forest law enforcement, with the CAR committing to implement systems for verifying compliance with the law and traceability throughout the supply chain, from logging to the issuance of forest law enforcement, governance and trade export licences.
While sustainable forest management is one winner, on the one hand, the European Union is also strengthening new market opportunities for the CAR’s timber products, on the other. In a sector representing 4% of the CAR’s GDP, 60% of timber is exported to Europe. I would reemphasise that efforts must be made when implementing this agreement to promote fair solutions that do not have consequences for the worst-off sectors of society or for rural populations who earn their living from this activity, whilst leaving the most powerful unscathed.
Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report because I believe voluntary partnership agreements (VPAs) are the basis of an EU action plan on forest law enforcement, governance and trade, since they establish partnerships with timber producers and exports among countries with the aim of deterring illegal logging. I consider VPAs a partnership instrument that promotes improved forest governance.
Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA) between the European Union and the Central African Republic (CAR) is crucial to whether or not valuable timbers can be imported from this African country. Tropical forest covers 30% of the CAR’s territory, so it is no surprise that timber exports represent around 40% of the country’s exports. The arrival of this VPA is timely, as it will discourage illegal timber sales, as well as the unjustified and irreparable loss of forests that are devastated by black-market and illegal producers and sellers. The agreement will also be a guarantee that EU countries will buy timber logged using sustainable processes that respect the forest’s equilibrium and that they will not be contributing, albeit unintentionally, to the destruction of tropical forests.
José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The climate change that has been affecting the planet in recent decades through unexpected natural disasters has brought the problem of large-scale deforestation onto the agenda, particularly in the Amazon region, which is considered the ‘lungs of the world’, and the African continent. This text concerns the draft Council decision on the conclusion of a Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA) between the European Union and the Central African Republic (CAR) on forest law enforcement, governance and trade (FLEGT) in timber and derived products to the European Union, in the context of the FLEGT action plan. This is an EU initiative intended to prevent illegally logged timber from entering the EU. In order for the EU-CAR VPA – concluded 28 November 2011 – to come into force, it must first be adopted by the European Parliament. I am voting for this recommendation, because I consider it crucial that there be legislation promoting sustainability in the forestry sector and preventing indiscriminate logging. Moreover, this VPA will make a sustainable contribution to the CAR’s overall development.
João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The objectives of the Voluntary Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Central African Republic (CAR) on forest law enforcement, governance and trade involve combating the problem of illegal logging by helping to improve regulation, governance and the implementation of legislation in the CAR’s forestry sector. Illegal logging contributes to destroying and degrading ecosystems that are very important, both from a functional point of view and in terms of the natural resources that they house. However, a correct approach to the causes of the problem needs to acknowledge that it cannot be separated from the enormous weaknesses in the economies of these countries or the high poverty levels of their peoples, and that this activity is sometimes many families’ only source of income.
The rapporteur herself mentions that many indigenous communities living in the CAR’s tropical forests depend on using forest resources. The result is that it will only be possible to put a stop to illegal or unsustainable logging if the terrible social and economic situation in countries like the CAR is properly tackled and resolved; if the economic model based heavily on extracting and exporting a small number of raw materials to industrialised countries is reversed.
Monika Flašíková Benová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The EU’s 2003 Action Plan on Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) provided for the establishment of partnerships with timber-producing and exporting countries to ensure that only legally harvested timber is traded and to promote sound forest governance. The trade agreement with the Central African Republic, signed in November 2011, is the fourth such Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA) the EU has negotiated with an African country. It provides an instrument for addressing illegal logging, for helping to improve regulation, governance and law enforcement in the country’s forestry sector and for strengthening market opportunities for Central African timber products in Europe. The VPA can be expected to contribute positively to overall development and growth in the Central African Republic, including by safeguarding income generated by timber exports to the EU and other international markets. In future, tax revenues from industrial forest exploitation should also increasingly profit the local economy and communities in the Central African Republic. I believe that Parliament should give its consent to this agreement. At the same time both the CAR Government and the European Commission will need to devote sufficient attention to effective and timely VPA enforcement, including capacity building, participation of local communities, safeguards for indigenous populations and general awareness-raising on this VPA among the various stakeholders.
Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), in writing. − (IT) The fight against illegal deforestation, the definition of a system of control and traceability, the strengthening of the commercial possibilities of imported timber and derived products to the European Union and the improvement of the regulation in the forestry sector and its enforcement are just some of the valuable goals of this agreement. Given that it was drafted taking into account the interests of all parties, and that the Central African Republic has said it is ready to promptly enforce each of the commitments outlined in the agreement, I voted in favour.
Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. − I supported this report and welcome the VPA with the Central African Republic. The forestry sector accounts for 40% of the CAR's export revenue. It is clearly an important industry, and it is equally important that the EU only imports wood from a properly regulated sector.
Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I welcomed the conclusion of this agreement because it establishes a partnership tool for improving management standards, sustainability and accountability in the forestry sector. The Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA) can be expected to contribute positively to overall development and growth in the Central African Republic, including by safeguarding income generated by timber exports to the EU and other international markets. In future, tax revenues from industrial forest exploitation should increasingly profit the local economy and communities. At the same time, the VPA commits the partner country to develop a legislative framework and systems for the traceability, legal verification and licensing of timber and timber products to be exported to the EU market, and to establish monitoring and independent auditing.
Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE), in writing. − (PL) The African continent is a very poor region. Many people there suffer from poverty, whilst hunger and disease can be seen at every step. However, Africa is also a region with very rich natural resources and rational management of these resources could improve the situation of its population. In the Central African Republic, 31% of the land is covered by tropical forests. People living in that country are largely dependent on those forests and forestry is the principal source of employment in the private sector. I believe that the most important issues in the area of forestry should be subject to regulation and products from wood that enter European Union markets should come from legitimate sources. Proper monitoring of the procedure for bringing goods onto the market is essential. It is also worth looking at the national market, which was excluded from this agreement.
Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing. − In December 2005, the Council authorised the Commission to negotiate a series of voluntary partnership agreements (VPA) with timber-producing and exporting countries in order to encourage trade in legally harvested timber on the EU market and to improve forest governance in partner countries. I believe that these bilateral agreements are a cornerstone of the EU Action Plan on Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade to halt illegal logging. For this reason, I voted in favour of this recommendation.
Małgorzata Handzlik (PPE), in writing. − (PL) Today, the European Parliament gave its agreement to the conclusion of a partnership agreement with the Central African Republic. This Voluntary Partnership Agreement obliges the partner to create a legal framework, and, in particular, permits for timber and derived products that may be exported to EU markets and to establish a monitoring system and independent audits.
As much as 60% of Central African timber is exported to the EU. As this sector is one of the principal sources of income for this country, exploitation of forestry resources leads to environmental damage. The main causes of this are a lack of means to enforce the law as well as ineffective monitoring, which leads to illegal logging. It should also be remembered that over 3 million hectares of forests in the Central African Republic are covered by commercial concessions, mainly to European companies. These companies must have permits for logging, thus a proper legal environment is vital both for these companies and for growth in trade.
In order to ensure sustainable forestry management and to avoid degradation of the forests, the Central African Republic has undertaken, as part of the agreement, to trade only in legitimate forestry products. I think it is a very important development that this agreement, together with other legal measures, such as the EU Timber Regulation which is to come into force in 2013, will help reduce illegal logging. However, effective implementation of the regulation will be essential.
Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported this report aimed at implementing the European Union’s action plan on forest law enforcement, governance and trade in timber products to the European Union (FLEGT). The European Parliament has thus consented to the conclusion of this agreement, which refers to the monitoring of the supply chain, the system of legal compliance and the conditions of audit.
David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I welcome this Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA) with the Central African Republic (CAR). Along with establishing a partnership tool for improving management standards, sustainability and accountability in the forestry sector, the VPA can be expected to contribute positively to overall development and growth in the Central African Republic, including by safeguarding income generated by timber exports to the EU and other international markets. In future, tax revenues from industrial forest exploitation should increasingly also profit the local economy and communities in the CAR. While the VPA offers steps towards better forest governance and the agreement has met wide support, the challenges lie with effective implementation. The CAR is currently engaged with implementation activities, including the development of the legality verification, new legislation and the institutional framework, in parallel with the ratification process. The EU’s technical and financial support for implementation of the VPA will be crucial. Furthermore, while forestry provides a significant share of the CAR’s export earnings, addressing legal verification of timber exports should go hand in hand with domestic market regulation.
Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In 2003, the EU drafted the action plan on forest law enforcement, governance and trade (FLEGT). It foresaw the establishment of partnerships with timber-producing and exporting countries to ensure that only legally logged timber is traded and to promote sound forest governance. Like the previous FLEGT voluntary partnership agreements, the agreement with the Central African Republic provides an instrument for addressing illegal logging, for helping to improve regulation, governance and law enforcement in the country’s forestry sector, as well as for strengthening market opportunities for Central African timber products in Europe.
Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − These Voluntary Partnership Agreements are a cornerstone of the EU’s Action Plan on Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade. They establish partnerships with timber-producing and exporting countries aimed at halting illegal logging, promoting sound forest governance and ensuring that only legally-harvested timber reaches the EU market. I am sure the agreements are a partnership tool for improving forest governance. Partner countries and the Commission will thus need to devote sufficient attention to effective and timely enforcement. I voted in favour.
Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) Tropical and rainforest timber from the Central African Republic is a valuable resource. In order to control trade in this timber and to curb illegal felling, the EU has already concluded a Voluntary Partnership Agreement with a handful of African states, including Ghana, Congo and Cameroon. Now, an agreement of this kind is to be concluded with the Central African Republic. Some definite advantages of the agreement are the traceability of the timber, legal verification and the licensing of timber and timber products. Around 60% of the Central African Republic’s timber is exported to Europe. The report received my vote because I agree with the rapporteur that the Voluntary Partnership Agreement will have a positive impact on forest management in Central Africa. I abstained from voting, because it has not yet been possible to fully clarify whether our partner country is capable of implementing this agreement within the required timeframe, as measures in the areas of capacity building, participation of local communities, safeguards for indigenous populations and general awareness-raising among the various stakeholders still need to be taken.
Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I welcome this resolution. An effectively functioning Voluntary Partnership Agreement is essential to ensure that only legally harvested timber is traded and to promote sound forest governance. I believe that this agreement will be of enormous benefit to development and economic growth in the Central African Republic. It should be noted that this agreement will create a favourable environment for the Central African Republic to fulfil its obligations to improve accountability and increase transparency.
Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I fully agree with the position taken by Parliament with regard to the Voluntary Partnership Agreement between the EU and the Central African Republic. Supporting this initiative will not only provide a tool for positive forest development, but will also surely improve the overall development of the Central African Republic. Timber export is a growing trade in this country which, having a closer partnership with the European Union, will certainly benefit from a rise in exports across Europe and internationally. The enforcement of this law, however accepted and supported, is the most difficult task, especially with regard to legality within the timber market. In this sense, European support is of fundamental importance.
Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the European Parliament recommendation on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of a Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA) between the European Union and the Central African Republic (CAR) on forest law enforcement, governance and trade in timber and derived products to the European Union. I did so because I believe this partnership agreement is intended to improve management standards, sustainability and accountability in the forestry sector, and because the VPA can be expected to contribute positively to overall development and growth in the CAR, including by safeguarding income generated by timber exports to the EU and other international markets. There is also provision in this agreement for tax receipts from industrial logging increasingly to benefit the local economy and communities in the future.
Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The partnership agreement signed with the Central African Republic (CAR) on 28 November 2011 follows on from the 2003 EU action plan on forest law enforcement, governance and trade in timber, which foresaw the establishment of partnerships with timber-producing and exporting countries to ensure that only legally logged timber is traded and to promote sound forest governance. This agreement constitutes an instrument for addressing illegal logging, for helping to improve regulation, governance and law enforcement in the country’s forestry sector, as well as for strengthening market opportunities for Central African timber products in Europe. Along with establishing a partnership tool for improving management standards, sustainability and accountability in the forestry sector, the EU-CAR Voluntary Partnership Agreement can be expected to contribute positively to overall development and growth in the CAR, including by safeguarding income generated by timber exports to the EU and other international markets. I voted for this report for the aforementioned reasons.
Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE) , in writing. − (IT) It is estimated that a forest the size of a football pitch is destroyed every two seconds worldwide, costing EUR 12 billion per year in damages.
In a report published in March, the World Bank stated that illegal deforestation in some countries represents as much as 90% of all deforestation activities and generates between USD 10 and 15 billion dollars a year in illegal proceeds. Large-scale illegal deforestation operations are often linked to high-level corruption and to organised crime networks.
The agreements approved today are an important step forward to promote sustainable trade in timber, as well as public awareness on this issue. I am confident that the proceeds of the sale of Liberian timber will no longer be used to finance bloodshed. We must also ensure that the rights and the concerns of the indigenous peoples of the Central African Republic are fully taken into account by their authorities.
Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. Much of the positive impact of a VPA depends on how much local communities have been involved in the process and how the implementation is monitored. If these two criteria are not sufficiently addressed, the entire VPA/FLEGT policy could become the fig leaf for an even more aggressive exploitation of the remaining large forests areas. The VPA with the Central African Republic (CAR) falls somewhat short on both, especially since the CAR also maintains a REDD process (the UN programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries); hence the implementation of the VPA needs to be especially carefully monitored.
Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) In my opinion, signing this trade agreement with the Central African Republic is fundamental, as it is an excellent starting point for addressing the serious problem of illegal deforestation, while strengthening the commercial opportunities of Central African timber products imported into Europe.
This agreement will make an important contribution to the overall development and growth of the Central African Republic, including by safeguarding the revenue generated by timber exports to the European Union.
Tokia Saïfi (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Just as I declared myself in favour of the Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) agreements with Ghana, Congo and Cameroon, I supported the agreement with the Central African Republic during this plenary session. This voluntary partnership system allows for the monitoring of the whole supply chain and, henceforth, a genuine improvement in trade conditions in the timber and derived products sector. For practical purposes, the agreement enhances transparency and civil society’s involvement, and aims at putting a stop to illegal exploitation. The effects of this agreement will be all the more important as forestry activities are the country’s main private sector employer, contributing 4% of GDP and 40% of the country’s total export revenues. This agreement will in addition provide an opportunity to evaluate, on the ground, the proper application of the rights of indigenous peoples, since both local communities and civil society have explicitly demanded respect of the right to consultation enshrined in the ILO (International Labour Organisation) Convention No 169, ratified by the country in 2010.
Matteo Salvini (EFD), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of this agreement, as I did for the similar measure relating to Liberia. However, I remain doubtful about the actual possibility of its implementation by the Central African Republic.
The European Commission will be responsible for monitoring in order to ensure that the forestry heritage of this country does not suffer irreversible damage and that a stop is put to illegal logging, a real scourge afflicting the entire African continent.
In any case, my vote in favour was also meant as a vote of faith in the two parties to the agreement. I sincerely hope that the forest law enforcement, governance and trade (FLEGT) measures will prove to be effective and useful for preserving nature and creating development in certain areas of the planet.
Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Along with establishing a partnership tool for improving management standards, sustainability and accountability in the forestry sector, the Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA) can be expected to contribute positively to overall development and growth in the Central African Republic.
The means include safeguarding income generated by timber exports to the EU and other international markets. In future tax revenues from industrial forest exploitation should increasingly profit also the local economy and communities in the Central African Republic.
After this vote the Central African Republic will be more committed to developing a legislative framework and systems for traceability, legal verification and licensing of timber and derived products to be exported to the EU market, and to establish monitoring and independent auditing.
Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. − (PT)Along with establishing a partnership tool for improving management standards, sustainability and accountability in the forestry sector, the Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA) between the European Union and the Central African Republic (CAR) can be expected to contribute positively to overall development and growth in the CAR, including by safeguarding income generated by timber exports to the EU and other international markets. It should be stressed that, while the VPA offers steps towards better forest governance, and the agreement has met wide support, the challenges now lie with its effective implementation. The EU’s technical and financial support for implementing the VPA will be crucial.
Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the report on the conclusion of a Voluntary Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Central African Republic on forest law enforcement, governance and trade in timber and derived products to the European Union. The agreement with the Central African Republic provides an instrument for tackling illegal logging, helping improve regulation, governance and law enforcement in this country’s forestry sector, as well as for strengthening market opportunities for Central African timber products in Europe. Forests cover around 8.7% of the land area of the Central African Republic, with the forestry sector accounting for 4% of the country’s GDP and 40% of its export revenues. Europe is the destination for 60% of Central African timber exports. The agreement regulates all timber products to be exported, including wood chips for fuel, logs, sawn wood, veneer and wooden furniture. The Central African Republic’s system for verifying the legality of timber and derived products will apply to all exports, and not only those destined for the European Union. The new EU Timber Regulation due to take effect in March 2013 will ban the sale of illegally harvested timber or related products on the EU market.
Thomas Ulmer (PPE), in writing. − (DE) I voted in favour of this voluntary agreement as it represents the first step towards sustainable and beneficial timber management in this African country. Timber and timber products are the primary object of trade and commerce in Central Africa. It is therefore all the more important to provide logistical and agricultural support in order to ensure a high standard of stand protection, reafforestation, felling plans and so on. The EU is an appropriate partner for these measures.
Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. − The EP welcomes the conclusion of this Agreement because it seeks to: fight against illegal logging and forest degradation; eliminate inadequate law enforcement and monitoring; establish systems for verification of legal compliance; improve forest governance and sustainable use of its timber; and provide a home to many indigenous communities who depend on the use of forest resources. For all these reasons I voted in favour of the recommendation.
Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted for this agreement, which allows the EU to implement greater controls on timber coming from the Central African Republic and has the clear objective of putting a stop to the illegal exploitation of forests.
I hope that this agreement, which only affects timber exports to the EU, can be extended also to exports to other countries.
Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The main purpose of the Voluntary Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Central African Republic (CAR) on forest law enforcement, governance and trade is to combat the problem of illegal logging by helping to improve regulation, governance and the implementation of legislation in the CAR’s forestry sector. How, though, can the problem of illegal logging in these countries’ forestry sectors really be solved? It can be done by combating the weakness of these countries’ economies; specifically, by eradicating poverty, which is one of the causes of illegal logging, since many families and communities have no other means of subsistence. This requires the urgent reversal of the economic model based heavily on the extraction and export of a small number of raw materials to industrialised countries, which plunders the main sources of these countries’ wealth.
Recommendation: Elisabeth Köstinger (A7-0081/2012)
Damien Abad (PPE), in writing. – (FR) As a large consumer of products derived from timber, the European Union has defined an action plan for forest law enforcement, governance and trade (FLEGT). This action plan is being implemented through partnership agreements with producing countries such as Liberia. I voted in favour of this agreement, which will allow us to introduce a range of measures aimed at combating clandestine exploitation of forests by monitoring the supply chain and promoting sustainable practices.
Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report. Forests require partnerships for their resources to be better managed. As with the agreement on the same matter with the Central African Republic, it is important that the European Union adopt strict criteria for importing products from third countries, so that they meet the same quality standards as demanded of Europeans. This agreement could be a good model for other partnership agreements with third countries in a variety of economic sectors.
Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) In December 2005, the Council authorised the Commission to negotiate partnership agreements with timber-producing countries in order to implement the EU Action Plan on Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) and, in particular, to promote trade and imports of verified legal timber into the EU from these partner countries. As in the case of the Central African Republic, the European Commission has initiated negotiations with Liberia. In the same way, we want to ensure the legality of timber imports into the European Union, and this is why the agreement provides for the monitoring of the supply chain, a framework for monitoring legal compliance and a number of requirements in relation to independent auditing.
Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I welcomed the conclusion of the Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA) between the European Union and the Republic of Liberia on forest law enforcement, governance and trade in timber products to the European Union (FLEGT). Almost 45% of Liberia is covered by forest and the country is home to more than half of West Africa’s remaining rain forests. During the protracted civil war (1997-2003) timber revenues were used to fuel the conflict within the country, which led to UN Security Council imposed sanctions on Liberian timber imports. Sanctions were lifted in 2006 following a change in the political situation and reform in the forestry sector. This VPA and its licensing system will help provide assurances with regard to the legality of Liberian timber and reassure international markets that Liberian timber is produced legally. I welcome the calls in the European Parliament recommendation for more attention to be devoted to effective and timely VPA enforcement, including capacity building and participation of local communities, and for regular reporting on progress in the implementation of the VPA.
Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the conclusion of this agreement because I think that it will help encourage trade on the EU market and improve forest governance. I welcome that these Voluntary Partnership Agreements will increase transparency, strengthen civil society participation and stop illegal logging. I would like to mention that around 45% of Liberia’s land area is covered by forest. The country also hosts more than half of West Africa’s remaining rain forests. I welcome the efforts aimed at making the forestry sector sustainable and accountable, as well as the direct involvement of civil society, industry and the communities living in the forest. I think that the Voluntary Partnership Agreement with Liberia will make a positive contribution to development and economic growth in this country, while helping tackle forest degradation which has repercussions for climate change.
Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of the conclusion of a partnership agreement between the EU and the Republic of Liberia on forest law enforcement, because I believe that the agreement has very positive aims concerning a particularly sensitive sector for Liberia, given that timber revenues were used to fuel the conflict during the civil war, which ended in 2003.
The Republic of Liberia is committed to providing assurance that all timber products exported from Liberia are legally produced. In the hope that the Commission will monitor the effective compliance with the agreement on the part of the Liberian Government, I support the content of the agreement: the battle against illegal logging, improved regulation and application of forestry law, definition of traceability systems and controls.
Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this European Parliament recommendation on the conclusion of a Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA) between the European Union and the Republic of Liberia on forest law enforcement, governance and trade in timber products to the European Union because in this agreement Liberia has committed to establishing a system to provide assurance that all timber products exported from Liberia are legally produced. Furthermore, the Liberian definition of legal timber goes beyond the minimum product coverage of the VPA regime, from wood chips and logs to wooden furniture, and embraces aspects such as allocation of harvesting rights, workers’ rights, and environmental obligations. In Liberia, the approach followed in the VPA process was based on the active participation of various stakeholders with the direct involvement of both civil society and industry, as well as - for the first time - forest dwelling communities. This VPA takes into account the concerns and interests of these communities in particular. Furthermore, in the VPA process special attention has been given to the legality assurance system, independent auditing, the role of civil society in the monitoring of the agreement, as well as transparency and information exchange. The EU-Liberia VPA has therefore been developed in a transparent manner with most participants actively involved in the process so far, including all key forest stakeholders.
Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The Republic of Liberia is rapidly moving on from the less positive years in its history, thanks in particular to a number of reforms to the tax system and company law.
While it remains one of the less prosperous countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, Liberia has, however, considerably improved its economy, which is growing at an average rate of 6% a year. In this context, the Forest Law Enforcement Governance and Trade (FLEGT) Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA) can bring about significant positive results, because it involves an important sector of the Liberian economy, also in social, institutional and political terms.
From the point of view of building a more robust legal framework, a widespread system of opportunities (starting with the communities living in the areas of production), and greater integration of Liberia into international markets, which is a guarantee of political stability, the agreement undoubtedly represents an important and positive contribution. Therefore, I cannot but vote in favour of the proposed text.
John Bufton (EFD), in writing. − I chose to abstain from this vote as on principle, insuring the import of legally felled timber products is vital both for environmental sustenance and the preservation of fair trade. However I do not advocate EU legislation as the mechanism for these controls. It is also important to highlight that several third country negotiations with the EU in the past have been disadvantageous for the country concerned. With the propensity for corruption and liability of the timber trade to black market negotiations, I am not confident that the EU will ensure a system that is both watertight and effective
Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Illegally logging and trading in timber harms the competitiveness of legitimate forest industries in both exporter and importer countries by limiting these industries’ ability to operate in ways that promote sustainable forest management and sustainable development. This is particularly important in Liberia, since the country has been under UN sanctions on timber imports for some time, owing to the sector’s involvement in funding the civil war.
It should be noted that approximately 45% of the country is covered by forest. Therefore, this Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA) with the EU enables Liberia to respond simultaneously to the problems associated with logging and illegal trade, to improve forest sustainability and to expand EU market opportunities for timber. I also consider it positive that the VPA with Liberia has involved a multilateral approach, with a high rate of participation by civil society, industry and forest-area communities, and with particular attention being paid to the new system for verifying legality, to independent audits, to the transparency of the process, to information exchanges and to creating a joint implementation committee which will oversee the agreement.
Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report because I consider these voluntary partnership agreements the basis for an EU action plan on forest law enforcement, governance and trade. Liberia’s situation is very specific, since around 45% of its territory is covered by forest. The country’s efforts to reform the forestry sector should be recognised and encouraged.
Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Given that around 45% of the Republic of Liberia is covered by forest and that the country houses half the tropical forests that still exist in Western Africa, and since the majority of these forests were decimated during the 14-year civil war for the financing thereof, I can only welcome the efforts of the current President of Liberia to structure the forestry sector and create a legal framework enabling the sustainable marketing of his country’s timber. In this context, I warmly welcome the Voluntary Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Liberia on timber products.
José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Around 45% of Liberia’s territory is covered by tropical forest, timber from which was used to finance the armed conflict between 1997 and 2003, leading the UN Security Council to impose an embargo on timber from the country by 2006. This text concerns the draft Council decision on the conclusion of a Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA) between the European Union and Liberia on forest law enforcement, governance and trade (FLEGT) in timber and derived products to the European Union, in the context of the FLEGT action plan. This is an EU initiative intended to prevent illegally logged timber from entering the EU. In order for the EU-Liberia VPA – concluded 27 July 2011 – to come into force, it must first be adopted by the European Parliament. I am voting for this recommendation, because I consider it crucial that there be legislation promoting sustainability in the forestry sector and preventing indiscriminate logging. Moreover, this VPA will make a sustainable contribution to Liberia’s overall development.
João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) This report recommends the conclusion of the Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA) with Liberia on forest law enforcement, governance and trade in timber products (FLEGT). Like other FLEGT agreements, it is intended to solve the illegal logging problem, to help improve regulation, governance and law enforcement in these two countries’ forestry sectors, and to strengthen market opportunities for timber products in Europe. These VPAs are intended to provide third countries with national-level regulations for implementing systems for verifying conformity and traceability throughout the supply chain, as well as with logging rules and controls on export shipments. This will guarantee timber products originating in Liberia favourable access to the EU.
This entire approach is not lacking in contradictions. These agreements do not, on their own, constitute the solution to illegal logging. Like other African countries, Liberia is extremely poor. For this reason, the most important thing is to promote these countries’ development by supporting their economic diversification and by reversing an economic model based on the heavy dependence of exploiting and exporting a select number of raw materials to industrialised countries, which fosters neo-colonial relationships of dependence and subjugation, which lead to the plundering of resources.
Monika Flašíková Benová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) In December 2005, the Council authorised the Commission to negotiate a series of voluntary partnership agreements (VPA) with timber-producing and exporting countries to encourage trade in legally harvested timber and to improve forest governance. These bilateral agreements are a cornerstone of the EU Action Plan and are aimed primarily at halting illegal logging. Partner countries are committed to trade only in verified legal timber products into the EU. They are also developing their own systems to verify the legality of their timber exports to the EU. The agreement with Liberia, signed in July 2011, was the sixth such agreement to be negotiated. As with the previous VPAs, it is hoped that the one with Liberia will help improve governance and law enforcement in the country’s forestry sector. As well as establishing a partnership tool to enable Liberia to halt illegal deforestation and forest degradation contributing to climate change, this VPA should improve market opportunities for Liberian timber products in European and other international markets. I am inclined to grant Parliament’s consent to concluding this agreement. I think that it should be stressed that both Liberia and the European Commission will need to devote sufficient attention to the effective and timely enforcement of the agreement, including capacity building and participation of local communities.
Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. − I supported this report and welcome the VPA with Liberia. However, I echo the rapporteur’s comments and reiterate that ethical logging will only take place if there is adequate enforcement.
Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I welcomed the conclusion of the Agreement because like the previous voluntary partnership agreements (VPAs), it is hoped that this one with Liberia will help improve governance and law enforcement in the country’s forestry sector. Along with establishing a partnership tool to enable Liberia to halt illegal deforestation and forest degradation contributing to climate change, the VPA should improve market opportunities for Liberian timber products in European and other international markets. It can therefore be expected to contribute positively to Liberia’s overall development and growth
Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report which aims at implementing the European Union’s action plan for forest law enforcement, governance and trade. The European Parliament has thus consented to this agreement. This agreement with Liberia has the objective of developing forest management and combating illegal exploitation.
Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing. − I believe that the VPA with Liberia is all the more important because almost 45% of Liberia is covered by forest and the country hosts over half of West Africa’s remaining rain forests. The objective pursued through this VPA is to contribute to the protection of intact forest landscapes and to ensure that the local forestry sector engages in an environmentally and socially sustainable pathway, and that regular and efficient monitoring is put in place with respect to the VPA's implementation. For this reason, I voted in favour of this recommendation.
David Martin (S&D), in writing. − Like the previous voluntary partnership agreements, the hope is that the one with Liberia will help improve governance and law enforcement in the country’s forestry sector. Along with establishing a partnership tool to enable Liberia to halt illegal deforestation and forest degradation contributing to climate change, the VPA should improve market opportunities for Liberian timber products in European and other international markets, thereby also enabling it to contribute positively to Liberia’s overall development and growth. The EU-Liberia VPA is considered to have been developed in a transparent manner with, so far, the strongest participation, involving all key forest stakeholders. The various stakeholders will continue to be involved in the implementation and monitoring of the VPA and will thereby contribute to transparency, accountability and good governance in the sector. The challenges lie, however, with effective implementation and monitoring. In Liberia, the agreement is in the implementation stage yet is proceeding slowly. For Liberia, a critical point is capacity building, for which support from the EU and its Member States is needed.
Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In December 2005, the Council authorised the Commission to negotiate a series of voluntary partnership agreements (VPAs) with timber-producing and exporting countries, so as to encourage trade in legally logged timber onto the EU market and to improve forest governance in partner countries. These bilateral agreements are a cornerstone of the EU action plan on forest law enforcement, governance and trade to halt illegal logging. The VPAs commit partner countries to sell only verified legal timber products in the EU. In order to verify the legality of timber exports, the agreements establish the framework, institutions and systems of a licensing scheme, and set out supply chain controls, a framework for monitoring legal compliance and independent audit requirements. Under the VPAs and with the EU’s support, partner countries develop their systems to verify the legality of their timber exports to the EU. This agreement with Liberia is yet another step towards halting imports of illegal timber from African countries.
Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − These Voluntary Partnership Agreements are a cornerstone of the EU’s Action Plan on Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade. They establish partnerships with timber-producing and exporting countries aimed at halting illegal logging, promoting sound forest governance and ensuring that only legally-harvested timber reaches the EU market. I am sure the agreements are a partnership tool for improving forest governance. Partner countries and the Commission will thus need to devote sufficient attention to effective and timely enforcement. I voted in favour.
Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution, which welcomes the conclusion of the Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA) between the European Union and the Republic of Liberia on forest law enforcement, governance and trade in timber products to the European Union. Above all, the VPA will ensure that Liberian timber is legally produced because, due to certain violations in the past, Liberian timber has a bad reputation on international markets. Furthermore, it is essential to strengthen the legal framework in order to promote sustainable forest management and involve local communities in the decision-making process.
Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the European Parliament recommendation on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of a Voluntary Partnership Agreement between the European Union and Liberia on forest law enforcement, governance and trade in timber and derived products to the European Union. I did so because I believe that this partnership instrument will make a positive contribution to Liberia’s overall development and growth, and because it is expected to enable Liberia to halt illegal deforestation and forest degradation, which contribute to climate change.
Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. − (PT) These bilateral agreements are a cornerstone of the EU action plan on forest law enforcement, governance and trade to halt illegal logging. Like previous voluntary partnership agreements (VPAs), it is hoped that the agreement with Liberia will help to improve forest law enforcement and governance in the country. As well as creating a partnership instrument enabling Liberia to halt illegal deforestation and forest degradation, which contribute to climate change, the VPA should improve opportunities for Liberian timber products on European markets and other international markets. As such, and because I believe this agreement could contribute positively to Liberia’s overall development and growth, I voted in favour.
Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. Bilateral Voluntary Partnership Agreements (VPAs) with the main wood-producing countries are the cornerstone of the EU Action Plan on Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) to halt illegal logging. So far, the EU has concluded VPA/FLEGTs with Ghana, Congo, Cameroon and the Central African Republic. An agreement with Indonesia is pending. VPAs commit the partners to trade only in verified legal timber products imported into the EU. In order to verify the legality of timber exports, the VPA establishes the framework, institutions and systems of a licensing scheme and sets out supply chain controls. It also devises a framework for monitoring implementation. Liberia is an important partner. 45 per cent of the country is covered with forest and is home to half of West Africa’s remaining rain forests. During the civil war (1997-2003), timber revenues were used to fuel the conflict, which in turn led to UN sanctions against the Liberian timber trade. In 2006, Liberia reformed the forestry sector. Hence it already has in place a national wood traceability system on which the VPA is built. A joint implementation committee will be established to oversee the implementation of the agreement.
Tokia Saïfi (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Just as I declared myself in favour of the Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) agreements with Ghana, Congo and Cameroon, I supported the agreement with Liberia during this plenary session. This voluntary partnership system allows for the monitoring of the whole supply chain and, henceforth, a genuine improvement in trade conditions in the timber and derived products sector. For practical purposes, the agreement enhances transparency and civil society’s involvement, and aims at putting a stop to illegal exploitation. It must nevertheless be emphasised that the Liberian government has to show firm political will by supplementing the financial means provided by the other donors of the European Union to support communities and civil society organisations and by adopting a decree to confer legal status on the steering committee established by the agreement.
Matteo Salvini (EFD), in writing. − (IT) I am delighted to vote in favour of this agreement.
However, I have doubts about Liberia’s actual ability to respect the commitment it has made with Europe. The European Commission will have the task and the duty of monitoring in order to ensure that the forestry heritage of this country remains intact and that a stop is put to illegal logging, a real scourge afflicting the entire African continent. Therefore, my vote in favour was also meant as a vote of faith in the two parties to the agreement.
I sincerely hope that the forest law enforcement, governance and trade (FLEGT) measures, including this one, will be effective and useful for preserving nature and creating development in certain areas of the world.
Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Almost 45% of Liberia is covered by forest, and the country hosts over half of West Africa’s remaining rain forests. The protracted civil war, which lasted from 1997 to 2003, saw the forestry sector deeply involved. Timber revenues were used to fuel the conflict, which led to the imposition of sanctions by the UN Security Council on Liberian timber imports. Along with establishing a partnership tool to enable Liberia to halt illegal deforestation and forest degradation contributing to climate change, the Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA) should improve market opportunities for Liberian timber products in European and other international markets. Thereby it can be expected to contribute positively also to Liberia’s overall development and growth.
Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The Voluntary Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Liberia should help to improve forest law enforcement and governance in the country. As well as creating a partnership instrument enabling Liberia to halt illegal deforestation and forest degradation, the agreement should improve opportunities for Liberian timber products on European markets and other international markets. The main challenges now are its effective enforcement and monitoring. For Liberia, therefore, capacity building is a critical issue, which requires support from the EU and its Member States.
Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the draft Council decision on the conclusion of a Voluntary Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Liberia on forest law enforcement, governance and trade in timber and derived products to the European Union. Almost 45% of Liberia’s land area is covered by forest, and the country hosts more than half of West Africa’s remaining rain forests. The Timber Regulation, which will come into force in March 2013, aims at facilitating legitimate trade in timber products and providing a level playing field for all market participants. It will ban the sale in the EU of illegally harvested timber and products manufactured from this timber, under the rules of the country of origin. The regulation stipulates the obligations for operators who place timber or related products on the EU market. Its aim will be to guarantee legally-sourced products access to EU markets, while halting deforestation in Liberia. I call on the Commission to brief Parliament regularly on progress in implementing existing Voluntary Partnership Agreements and in negotiating and implementing new agreements.
Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. − This agreement has been set up in order to boost the legal and fair trade in harvested timber on to the EU market and improve legal and sustainable forest governance in partner countries. Almost 45 % of Liberia is covered by forest and the country hosts over half of West Africa’s remaining rainforests. Therefore it is in our common interest to protect this area against deforestation and I voted in favour of this recommendation.
Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted for the agreement between the European Union and Liberia on the application of forest law enforcement, governance and trade in timber and derived products because it is an important step in putting a stop to the illegal exploitation of forests.
In fact, the agreement, besides offering guarantees about the quality of imported wood, also offers increased transparency, especially with regard to production methods.
Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) This report recommends the conclusion of the Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA) with Liberia on forest law enforcement, governance and trade in timber products. These VPAs are intended to provide third countries with national-level regulations for implementing systems for verifying conformity and traceability throughout the supply chain, as well as with logging standards and controls on export shipments, in this case in relation to the forestry sector. However, we believe that the real way to combat illegal logging is to bring an end to poverty in these countries and promote their development by supporting their economic diversification and reversing an economic model based on heavy dependence on exploiting and exporting a select number of raw materials to industrialised countries, which fosters neo-colonial relationships of dependence and subjugation that lead to the plundering of resources.
Damien Abad (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the Hübner report which will allow countries in crisis to mobilise the risk-sharing instrument. Thanks to this instrument, these countries can redirect a portion of the regional funds allocated to them. These funds will be entrusted to the European Commission, which will conclude a risk-sharing partnership with the European Investment Bank (EIB). The objective is to guarantee risks incurred by private investors participating in projects which are part-financed by regional funds.
Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I am voting for this proposal, since it is particularly useful when this serious economic and social crisis is affecting the whole of Europe, especially the countries currently in receipt of outside aid, such as Portugal, Greece or Ireland. There is also a need to tackle those Member States whose financial stability is under threat, such as Spain and Italy, which could in turn affect the entire EU’s macroeconomic stability. Therefore, I also believe it is clear that the countries that I have mentioned will not be able to escape the crisis without the proper use of cohesion policy, with European cofinancing essential to generating reproductive investment projects. As I have always argued, this proposal will enable the transfer of part of the funds allocated to cohesion policy to these Member States in the 2007-2013 period. This could cover risks from loans and offering guarantees to project promoters, and the proposal, as it is, would not involve any changes to the overall allocation to the cohesion policy for the 2007-2013 period.
Antonello Antinoro (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I supported this proposal because it aims to make it possible to continue the programmes cofinanced by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the Cohesion Fund (CF), which are experiencing implementation difficulties in Member States involved in financial assistance programmes and dealing with problems of liquidity as a result of the continuing economic and financial crisis.
With this proposal the implementation of programmes funded by the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund, as well as continued access to funding for the projects, will be guaranteed for the six Member States meeting the conditions (Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Hungary, Romania and Latvia), although the situation in Greece is the most urgent.
The proposal contains provisions that would finally allow the creation of a risk-sharing instrument. The operation would affect resources already allocated to the Member State in question at the beginning of the 2007-2013 programming period under cohesion policy without the need for any increase, and therefore would not have any additional impact on the EU budget.
It is a neutral step as far as the EU budget is concerned, and is one of the measures for tackling the emergency situation that has arisen in Greece, so the regulation needs to come into force as soon as possible in order to be able to unblock projects that could potentially be involved.
Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The risk-sharing instrument has the potential to increase the participation of the private sector in the financing of important projects in European countries particularly affected by the crisis in order to create employment and growth. I therefore gave my approval, so that Greece, followed by the other countries in difficulties, can relaunch large-scale infrastructure projects which have been hampered by a lack of liquidity and by the cautiousness of banks and private investors. As a result of my experience with the Cohesion Fund, I can confirm that the uncommitted money from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) will act as a solid guarantee for Greece to cover part of the risks associated with private borrowing. This is, then, an instrument for sharing risk between the Commission and the European Investment Bank. ‘The austerity packages in the economies most affected by the crisis have not generated growth because of dysfunctions in the banking sectors and because of the fear of excessively large risks. As a consequence, there is an urgent need to release loans from the European Investment Bank (EIB) and to provide guarantees allowing for the involvement of the private sector in projects that bring growth and employment,’ my colleague in charge of the report, Mrs Hübner, has quite rightly emphasised.
Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I welcomed this report. In the Member States most affected by the financial and economic crisis, namely, Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Romania, a number of strategic projects which have been selected for cofinancing under cohesion policy programmes 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. This regulation will make the implementation of cohesion policy projects an exception in order to ensure consistent growth and development in the Member States mentioned when implementing infrastructure and investment projects in future.
Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. − (IT) I support the report by Ms Hübner amending the regulation on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the European Social Fund (ESF) and the Cohesion Fund (CF), because of the global economic crisis.
These amendments will allow Member States that have experienced serious difficulties to be able to use part of the financial resources of these funds to create tools capable of ensuring better economic recovery.
Member States requesting to do so will have to provide adequate guarantees and present actual investment projects. Furthermore, the European Investment Bank will be in charge of supervision, ensuring additional controls. This is an exceptional and temporary measure, which will not involve additional allocations to those already provided for by cohesion policy, and will come to a natural end once the crisis situation has passed.
Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this report because the European Commission’s proposal is aimed at ensuring the continuation of the implementation of the programmes cofinanced by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) with a view to the economic recovery of the Member States receiving financial assistance. The European Union is currently being confronted with a persistent economic and financial crisis that is not only affecting the macroeconomic stability of many Member States but also access to finance across the whole European Union. This is jeopardising the implementation of cohesion policy programmes as the liquidity problems being faced by financial institutions is limiting the amount of financing available for the public and private stakeholders carrying out the underlying projects. The provisions of the Commission’s proposal on establishing risk-sharing instruments are 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. The measure proposed is an exception to the normal framework in which cohesion policy is implemented, justified only by the exceptional circumstances imposed by the crisis. It aims therefore to cover part of the risks associated with lending to banks or to project promoters in the Member States experiencing or threatened with serious difficulties with respect to their financial stability, in order to maintain the involvement of private investors and to overcome important obstacles faced in implementing cohesion policy programmes.
Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The report clearly indicates that the reasons for this additional amendment to Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 lie with the situation that has arisen in some Member States receiving assistance from the European Union or the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
The EU institutions must make a commitment to analyse the developments of events during the crisis and quickly adopt effective measures to deal with the new situations, especially in cases in which important stabilisation operations have been put at risk by the change in the general framework, and especially when the private funding necessary for investments in recovery is no longer available.
Failing to take appropriate action could put the entire recovery strategy at risk, and would mean not honouring the moral obligation to citizens of the Member States having to deal with the negative social repercussions of the stabilisation measures adopted as part of structural reforms in an emergency situation, without the necessary political and cultural mediation processes.
This further amendment governing risk-sharing instruments is therefore an example of dynamism and rapid, effective political action that is prudent in the type and purpose of the measures involved. I voted in favour of the report.
Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The European Union is currently facing a persistent economic and financial crisis which is affecting not only the macro-economic stability of many Member States, but also their access to finance across the whole Union. This measure is intended to find a solution to the serious problems faced by some Member States in raising the private funding needed to implement infrastructure and productive investment projects which can only be part-financed by public funds. The Commission’s proposal concerns only revenue-generating projects, since the investment costs covered by revenues are not eligible for EU cofinancing. In the Member States hardest hit by the financial and economic crisis, a number of strategic projects which have been selected for cofinancing under cohesion policy programmes 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 investment risks in the current climate.
John Bufton (EFD), in writing. − I voted against the creation of a risk-sharing instrument to enable the full absorption of regional funds through private match funding, although it is not objectionable in its purposes. What concerns me is the fact that the Commission has had to resort to the creation of such a facility to underwrite loans from the private sector due to the ongoing crisis in the Eurozone. 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. As a result 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 states concerned, while failing to address the endemic ideological problems that are the authors of the ongoing fiscal crisis.
Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The adoption of the Hübner report is very good news for the return to growth in the Union. I am satisfied with the introduction of the new instrument for sharing risks associated with the granting of loans. This should allow us to release new financing from the private sector. I agree with the rapporteur that we need to enhance the financial assistance mechanisms in such a way as to facilitate productive investments. This report puts forward some common-sense measures in the face of the difficulties encountered by Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Romania. I note that the Council approves Parliament’s position. That shows once again that this report is balanced and that it responds to a need.
Emer Costello (S&D), in writing. − This report is welcomed as a flexible solution to problems posed by financial instability. It would make little sense, either to the EU or member-states, for infrastructural projects which are currently under construction, and part-funded by EU funds, to go uncompleted. Though the Irish Government does not intend availing of the new risk-sharing provisions, the more flexible solution sought and achieved on this occasion is noted and welcome.
Andrea Cozzolino (S&D), in writing. − (IT) The report proposes to help the Member States most affected by the financial crisis and unable to guarantee the necessary private funding for completing revenue-generating infrastructures. Private partners are not in a position to invest due to liquidity problems and the difficulties in accessing loans, so part of individual Member States’ financial allocations to the Commission is to be transferred in order to create a fund to cover the risks linked to the loans. This means that, in order to allow the completion of ongoing works, some Member States will in fact deprive themselves of part of their allocated funds. As far as we are concerned, while we support the instrument, we should have preferred intervention of a more structural nature for dealing with the endemic lack of liquidity in many Member States, in order to improve expenditure performance and avoid having to resort to drastic measures that could reduce resources. In this regard we are convinced that these difficulties could be overcome by introducing a derogation from the Stability and Growth Pact, in order to allow the national cofinancing of projects considered particularly important for economic recovery and job creation.
Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I welcome the Commission’s proposal and think that its aim is to ensure the continuing implementation of the programmes cofinanced by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund in the context of the economic recovery of the Member States receiving financial assistance.
Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported the adoption of this report, which will allow countries whose financial stability is under threat from speculators to obtain aid allowing them to regain the confidence of lenders and thus to maintain their investment projects. I am pleased at the introduction of a ceiling limiting risks for lenders. In this way, the Union is supporting its countries in the face of this crisis while trying to regain the confidence of the markets.
Tamás Deutsch (PPE), in writing. − (HU) The protracted economic and financial crisis calls into question the macroeconomic stability of certain countries.
The budgetary and debt crises of the Member States concerned have resulted in extreme situations where these countries are unable to implement key projects in the framework of cohesion and structural policy. The banking sector has been showing little willingness to provide financing, while private investors are also unavailable.
The severely affected countries are unable to generate growth, and in some of them investments have stopped due to a lack of private sector cofinancing.
The private sector definitely needs to be involved in the implementation of infrastructure projects. Europe needs growth, which can only be achieved if we ensure the absorption of the resources of the European Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund in the form of risk-sharing instruments in the various regions of the European Union.
Synergies between the funds must be enhanced, as this is the only way to ensure their efficient utilisation.
The rules on cofinancing and state aid are extremely rigid. Raising the percentage of cofinancing to 95% offered some measure of help, but it is still not sufficient. The framework for the implementation of cohesion policies must be re-evaluated, and these risk-sharing options must be applied wherever problems justified by the crisis emerge.
This legislative proposal not only serves to assist Greece but several other Member States afflicted by the crisis as well. This risk-sharing instrument will allow Member States quick and effective implementation, and the continuation of already initiated projects. At the same time, risk sharing means that the European Commission and the European Investment Bank will be able to take joint action to involve more effectively private sector investments as well in the implementation of projects.
Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I voted for this report, since its purpose is to help the Member States most affected by the crisis by enabling them to implement projects financed by the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund. This proposal will enable the transfer of funds allocated to cohesion policy to these Member States, so as to cover risks relating to loans and offer guarantees to project promoters.
Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. − (PT) There are currently several countries in receipt of aid from the European Union and the International Monetary Fund. This revision of the regulation – the third since the economic crisis started – is intended to ensure the continuation and implementation of programmes cofinanced by the European Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund, in the context of the bailed-out Member States’ economic recovery.
As such, the intention is to create a temporary implementation system within the framework of these two programmes by creating a risk-sharing mechanism, so as to prevent the total paralysis of infrastructure projects because of a lack of private cofinancing. It should be said that the only projects eligible for finance on the basis of the risk-sharing mechanism will be those that have been approved by the European Investment Bank or similar institutions, thereby ensuring that only income-generating and economically viable projects will be taken on. Finally, I welcome this initiative, which I hope will be as successful as similar ones have previously been.
José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) This report concerns 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. This is a very important measure that takes account of the needs of the Member States in difficulty, since it will promote economic development and job creation. There are very important development projects that are being blocked by a lack of liquidity. I voted for this proposal, which has no effect on the EU budget because there is no increase in the related allocation, since I believe the European Union should support the Member States that, owing to the economic and financial crisis we are experiencing, are finding it hard to cofinance investment projects supported with EU funding and are running the risk, not just of having to return the money, but also of being penalised. Finally, I hope that the European Investment Bank and the Commission will quickly finalise all the procedural issues, so that the Member States will be able to benefit from this measure.
João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) This proposal includes provisions enabling the creation of a risk-sharing mechanism, based on authorising the transfer of capital from the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund, and from the Member States, to the European Commission; that is, transferring part of the financial allocations to the countries in difficulty, thereby reducing the overall allocations remaining to them. The goal is to concentrate this capital in the European Investment Bank (EIB) to cover losses – foreseen and unforeseen – from loans and guarantees.
So-called risk sharing is being established between the EIB and other national or international financial institutions, public or private, which will issue loans to projects’ investors and to banks, with a view to providing private cofinancing for projects implemented with contributions from the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund. As we said during the debate, there are other ways of overcoming the severe limitations on private investment. These ways involve, not reducing – in practice – the overall financial package for these countries, but rather increasing it. This is, therefore, yet another uniquely European exercise in ‘solidarity’. Moreover, the example given by the rapporteur of the type of projects to be funded is enlightening: finance for building toll motorways, to be operated by private companies.
Monika Flašíková Benová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The extensive global financial crisis and economic downturn has severely disrupted economic growth and financial stability and has caused a significant deterioration in financial and economic conditions in several Member States. Although important measures to offset the negative impact of the crisis have already been taken, it continues to have a serious impact on the real economy, the labour market and citizens. A Member State which is in difficulties, or is threatened with difficulties because of exceptional circumstances beyond its control, may receive financial assistance from the European Union. Following the two previous proposals for amending the regulation brought forward in response to the current economic and financial crisis, the Commission proposes a third amendment that lays down provisions for the creation of a risk-sharing instrument. According to the proposal that has been presented, in order to implement the risk-sharing instrument, it would be permitted to transfer part of the financial allocations available to these Member States that are experiencing or threatened with serious difficulties with respect to their financial stability back to the Commission. At the same time, the aim is to ensure the continued implementation of the programmes cofinanced by the European Regional Development Fund and Cohesion Fund in the context of the economic recovery of the Member States under financial assistance. I believe, however, that only projects for which a positive financing decision has been taken by the European Investment Bank or similar institutions are eligible for finance under the risk-sharing instrument.
Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE), in writing. − (HU) The European Union is currently facing a lasting economic and financial crisis, which affects not only the macroeconomic stability of several Member States, but also access to financing throughout the EU. This also jeopardises the implementation of cohesion policy programmes, as the liquidity problems of financial institutions limit the amounts of funding available to state and private sector participants involved in implementing the projects concerned. I agree with the rapporteur of the report that the lack of liquidity faced by the financial sector is not limited to the countries that have received financial assistance from the European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism or the Balance of Payments mechanism. This is why we are seeing that managers of infrastructure and productive investments in all Member States consider the reduction of their sources of finance as one of their primary problems. I believe that the possibility of extending the risk-sharing mechanisms to be created to all Member States will increase investment in growth and job creation throughout the EU through the use of Structural and Cohesion funds that could otherwise remain unabsorbed by the end of the current programming period. Since I, too, find all of this important, I voted in favour of the report.
Jacky Hénin (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) Cohesion policy is the only real mechanism available to the European Union to redistribute wealth. The richest countries, through these funds, participate in the development and development programmes of the poorest regions. This policy should be maintained to fulfil the objective it has always been set: to combat disparities in wealth between the regions of Europe.
The economic crisis which has struck the Union hits the poorest and most underdeveloped regions hardest. These regions need to pursue public investment more than ever to combat the harmful effects of the crisis. Since the beginning of the crisis we have been calling on the Commission to abandon the principle of cofinancing for the poorest regions of the European Union and those in greatest difficulty, and to finance 100% of programmes set up since 2007 by the regions in greatest difficulty.
Unfortunately, this is not the chosen solution. The Commission intends to continue to fund projects which should have been funded through its cohesion policy through lending and through the continued debt of the Member States and the regions in greatest difficulty. We strongly reject this approach.
Brice Hortefeux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Parliament has approved the amending regulation intended to combat the crisis by using Structural Funds to help financially those Member States experiencing or threatened with serious financial difficulties. These are states which are currently receiving financial assistance, particularly Greece. These risk-sharing instruments should assist in raising the private financing needed to implement infrastructure and productive investment projects which can only be part-financed by public funds. At times of crisis, there is a strong likelihood that private investors will withdraw. That is why the European Union is proposing, with the support of the European Investment Bank (EIB), to cover part of the risks associated with lending to banks and to project promoters in these distressed states to allow these revenue-generating projects to be completed. This support mechanism is not unconditional. The budget ceiling of the risk-sharing instrument has been set in advance and only projects approved by the EIB can benefit from this support.
Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. − I was disappointed that my own group’s amendment encouraging renewable energy projects was not adopted. My own party is committed to supporting the development of such projects, and Scotland stands to become a global leader in the renewables revolution.
Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I welcomed this document because it is aimed at ensuring the continuation of the implementation of the programmes cofinanced by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) with a view to the economic recovery of the Member States receiving financial assistance. The measure is intended to address the serious obstacles faced by some Member States in raising the private financing needed to implement infrastructure and productive investment projects which can only be part-financed by public funds. In the Member States most affected by the financial and economic crisis, a number of strategic projects which have been selected for cofinancing under cohesion policy programmes 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 proposed is an exception to the normal framework in which cohesion policy is implemented, justified only by the exceptional circumstances imposed by the crisis. It aims therefore to cover part of the risks associated with lending to banks or to project promoters in the Member States experiencing or threatened with serious difficulties with respect to their financial stability, in order to maintain the involvement of private investors and to overcome important obstacles faced in implementing cohesion policy programmes.
Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report on the creation of risk-sharing instruments for Member States experiencing or threatened with serious difficulties with respect to their financial stability. The creation of such instruments can encourage private sector participation in financing projects in European countries in difficulties in order to revive employment and growth. Thus, countries such as Ireland, Greece and Portugal will be able to take advantage of these provisions.
Krišjānis Kariņš (PPE), in writing. – (LV) I supported the resolution on a proposal for a regulation 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. The regulation applies to those European Union states in receipt of funding from international lenders. It provides Member States the possibility of obtaining additional funds for Structural Funds and Cohesion Fund projects, which they can no longer attract as a result of the economic downturn and the freeze in the banking sector. I took an active part in the drafting of this regulation. In the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) (PPE), I was responsible for drafting our opinion on this regulation, which was submitted to the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, of which I am a member. Working with other political groups, I was able to ensure that all the amendments I submitted in Committee were passed.
Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of the report by Ms Hubner because I believe that at a time of crisis such as the one we are currently experiencing, the establishment of a risk-sharing instrument at European level is step that is more than ever necessary. The definition of such an instrument involves the definition of specific rules and criteria that will have to be met in order to have access to the risk-sharing fund, rules identified in close collaboration with the European Investment Bank. Rules are also to apply to the eligibility of each Member State to take part in this instrument, which will be operational at European level. There is no doubt that at a historic moment of economic, but also social crisis, this initiative will strengthen Parliament’s role and importance on a democratic level, but also, and especially, it will restore its role as a guarantor of solidarity between Member States, which is crucial if we are to emerge from the financial crisis we are currently experiencing.
Agnès Le Brun (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Due to insecure financial stability, many EU Member States are struggling to raise the private financing needed to implement infrastructure and productive investment projects, without which there can be no growth. I therefore welcome the fact that Parliament has adopted the proposal from the Commission aimed at creating a risk-sharing instrument to reassure private operators and thereby encourage them to contribute to the recovery of the economy.
Constance Le Grip (PPE) , in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report. In this text, Parliament proves that it is fully aware of the successive crises that we have just experienced and that it is creatively exploring ways and means to get out of this situation. I also welcome the creation of a risk-sharing instrument to cover part of the risks associated with lending to banks. This would allow an increase in private sector participation in financing projects in European countries in difficulties and thereby revive employment and growth. Those European countries most affected by the crisis will be able to benefit from this macroeconomic support.
Marian-Jean Marinescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this report because I support the proposal for creating synergy between the loan programmes and EU funds in Member States receiving financial assistance from the European Union or International Monetary Fund. Member States face major obstacles in terms of attracting the private funding needed to implement investment and infrastructure projects which can only be part-financed by public funds. In this context, the report is of paramount importance as it provides a framework which is intended to mitigate the risks associated with loans granted to banks or with project sponsors in Member States experiencing problems with financial stability. It is crucial that we hold on to the private investors who are involved, and we must ensure that we keep all the obstacles preventing the cohesion programmes’ implementation to a minimum. The report marks an important step towards doing this.
David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I welcome the proposal and note that the aim is to ensure the continuation of the implementation of the programmes cofinanced by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) in the context of economic recovery of the Member States under financial assistance. I consider that some elements of the proposal should be clarified and amendments tabled aimed at clarifying the text, with the addition of a definition of a risk-sharing instrument (in line with the recent compromise proposal for a Financial Regulation text) together with a detailed description of the procedure to be applied in order to establish and implement a risk-sharing instrument based on the legal patterns of existing risk-sharing instruments in other Union policies. Furthermore, the rapporteur suggests inserting a new Article 36a for better legal drafting purposes, as well as structuring the article in paragraphs and sub-paragraphs.
Clemente Mastella (PPE), in writing. − (IT) In the Member States most affected by the economic and financial crisis, a number of strategic projects that have been selected for cofinancing under cohesion policy programmes 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 risk of investing in the present circumstances.
The risk-sharing instrument is therefore an exception to the normal implementation framework and aims to cover part of the risks associated with lending to banks or to project promoters in the Member States experiencing or threatened with serious difficulties with respect to their financial stability.
We welcome this proposal, which aims to ensure the continuation of the implementation of the programmes cofinanced by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF). However, we consider that only projects for which a positive financing decision has been taken by the European Investment Bank (EIB) or similar institutions, and revenue-generating and state-aid projects already included in the operational programmes of the Member States concerned should be eligible for finance under the risk-sharing instrument.
Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this text, which is an additional response to the current economic and financial crisis. Indeed, in these exceptional circumstances, the text proves to be an exception to the framework in which cohesion policy is implemented. The new provisions will allow Member States which so request to transfer part of their regional funding directly to the Commission. In this way, the risks associated with a regional project can be shared between a financial institution and the Commission. This provision aims to persuade private investors to contribute to regional development projects.
Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. − This proposal aims to assist Member States in receipt of financial assistance under Programmes (currently Portugal, Romania and Ireland as well as Greece) in addressing serious obstacles in raising the private financing needed in order to implement infrastructure and productive investment projects which can only be part-financed by public funds. I voted in favour of the report.
Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The Commission and the European Investment Bank were asked by the heads of state and government of the euro area, in July 2011, to enhance the synergies between the loan programmes and EU funds in those Member States under EU or IMF assistance at the time the modification enters into force. The measure is intended to address the serious obstacles faced by some Member States in raising the private finance needed to implement infrastructure and productive investment projects, which can only be part-financed by public funds. I consider this a sound measure, enabling the bailed-out Member States to continue investing in infrastructure and productive investment projects.
Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − The purpose of this amendment is to help those Member States most affected by the financial crisis to continue with the implementation of programmes under the Structural and Cohesion Funds. With the financial and economic crisis increasing the pressure on national financial resources and Member States consolidating their budgets, a smooth implementation of cohesion policy programmes is a tool for injecting funds into the economy. In reality some countries are forgiven their debts while others have to pay them back with interest.
Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) Following the previous two proposals amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006, which were a response to the economic and financial crisis of the time, the Commission is now proposing a third amendment, which is intended to supplement the regulation with provisions relating to the establishment of a risk-sharing instrument. By this means, even more money is to be pumped into Member States like Ireland, Greece, Portugal and Romania, which have already received generous loans. The intention here is supposedly to overcome the credit crunch in order to enable the implementation of infrastructure and investment projects which can only be part-financed by public funds. Based on the fact that hundreds of billions of euros have already been poured into these states and their banks, and in light of the fact that EU subsidies for infrastructure projects have already been increased from 50% to 85%, this is not a welcome move. At some point we need to say ‘enough is enough’ here, particularly when we remember that the money has not always been put to proper use in the past in the aforementioned states. In view of the enormous budget deficits of the net contributors, who are themselves being forced into taking drastic austerity measures, it is unreasonable to expect the citizens in these states to continue to put up with this. I therefore voted against this report.
Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) This report enables the EU to create a risk-sharing instrument for the countries receiving financial assistance, thereby providing a tool for facilitating future investments in countries experiencing financial problems. Using the Structural Funds as a guarantee fund to make it easier to finance infrastructure projects and attract private investors is a suitable economic measure which could benefit in the future a large number of countries facing difficulties.
Younous Omarjee (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) Cohesion policy is the only real mechanism available to the European Union to redistribute wealth. The richest countries, through these funds, participate in the development of the poorest regions. This policy should follow the objective it has always been set: to combat disparities in wealth between the regions of Europe.
The economic crisis hits the poorest and most underdeveloped regions hardest. Now more than ever, these regions need to pursue public investment to combat the harmful effects of the crisis.
Since the beginning of the crisis, we have been calling on the Commission to abandon the principle of cofinancing for those regions of the European Union in the greatest difficulties. We are calling on the Commission to provide 100% funding for programmes planned since 2007 by those regions of the European Union in the greatest difficulties. Unfortunately, this is not the chosen solution. The Commission intends to continue to fund projects which should have been funded through its cohesion policy through lending and through the continued debt of the states and regions in the greatest difficulty. I reject that.
Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution. At this critical time when there is a lack of financial resources it is essential to help the Member States implement Structural Fund programmes and infrastructure projects that may have a genuine and rapid impact on the economy and increase employment. It should be noted that it will be easier for the European Investment Bank or other international institutions to approve loans intended to cofinance public projects with private contributions when it is impossible to obtain such loans because Member States face problems with respect to their financial stability. I believe that we should ensure that only projects that have a clear positive impact on local economies and labour markets and for which a favourable financing decision is taken by the EIB should be accepted as eligible for financing through an established risk-sharing instrument.
Justas Vincas Paleckis (S&D), in writing. − Economic crisis became a challenge for the European Union. Member states do not face it independently one from another, it threatens all the Union. That's why we have to be flexible to respond efficiently. I welcome efforts done by the Commission and the rapporteur on this way. The new measure proposed is designed to respond to specific problems in specific circumstances. Previous measures have foreseen austerity for member states in difficulties. But it is not enough. In Greece there is 50% youth unemployment. To tackle this and other social and economic problems, the countries in crisis need growth. And the EU should help them, it should reform its instruments in order to have possibility to boost economies.
Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. — (IT) Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Hungary, Romania and Latvia are the EU countries involved in financial assistance programmes as a result of the economic crisis, and they are the countries for which the Commission has advanced the proposal outlining the risk-sharing instrument that would make it possible to continue with implementation of programmes funded by the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund for the period 2007-2013. Parliament approved the proposal, thanks also to my vote. The text includes the possibility of transferring the funds allocated to the Member State back to the direct management of the Commission so that agreements can be entered into with financial institutions (the European Investment Bank), which will guarantee the resources for safeguarding the investments without any additional costs. This will curtail the risk of losing the funds already allocated to Member States for cohesion policy.
Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of the report and supported the compromise achieved with the Council following the failure of the Commission’s previous two proposals. This agreement makes provision for greater synergies between loan programmes and Union funds in Member States under Union or International Monetary Fund assistance when the amendment enters into force, which is an important point for Greece. This measure relates directly to my country, as it will make it easier to raise the private financing needed to implement infrastructure projects and productive investments that can only be financed partly with public money. This will allow major projects, such as motorways, to start up again and be completed.
Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I voted for this report on certain provisions relating to risk-sharing instruments for Member States experiencing or threatened with serious difficulties with respect to their financial stability because I agree with this instrument’s objective, which is that of ensuring continued implementation of the programmes cofinanced by the European Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund in the context of economic recovery of the Member States under financial assistance.
Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − Abstention. The risk-sharing instrument shall be applicable for the rest of the cohesion policy programming period 2007-2013. The risk-sharing instrument shall only be applicable in Member States that have been granted financial assistance according to one of the mechanisms set out in Article 77(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 as amended by Regulation (EU) No 1311/2011. Currently, this applies to four Member States: Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Romania. The Commission is reported as stating that Greece is the only country which has so far expressed interest in the instrument and that the Commission would also not have enough administrative capacity to cope with projects from more than one Member State. The instrument is only applicable as long as the Member States fall within the financial assistance mechanism. Our group has considered as problematic a first-reading agreement text in trilogues before even the official compromise negotiations for the vote in the Committee on Regional Development started.
Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted for this text because I consider the creation of a financial instrument of this kind to be a priority.
I believe it is necessary to make a commitment in order to tackle the serious difficulties encountered by some Member States in collecting the private financing needed to implement infrastructure and productive investment projects that can only be part-financed by public funds.
It is important to point out that the measure proposed is an exception to the normal framework in which cohesion policy is implemented, justified only by the exceptional circumstances imposed by the current crisis. It still aims therefore to cover part of the risk associated with lending to banks or to project promoters in the Member States.
Amalia Sartori (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The recent financial crisis has affected many EU Member States, some of which have been hit harder than others.
I voted for the report by Ms Hübner and I fully support the guidelines of the text, the primary objective of which is to help and support Member States in difficulty. The above measures are crucially important in the present crisis. They will allow the implementation of important infrastructure projects of fundamental importance for Member State revenues and for maintaining jobs.
In this way, the EU can guarantee its support to Member States that are in difficulty, ensure that its aid is not lost, and provide guarantees to Member States that are net contributors.
Monika Smolková (S&D), in writing. – (SK) Risk-sharing instruments are for Member States most affected by the economic crisis, and a number of strategic projects selected for cofinancing from the cohesion policy are under threat – programmes funded by the European Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund. The measure is intended to cover part of the risk associated with lending to banks or to those who submit projects in Member States which are experiencing or threatened with difficulties with respect to their financial stability. Currently, the most vulnerable country is Greece, but other countries may also have similar problems in the future, and I therefore supported this Commission proposal and the resolution.
Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I welcome the European Commission proposal to facilitate even further cofinancing for programmes under the European Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund, which will contribute to overcoming the obstacles to mobilising the necessary private financing. I voted for this means of strengthening the risk-sharing mechanism for Member States in or threatened by serious financial stability problems, such as Portugal, and I hope this will be able to contribute to their economic recovery.
Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. − I fully support these proposals to introduce risk-sharing instruments to help regional development projects to continue in Member States that are under EU or IMF assistance. It is vital that these instruments are used to encourage private investment in funded projects in order to generate employment and growth in struggling economies such as Greece. European regional funding provides an important economic boost by contributing to projects that improve social and economic cohesion throughout the EU. In times of economic difficulty, some regions struggle to find match funding, and this is why these risk-sharing instruments will be vital in promoting potential private investment.
Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. − The measure proposed in this report is intended to address the serious obstacles faced by some Member States, raising the private financing needed to implement infrastructure and productive investment projects. The current proposal contains provisions that would allow the creation of a risk sharing instrument. The objective would be to provide capital contributions to cover expected and unexpected losses of loans and guarantees to be extended under a risk-sharing partnership with the European Investment Bank and/or other financial institutions, to which I fully agree. The measured proposed is an exception to the normal framework in which cohesion policy is implemented, justified only by the exceptional circumstances imposed by the crisis.
Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) The objective of this proposal establishing so-called risk sharing is for the European Investment Bank and other national or international financial institutions – public or private – to issue loans to projects’ investors and to banks, with a view to providing private cofinancing for projects implemented with contributions from the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund. However there is a serious problem with this proposal: this transfer of capital from the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund to the European Commission will decrease the overall financial package for the Member States, which is highly damaging to them. What was actually necessary was to increase the allocation of funds to these countries.
Opinion from the Court of Justice on the compatibility with the Treaties of the Agreement between the United States of America and the European Union on the use and transfer of Passenger Name Records to the United States Department of Homeland Security B7-0200/2012
Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) This week, we reached an agreement on a sensitive issue: the transfer of Passenger Name Records (PNR) from the European Union to the United States. I voted in favour of the Court of Justice of the European Union’s opinion on the compatibility of the agreement between the United States of America and the European Union on the use and transfer of PNR data from the European Union to the United States, which was the subject of this vote.
Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I believe the present EU-US agreement seeks to achieve a reasonable balance between protecting European citizens’ rights and the necessary security guarantees which ultimately benefit us all. I cannot, therefore, vote for this motion for a resolution.
José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) This motion for a resolution, tabled by Ms Ernst on behalf of the Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left, concerns seeking an opinion from the Court of Justice on the compatibility with the Treaties of the EU-US Agreement on the use and transfer of Passenger Name Records to the US Department of Homeland Security. Following the tragic events of 11 September 2001, all airlines stepped up their security levels. For journeys between Europe and the United States, the latter started demanding a range of details about passengers which, to a certain extent, violated the data protection rights in force in the European Union – specifically, as regards personal data such as bank details, health conditions, etc. – as mentioned in the Court of Justice of the European Union’s opinion. However, the US has moved significantly towards the EU’s position in recent years. Moreover, and given the urgency, the new conditions are the best possible and bear no comparison with those that could be included in bilateral agreements. I therefore believe that the new agreement is better than the bilateral ones, so I voted against this motion for a resolution.
João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) This resolution, proposed by our group, critically questions the Passenger Name Record (PNR) Agreement’s legitimacy; the Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left is calling on the Court of Justice of the European Union to rule on the legality thereof. It should be recalled that the Court of Justice ruled before that the first agreement concluded by the Commission was illegal. We consider this agreement yet another act of EU subordination to the US, which is using the so-called ‘war on terror’ as a pretext for drifting further along the path of security and persecution; this path is no stranger to attempts to criminalise struggle and social protest, particularly at a time when the crisis of capitalism and its effects are especially pronounced. The majority of air passengers will not know what PNRs are: a register for identifying passengers. Moreover, they will not know how this register is currently used or the uses to which this agreement paves the way. With its important intervention in this debate, then, the GUE/NGL Group is making an incalculable contribution to reporting the content and consequences of this report, which is essential to boosting the necessary struggle and rejection of this intolerable attack on the public’s rights, freedoms and guarantees.
Monika Flašíková Benová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) A European legal framework allowing airlines to transfer Passenger Name Record (PNR) data has been adopted. In this context, an agreement was concluded between the United States and the European Union on the use of PNR data and its transfer to the United States Department of Homeland Security. Following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, the conclusion of new PNR agreements requires Parliament’s consent before such agreements can be finally adopted by the Council. The clear purpose of the agreement is to lay down conditions in accordance with which PNR data may be transferred, processed, used and protected. There is, however, legal uncertainty as to whether the draft agreement complies with EU data protection legislation, and thus as to whether it is compatible with the Treaties in this respect. I therefore consider it justified that the European Parliament has decided to seek an opinion from the Court of Justice of the European Union on the compatibility of the agreement with the Treaties.
David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted against this resolution because I believe the legislation on passenger name records requires a political and not a legal decision. Therefore no value would have been gained by referring this matter to the ECJ.
Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − The resolution states that there is legal uncertainty as to whether the draft agreement complies with EU data protection legislation and thus as to whether it is compatible with the EU Treaties. I voted against.
Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) The problems associated with the Passenger Name Records (PNR) Agreement are many and have already been discussed in detail elsewhere. It is therefore more than reasonable to allow this agreement, with which the Commission is once again sacrificing the rights of EU citizens on the altar of our so-called transatlantic cooperation, to be examined closely by the Court of Justice of the European Union. Whether this agreement is actually compatible with the EU Treaties and the Convention on Human Rights needs to be examined. If people claim that this PNR agreement is better than no agreement at all then that is indeed true, but only from the point of view of the airlines, because it will enable them to counter a complaint from a passenger that his or her fundamental rights have been violated by the transfer of data to the US authorities by pointing to this agreement. Thus, this agreement most definitely reduces the rights of EU citizens, which is why it is to be rejected in the strongest possible terms. I therefore voted in favour of the report proposing that the agreement be submitted to the Court of Justice of the European Union.
Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I welcome this resolution. I believe that it is necessary to go to the Court of Justice of the European Union over the EU-US Agreement on the use and transfer of Passenger Name Records to the US Department of Homeland Security. The restriction of any fundamental rights and freedoms must be necessary, proportionate and set by law. It should be noted that this agreement contains many legal uncertainties with regard to its compliance with EU data protection legislation. The purpose of the agreement and the data retention period are neither clear nor precise. I believe that the list of data that will be transferred should be reduced. There are doubts whether the Department of Homeland Security should process sensitive data.
Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I voted for this proposal on seeking an opinion from the Court of Justice of the European Union on the compatibility with the Treaties of the EU-US Agreement on the use and transfer of Passenger Name Records to the US Department of Homeland Security, because I believe several aspects thereof are worse than in the first agreement of 2004.
Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. A European legal framework allowing airlines to transfer passengers’ PNR data was established by Council Decision 2004/496/EC of 17 May 2004 on the conclusion of an Agreement between the European Community and the United States of America on the processing and transfer of PNR data by Air Carriers to the United States Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (9) (hereinafter ‘the Agreement’). It is clear to me that the EP should take the view that there is legal uncertainty as to whether the draft Agreement complies with EU data protection legislation and thus whether it is compatible with the Treaties in this respect. Furthermore, it questions the choice of legal basis, i.e. Articles 82(1)(d) and 87(2)(a) TFEU (police and judicial cooperation), rather than Article 16 TFEU (data protection).
Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) The EU-US Agreement on Passenger Name Records gives the US Department of Homeland Security access to a panoply of personal data on all passengers travelling to the United States or making connecting flights there. It is one of the documents adopted by Parliament that is most damaging to the public’s fundamental rights and freedoms. The resolution by the Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left critically questions the agreement’s legitimacy, including from a personal data-protection perspective, and calls on the Court of Justice of the European Union to rule on the legality thereof. We consider this agreement yet another act of EU subordination to the US, which is using the so-called ‘war on terror’ as a pretext for drifting further along the path of security and snooping, which could lead – is leading – to the persecution of all those who do not fall into line, who combat US imperialism, who think differently, and who even share ideas of social progress that contradict US interests. We would reiterate that we will do everything we can to prevent the implementation of this shameful agreement.
Damien Abad (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Since the attacks of 11 September, the United States have been stepping up checks on entry into their country, particularly flights to the United States. Thus, since 2007, a provisional agreement between the United States and the European Union has covered the transfer of passenger data from airlines to the United States Department of Homeland Security. This week, we voted to replace this agreement by another to which I gave my approval. This new agreement improves data protection standards for European passengers.
Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report. The new agreement is not perfect, but in the end it offers Europeans travelling to the United States more protection. Since 2007, there has been an agreement negotiated with the European Commission, along with a series of bilateral agreements with the United States with even more shortcomings. This is the best outcome of these negotiations to date, meaning we would keep a worse framework in place if this agreement were not adopted. It is currently possible to monitor its implementation and demand corrections or even its suspension, which is a development included in the Commission’s compromise text. It remains concerning, however, that European citizens have no access to judicial redress in the US. Nonetheless, in general terms, passenger records could be an instrument for combating terrorism and other types of organised cross-border crime; from this point of view, it is always important to make agreements like this that seek to respond to the challenges of our times.
Pino Arlacchi (S&D), in writing. − Mr President, I am strongly against this agreement. First of all, I would like to underline that this agreement is misleading as it make people believe that it is difficult for law enforcement agencies to access passenger data. This is not true, and the usefulness of the creation of this huge database for security purposes is equal to zero. This agreement is the outcome of the US strategy based on fear of the terrorist threat. It must be made clear that, on this subject, the mismatch between public perception and the reality is extreme. The data, however, speak for themselves and they show a very sharp decrease in terrorist attacks in recent years in every region of the planet. For this reason, I believe that consent to the EU-USA agreement on the use and transfer of PNR would be the umpteenth effect of the global hysteria spread by governments, arms trade conglomerates and media. Additionally, I am particularly concerned by many points left unsettled in the Agreement, such as the need to prove the necessity and proportionality of mass data collections, their bulk transfer and compliance with data protection rules and judicial control.
Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The transfer of Passenger Name Records from the European Union to the United States has been approved after much debate. Given that Europeans benefit from a visa waiver when they visit the United States, Washington has been asking us for some years now for the transfer of passenger data, as part of their fight against terrorism. These data comprise the passenger’s name, address and even seat number and baggage reference. The question that divided Parliament concerns the retention and use of these data. The new agreement provides for access to these data to be available for only six months and for them to be deleted definitively after five years. I voted in favour of this agreement because it provides better protection against terrorism while guaranteeing the respect of fundamental rights.
Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) We had resisted thus far in 2004 and 2007, but this time Parliament has given the green light to the EU-United States Passenger Name Record (PNR) Agreement, despite the opposition called for by rapporteur Ms in’t Veld. In line with Ms in’t Veld’s warning, I rejected this new agreement, which brushes aside the guarantees needed to ensure the protection of personal data and the respect for privacy that passengers deserve. The agreement essentially relies on blind confidence in the American authorities. Specifically, the data for the ‘named passengers’ will be stored for 15 years, and anonymised for an indeterminate period of time, without the possibility of real judicial redress outside United States territory. In other words, it is a clear denial of individual freedoms and quite simply legal madness. Such processing of passenger data is simply unacceptable, and is incompatible with the principles of proportionality and purpose, as personal and commercial data for an indeterminate number of individuals who are unsuspicious are processed for security purposes, in the fight against terrorism. There are considerable grounds for concern over the precedent that this agreement sets for future agreements of this nature with third countries.
Phil Bennion (ALDE), in writing. − I voted with my Liberal group in rejecting this agreement as a matter of principle. While the Commissioner and the rapporteur Sophie in ’t Veld worked extremely hard to secure a better agreement, it still fails to meet the minimum safeguards to citizens that we as representatives of European citizens must demand. Particularly the agreement fails to offer sufficiently strict limitations on the use of data, disproportionate retention periods and inadequate judicial redress.
I understand concerns some have expressed about having no agreement on the sharing of data attached to Passenger Name Records with the United States. It is my opinion that no agreement would have been a better option than signing up to a bad agreement.
Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. − (IT) I voted for this report on the conclusion of the Agreement between the United States of America and the European Union on the use and transfer of Passenger Name Records (PNR) to the United States Department of State.
The aim of these agreements is to facilitate the prevention and pursuit of crimes of terrorism, a phenomenon that has recently re-emerged, showing that the crisis sparked off by 11 September 2001 is absolutely not over.
Data sharing with the US therefore serves to guarantee passenger safety. At the same time, the agreements give European citizens the right to take legal action in the US in the event of data mismanagement, and allow travellers to ask for mistakes in data to be corrected. There is therefore no reason to oppose the conclusion of these agreements and I voted in favour.
Arkadiusz Tomasz Bratkowski (PPE), in writing. − (PL) In the context of discussions concerning the shape of the agreement between the USA and the EU on the use of passenger flight data and the provision of such data to the USA Department of Homeland Security, I would like to draw attention to the possible consequences of its rejection or adoption.
In the first scenario the flow of personal data would not be interrupted at all. Controls over this process could only be established by way of an agreement. In addition, one should take into account the difficulties facing EU citizens and companies if, for example, there were no direct flights from a particular European city to the United States. On the other hand, the adoption of the agreement, with all its limitations, would be a definite step forward compared to the 2007 agreements, since there would be a more clearly defined range of data provided, more restrictions on the time this information is kept, access to information and more rigorous rules concerning the way the data is used. In summary, I would suggest adopting the agreement in its present form as a starting point for further work and negotiations to bring about essential improvements to the provisions of the agreement.
John Bufton (EFD), in writing. − Whilst UKIP is fully in favour of effective measures against terrorism, we do not believe that the blanket storage of passenger details for prolonged periods is an effective tool in the fight against terrorism. The Commission has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that this is the best means of providing intelligence on terrorists. The proposal’s infringement of individual civil liberties is entirely disproportionate to its intentions. There is no indication that any alternatives have been considered. The new agreement does not appear to greatly improve upon the 2007 agreement. There are insufficient or no measures to properly protect privacy. There are strong suspicions that this is being proposed because more effective methods have been rejected by reason of political correctness.
Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I welcome the fact that Parliament has approved the Agreement between the European Union and the United States on the transfer of Passenger Name Records. I believe that we must facilitate the sharing of information in order to fight more effectively against international crime. However, this should be done totally transparently with respect for individual freedoms. The agreement reached here increases data security in comparison with the previous 2007 agreement. The retention period for the data has been reduced and passengers may at all times access their data and, if necessary, correct them. As far as the fight against terrorism is concerned, I believe that agreements between the European Union and a third country are more advantageous than bilateral agreements negotiated by Member States on an individual basis.
Françoise Castex (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted against this agreement. Although the fight against terrorism is a major challenge for the European Union as it is for its partners, we believe that it should not be pursued at the expense of the fundamental freedoms of citizens. However, this compromise, far from respecting the principle of proportionality, did not offer sufficient progress in terms of protecting privacy to persuade me to support it. All the more so as it appears to be difficult to gauge how effective the control and data storage measures are in the face of terrorist acts which are frequently not very sophisticated. Furthermore, while these data should strictly only be used as part of the fight against terrorism, in reality the purposes for which they can be used are very broad and very ill-defined. The retention period, the need for anonymisation and deletion, as well as the right of access, correction and deletion for the citizens concerned, are also important reasons for my rejection of this agreement. As Ms Guillaume pointed out, this is an unfortunate situation because this agreement should, on the contrary, have provided the opportunity to ensure that high data protection standards prevail, as behoves the European Union.
Lara Comi (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The agreements entered into between the European Union and the United States of America on transfers of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data are a considerable improvement on those negotiated in 2007. They include tighter regulations in order to protect passenger privacy, and allow data transfer solely for the purpose of combating terrorism and serious transnational crimes. Despite the fact that I agree with some of the concerns voiced by the rapporteur Ms in’t Veld, I feel her approach is counter-productive. Expressing a negative opinion in order to achieve more stringent regulations would only serve to undo all the Commission’s efforts in achieving this result. According to Commissioner Malmström, in fact, the agreements under examination represent the best possible result, and if Parliament does not approve them, it will not be possible to go back to the negotiating table. Given the importance of data transfer in the fight against terrorism, the individual Member States would therefore be forced to enter into bilateral agreements with the US, and as they would be in a weaker bargaining position, they would be unable to demand such favourable regulations for European citizens. This is why I voted in favour.
Emer Costello (S&D), in writing. − I am not convinced that the case for the wholesale automated transfer of US-bound PNR data has been proven. However, I believe that the Commission has negotiated the best agreement that is politically possible at the current time - the scope has been narrowed, retention periods reduced and there has been some movement on the 'push/pull' issue. Rejection of this agreement would have done nothing to stop the flow of data to the US. Indeed, it is unlikely that the 27 Member States could produce more satisfactory arrangements through the negotiation of 27 Bilateral arrangements with the US. EU citizens rights are better protected through this agreement and ratification does provide a single clear EU legal framework, with EP oversight, that can be reviewed. I would request that the Commission ensure a rigorous and robust assessment of this PNR agreement and report back to Parliament on this review.
George Sabin Cutaş (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The transfer of Passenger Name Records remains a controversial topic. Having said that, I did vote for the EU-US agreement in this area because I think that exchanging information is necessary for investigating cross-border criminal activities and protecting European citizens. The agreement also features important clauses on protecting, storing and deleting personal data. I could not have supported the agreement without these provisions.
Rachida Dati (PPE) , in writing. – (FR) I voted for the Passenger Name Record (PNR) Agreement between the European Union and the United States. This agreement is necessary both to guarantee our security, and also to better protect our personal data. It is true that the agreement does not address all the concerns raised on several occasions by Parliament. However, we should note the flexibility of the US authorities and the major progress that has been made, particularly as regards the obligation to inform passengers of their right to access the data and also of their right of judicial redress. Had we refused to approve this agreement, there would have been unjustifiable legal insecurity which would be damaging to European citizens. A large majority of MEPs understood this and responsibly voted for this agreement.
Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported the adoption of this report which, after a renegotiation requested by Parliament, strengthens the protection of our fellow citizens in relation to data transferred to the US authorities. In this way, the European Union is strengthening its cooperation with the United States while remaining in command of the situation as the United States shall no longer be able to consult passenger data without the agreement of the Europeans. With the conclusion of this agreement, we can put an end to the danger of a legal vacuum which is damaging to our airlines.
Ioan Enciu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this agreement because I think that, although it has room for improvement, it marks a step forward compared to the previous agreement from 2007. One positive aspect of paramount importance is that PNR data will be made anonymous after six months, as well as the fact that European citizens will have full access to this data. Another guarantee which has been obtained is that any decision made on the basis of analysing this data should not be reached using automated processing, but through human evaluation. At the same time, we must bear in mind that at least two proposals which will also influence the EU agreements on data exchange are currently being debated. This concerns, first of all, the directive on the use of PNR data, as well as the data protection package. In view of this, I believe that this agreement, along with other EU agreements involving the exchange of PNR data, must be revised after adopting the new European regulations on data protection and PNR use.
Frank Engel (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted against the agreement on the use and transfer of Passenger Name Records to the United States for two reasons. Firstly, this agreement is an ‘executive agreement’ under US law, which will not be ratified by the Senate and which cannot create rights on the part of anyone. The United States is therefore not bound in any way to apply the ‘guarantees’ for European passengers contained in the agreement if they believe that their national law runs counter to this. Any judicial redress against data misuse that European citizens tried to bring in US courts would, consequently, be compromised in advance. The agreement does not improve the legal situation of European passengers travelling to the United States, given that its status under US law does not enable the creation of new rights.
Secondly, this agreement is merely a European ratification of US practices as regards the transfer of passengers’ personal data. I find, on the whole, that this practice goes too far and I am unable to agree to a text which, in addition to extremely difficult procedures for entry into the United States, subjects passengers travelling in good faith to generalised suspicion. You do not fight terrorism and serious crime by treating in advance every passenger on a transatlantic flight as a guilty party.
Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. − (PT) International judicial cooperation and transatlantic cooperation are key to combating terrorism. That is why the existence of a long-term EU-US agreement on matters relating to the processing and transfer of personal data and the identification of passengers should be welcomed. However, this agreement cannot unduly jeopardise European citizens’ rights. For that reason, the legal requirements of fair, necessary, proportionate and lawful processing of personal information should apply under all circumstances. The present EU-US agreement seeks to achieve a reasonable balance between protecting European citizens’ rights and the necessary security guarantees which ultimately benefit us all. I am therefore voting for the text of this agreement because I believe that, as Commissioner Malmström has pointed out, this is the best possible agreement; the one that best protects the European public. It should, therefore, be supported in this Chamber.
José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The tragic events of 11 September 2001 in the United States alerted governments and airlines to the need to step up their security levels, so as to prevent acts of terrorism that could destroy thousands of human lives. Since 2007, the European Union has been seeking to negotiate with the EU an agreement on the use and transfer of passenger name records to the United States Department of Homeland Security. However, holding passenger details on file and the request for information of a personal nature – health, financial situation, etc. – has been arousing enormous concern about violations of data-protection rules. The conclusion of an EU-US agreement on the use and transfer of PNRs is the best solution, rather than concluding bilateral agreements. This proposal represents the US moving significantly towards the positions argued by the EU. However, this agreement does not guarantee the European public more protection. It is noteworthy that a ‘push’ as opposed to ‘pull’ system is allowed. This means there is no guarantee that there would be no breaking into our computers and databases. I therefore abstained from the vote on this motion for a resolution.
João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) Adoption of the EU-US Agreement on Passenger Name Records gives the US Department of Homeland Security access to a wide range of personal data on all European passengers travelling to or from the US, or making connecting flights there. Examples of the information that the US will be able to access include hotel and travel bookings, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses, private and work addresses, credit card numbers, and personal data revealing racial or ethnic origin. However, as a number of voices have warned, information on political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs and trade-union membership, as well as other information relating to a people’s health and sexual orientation will also be included. This agreement uses the much-vaunted ‘war on terror’ as a pretext for jeopardising the public’s fundamental rights and freedoms, disrespecting basic data-protection rules. This agreement can also be unilaterally amended by the US Department of Homeland Security at any time. The data may be used for non-specified purposes and will be kept for 15 years. This is a veritable Big Brother, worthy of indignation, denouncement, mobilisation and struggle.
Carlo Fidanza (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted for the agreement despite the fact that I had some concerns about the way the US authorities conducted the negotiations. In fact in recent months, they made all the various Member States aware of the report, highlighting once again how in some areas the European institutions lack a strong, uniform position. This agreement is undoubtedly an improvement on previous agreements, especially in some key areas, and is an important basis for the security of the whole European Union and its citizens. I hope that in time the European institutions will strengthen their role so that this type of negotiation can be conducted from a better position.
Monika Flašíková Benová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) I voted against the Passenger Name Records (PNR) agreement, because I believe that this agreement severely restricts the human rights and civil liberties of citizens of EU Member States. Parliament rejected the original proposal as early as May 2010, despite the fact that the Commission tried to make efforts to achieve a compromise in the position between the EU and the USA, resulting in only minor changes, which can in no way be seen as protecting the rights of the citizens of EU Member States, for which we as MEPs bear not only political, but also human responsibility.
Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), in writing. − (IT) Passenger Name Records (PNR), as the information relating to passengers’ travel information is known, have proved to be a very important tool in the fight against terrorism and serious transnational crimes, and, according to the report, will be used only for the purpose of preventing, detecting, investigating and prosecuting such offences. Considering also that European citizens will have the right to take legal action in the US in the event of data misuse, that they will be able to access and correct PNR, and that even sole travellers will be able to access the information collected about them and ask for any errors to be corrected, I voted in favour.
Pat the Cope Gallagher (ALDE), in writing. – (GA) We voted in favour of the Agreement between the EU and the United States of America in relation to passenger name records.
Firstly, our opinion is that this agreement would add greatly to efforts to tackle terrorism and serious transnational crime. We believe that its provisions are correct and appropriate as regards issues of privacy, processing personal details, data protection, transparency and responsibility. Those provisions are in addition to the protective mechanism for the people of Europe that is enshrined in EU law. Under the agreement, the complaint mechanism in US law will also be available to the people of Europe.
Elisabetta Gardini (PPE), in writing. − (IT) International terrorism has without a doubt been the greatest challenge that the western world has had to face in the last decade. The seriousness of the terrorist threat is well known to all, and it is absolutely indispensable to take all the necessary counter-measures to win a battle that is crucial for our future.
In such a situation it becomes fundamental to create a network that allows the exchange and sharing of data between those most at risk. This is why the conclusion of the agreement between the European Union and the United States of America on the transfer of the passenger name record by air carriers operating flights between the EU and the US is to be considered as a step forward.
Thanks to this agreement, the shared western front against terrorism will be strengthened, and it will help to combat the threat to peace and international security represented by terrorists.
Estelle Grelier (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted against the Passenger Name Record (PNR) Agreement between the United States and the EU on the use and transfer of the name records of European passengers. I opposed this agreement as the negotiations in Parliament did not enable a compromise to be found on the necessary guarantees to protect the data of European passengers. Indeed, no provisions have been made to specify the purpose to which the data is put, which has been left too vague, to reduce the retention period of 15 years without, however, making provision for them to be deleted at a later date, and guarantees that the Member States concerned have given their consent if their nationals’ data are transferred to third countries` .
The list of data to be transferred is also disproportionate leaving a great number of issues open, and does not make any provision for confidential treatment of sensitive data. Finally, it is a very rigid agreement, as judicial redress for Europeans in US courts is very limited, and no provision is made for the presence of the European Parliament and Member States in the review procedures for this agreement. I am not questioning the need to achieve transatlantic cooperation against terrorism, but rather the means chosen to achieve this, which run counter to the high data protection standards supported by the French Socialists.
Brice Hortefeux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Two years after the European Parliament’s rejection of the Agreement on the transfer of Passenger Name Records between the United States and the European Union signed in 2007, I welcome the fact that our Assembly has finally approved the new draft agreement. The Passenger Name Record (PNR) data cover information relating to the blue card number, ticket price, passport details, destination address, seat number, etc. While the first draft had provoked a strong reaction from Parliament in terms of the risks it posed to the protection of personal data, this new agreement sets strict guidelines for their processing and provides airlines with legal security. Parliament, by giving its agreement to this revised project, believed that the right balance had been struck between the protection of personal data and the need to ensure passenger safety.
It shows the joint determination of the United States and the EU to fight against terrorism with tools that have demonstrated their effectiveness. In particular, this agreement symbolically marks the strengthening of transatlantic links, the desire for cooperation and the mutual confidence which unite our two continents in standing up to these threats.
Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. − This House has today failed the citizens of Europe in supporting this Agreement. Real legal and ethical concerns remain, and our citizens’ privacy and civil liberties are compromised.
Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) The European Union and the United States are facing a number of common challenges in ensuring an effective fight against international terrorism as part of a wider global agenda. It is believed that in this common endeavour, information sharing, in particular the transfer of Passenger Name Record (PNR) by air carriers operating flights between the EU and the US, serves the purpose of combating the threat to international peace and security. I voted against this document because of the necessity, above all, to meet European data protection standards. Secondly, it is essential to protect fundamental rights and to ensure utmost respect for the privacy of EU citizens in compliance with relevant EU standards and norms of data protection. There are also a number of shortcomings in the new draft agreement, particularly with regard to the broad purpose of using PNR data, the retention periods and concerns on the onward transfer of data to third countries. I believe that there is legal uncertainty as to whether the draft Agreement complies with EU data protection legislation and thus as to whether it is compatible with the Treaties in this respect.
Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report on Parliament’s approval of the Agreement between the European Union and the United States on Passenger Name Record (PNR) data, following a previous rejection of the agreement in May 2010 and its referral to the Commission for negotiation. This agreement approved by Parliament on 19 April 2012 protects the legal certainty of air passengers and airlines, and guarantees a high standard of personal data protection.
Krišjānis Kariņš (PPE), in writing. – (LV) I supported the European Parliament legislative resolution consenting to the conclusion of the agreement between the United States and the European Union, as I consider that the agreement is necessary to discover, investigate and fight terrorism and other serious transnational crime more efficiently. The agreement is of equal importance to both the US and the EU law-enforcement agencies, since it is provided that the United States must share the information that it obtains from passenger name records (PNR) at its disposal with EU law-enforcement agencies. At the same time, the agreement provides strict rules for the circumstances under which PNR data may be used and for how long they may be retained so as not to infringe individual rights. If people nevertheless come to have any doubts that personal data are being used inappropriately, any person living in the EU may apply to the courts and request that the US Department of Homeland Security delete or amend that person’s data where they are incorrect. I therefore consider that the protection of individuals’ personal data has been secured and that personal data will be used solely to ensure and reinforce national security.
Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE), in writing. − (FI) I voted in favour of the Agreement on the transfer of Passenger Name Records. With the new powers under the Treaty of Lisbon, we rejected the earlier version in May 2010, and called on the Commission to negotiate more stringent terms and conditions for data protection. The Agreement voted on today is a compromise, and is not perfect in terms of its content. However, it has improved considerably with regard to data protection and agreed cooperation with the US authorities.
The voice of opposition from Parliament’s left-wing has not offered any realistic alternative. If Parliament were to reject this version of the Agreement too, the United States could, for example, decide their own rules on passenger records for all EU countries, and airlines flying to the USA would have to hand over passenger records to the authorities anyway. This slightly more random practice would be in the interests of no one.
There is massive distrust with regard to the collection and recording of personal data, but it has to be recognised that it plays an important role in the fight against terrorism and rooting out organised crime. As Commissioner Malmström again reminded us, many terrorists and other criminals have been caught with the help of this data bank. This Agreement is the right way forward in the protection both of passenger records and people.
Sergej Kozlík (ALDE), in writing. – (SK) The EU-US Agreement on the transfer of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data does not meet the guarantees requested by Parliament in its previous resolutions. These guarantees were real red lines. The Commission has failed to present factual evidence supporting the claim that the storage and processing of PNRs for law enforcement purposes is necessary and proportionate, nor has it seriously explored less intrusive alternatives. The Commission has not managed to improve the 2007 agreement in any way. Completely unsuspecting travellers will still be profiled, sorted into opaque risk categories, and have their data stored for 15 years. This therefore raises serious concerns regarding the compatibility of the agreement with the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and I do not support the current wording.
Agnès Le Brun (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I welcome the fact that Parliament has approved the conclusion of this new international Agreement between the United States and the European Union on the transfer of ‘passenger data’ by European airlines (which operate flights travelling within or to the US) to the US authorities. The agreement is a fundamental tool in stepping up the fight against terrorism. Furthermore, it ensures that data is not transferred in a totally unregulated manner. In this respect, it was my duty to vote for its conclusion.
Jörg Leichtfried (S&D), in writing. − (DE) I voted against the Passenger Name Records (PNR) Agreement with the United States, as it represents a move in completely the wrong direction. As a result, anyone who takes an aeroplane, uses the Internet or uses the telephone is treated as a potential terrorist, all with the justification of replacing an unbelievably bad agreement with one that is perhaps slightly less bad. That is not something I can support.
Bogusław Liberadzki (S&D), in writing. − (PL) I voted against this report. The personal data of air passengers – European Union citizens – should not be given to the authorities of countries outside of the EU in the manner specified in this agreement. This is particularly the case with regard to sensitive data, for example data concerning ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or state of health. I understand the issue of protection against acts of terrorism, but the provisions of the new agreement with the USA are damaging to Union citizens.
David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this proposal. Apart from the widely-stated civil liberties concerns surrounding these proposals, I am also concerned that we appear to be prepared to negotiate terms with the US that are less onerous that those we insist on with other third countries.
Clemente Mastella (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The European Union and the United States are facing a number of common challenges in ensuring an effective fight against international terrorism.
In order to achieve this objective, it is considered necessary to share some information, such as for example the transfer of the Passenger Name Record (PNR) by air carriers operating flights between the EU and the US. On a previous occasion we have already demanded greater protection for fundamental rights and the utmost respect for the privacy of EU citizens in compliance with relevant EU standards and data protection law.
We have often emphasised the major importance of the criteria of necessity and proportionality, key principles without which the fight against terrorism and transnational crime cannot be effective.
While a number of shortcomings are recognised in the new draft agreement as regards particularly the broad purpose of using PNR data, the retention period and concerns on the onward transfer of data to third countries, we believe we should give our approval in order to strengthen transatlantic cooperation and the common fight against international terrorism in the interest of European citizens.
Barbara Matera (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted for the agreement on the use and transfer of passenger name records (PNR) by air carriers between the EU and the US, as I consider this agreement a suitable and necessary instrument of prevention against potential intercontinental terrorism and at the same time a more complete instrument providing greater protection of the rights of passengers travelling from Europe to the United States.
I voted in favour because personally I do not wish to be an obstacle to cooperation between the US and the EU, but in fact to encourage cooperation between the parties in the spirit of a transatlantic partnership, in order to safeguard our respective democratic societies and shared values.
Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The new Passenger Name Record (PNR) Agreement with the United States provides satisfactory additional guarantees in terms of data protection while allowing us to step up the fight against terrorism. It provides European citizens with the right of access to and correction of their personal data and a right of judicial redress. The transfer of the data of European citizens will be strictly controlled and can only take place on the grounds of the fight against terrorism or serious transnational offences. Furthermore, the agreement that has been adopted strengthens the security of European citizens: it allows the European Union to take advantage of US analyses of terrorist risks. Had we refused to approve this agreement, we would have been irresponsible and would have created a legal gap that was damaging to European airlines and citizens.
Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. − I voted in favour of this proposed Agreement on the use and transfer of Passenger Name Records (PNR) to the United States Department of Homeland Security which is aimed at combating terrorism and serious transnational crime.
Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I voted for this report because I believe combating terrorism is crucial if we are to live in a world of peace and prosperity. When considering US requirements in relation to citizens entering their country, we cannot forget that the US has been attacked on its own soil and the weapons used were aircraft. I therefore agree with supplying the necessary information in order to prevent that happening again in future, even if this information might seem inappropriate or exaggerated. All members of the public can be certain that their rights, freedoms and guarantees will never be affected.
Louis Michel (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The fights against terrorism and transnational crime are a major concern and should remain priorities in our action.
The Passenger Name Record (PNR) Agreement with the United States is a very flawed response to citizens’ fundamental rights. No account has been taken of the main objections relating to the scope of the agreement, which is very ill-defined, the data retention period, which is very long and does not include their deletion, the rights of administrative or judicial redress in the case of error and the mode of data transfer.
While recognising the efforts made by the Commission to achieve a more balanced agreement, it should be noted that essential principles such as the respect of individual rights and of European Union legislation and the protection of the personal data of EU citizens have not been respected.
The concessions made to US partners are likely to set a dangerous precedent in the negotiation of PNR agreements with future partners. For how can we refuse other countries the advantages that we have granted the United States? The agreement is not sufficiently balanced and does not guarantee that use is limited to the fight against terrorism. These data could in fact be used for other purposes.
Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − The report concerns the consent procedure on the EU-US agreement on the processing and transfer of passenger name record data to the US for the fight against terrorism and serious crime. The report recommends that the European Parliament give its consent to EU-US agreement. I voted in favour.
Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) The agreement on the exchange of Passenger Name Records (PNR) is most definitely to be rejected. This agreement does not provide adequate protection of European citizens’ personal data. In particular, it continues to be possible for the data to be transferred to third countries at the discretion of the US, and it is also the case that European air passengers are not treated on a par with those from the United States. The PNR agreement is also classed as an executive agreement. That means that it is not submitted to Congress for ratification and therefore it is not actually legally binding for the US. On the other hand, however, the US has access to all data from the booking stage onwards, which is made even worse by the fact that the data centres of all four large, global booking databases are in the United States, which has been able to avail itself of them at will since 2001 by means of administrative orders. The Commission was not able to get its way on a single aspect that is important to Europeans, and it also failed to negotiate an improvement in the legal status of European air passengers. Therefore, the result is an agreement that only brings advantages for the US and its secret services. I therefore voted against this agreement.
Vital Moreira (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I voted for the EU-US agreement on the use and transfer of passenger name records to, and from, the United States for a number of reasons. Firstly, the agreement regulates and limits the obligation to provide data under US law, forcing the US to make compromises with the EU; it is far better than the 2007 agreement, than existing bilateral agreements and than no agreement. Secondly, passengers’ personal data constitute an essential instrument for combating terrorism and other types of cross-border crime, such as drug and people trafficking. Thirdly the right to security of passengers and of people in general is no less important than the right to personal data protection; the personal data in question do not include sensitive data and the agreement ensures a satisfactory balance between the right to security and the right to personal data-protection, and I do not therefore consider it incompatible with European law in this regard. Finally, the agreement gives EU and Member State security services access to the US authorities’ data and research findings, thereby aiding European security, since the EU does not have its own system for collecting and processing passengers’ personal data.
Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this agreement which will enable the EU to enhance its cooperation with the United States, resulting in more effective action in tackling terrorism. We must not forget that our citizens’ security has to remain our main goal. I also welcome that, following renegotiation, the agreement provides better protection for European citizens’ data.
Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. − (DE) It goes without saying that I, too, am concerned about combating international terrorism effectively through cooperation among states. The agreement with the United States for the transfer of passenger name records to the Department of Homeland Security is highly questionable from the point of view of data protection. There are no conditions laid down for accessing the data, nor is it possible to check exactly what happens to the data that is transferred. In particular, it is not clear whether the United States will transfer the data to third countries. The data will be permanently stored, and innocent citizens can thus be placed in non-transparent suspect categories. I have serious concerns about the fact that the agreement needs to be brought into line with the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. As it is important to me to protect the privacy of citizens against the misuse of data, I have voted against the agreement.
Kristiina Ojuland (ALDE), in writing. − I find it unfortunate that the European Parliament gave its consent to the EU-USA PNR. In doing so, we have legitimised the illegal collection of passenger data by the US authorities, which is one of the reasons why I voted against the report. Furthermore, the current agreement does not provide the necessary guarantees on the protection of the data of the citizens of the EU and therefore violates the EU regulation on data protection. It will also put additional financial pressure on the carriers, as it will require investments in some additional technology. I find that the European Parliament did not live up to the expectations of the citizens of the Union by agreeing to the PNR.
Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I am opposed to this resolution on the EU-US Agreement on the use and transfer of Passenger Name Records to the US Department of Homeland Security. I believe that the benefits of this agreement are uncertain, and it also has many shortcomings. Above all, neither the purpose of the use of data nor the retention period are clear. It should be noted that there are many questions over the onward transfer of data to third countries. Such an agreement would therefore violate the principles of the privacy of EU citizens and data protection. It is undoubtedly essential to reinforce the common fight of the EU and the US against international terrorism, but in all cases it is necessary to respect EU citizens’ right to privacy and data protection. We must try to maintain a balance between tightened security and the protection of human rights, including data protection and privacy.
Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The purpose of European lawmakers is to protect citizens and their safety by keeping their privacy and rights intact. In order to improve existing legislation the agreements need to be amended and adapted to requirements, precisely as in the case in question. The (PNR) agreement between the EU and the US on the transfer of passenger name records from flights to the US comes out of the new security measures for fighting terrorism. The transmission of passenger data is nothing more than an exchange of information for protecting sensitive data and monitoring passengers entering the United States. I consider that the text is positive because it harmonises existing legislation between EU Member States.
Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I abstained from the vote because I believe that voting ‘no’ could cause the lack of an EU-US agreement, paving the way for bilateral agreements between the US and each Member State, which would weaken the EU-US negotiations. However, at the same time, I cannot vote in favour because that would constitute acceptance of an agreement, a number of aspects of which represent steps backwards from the first agreement in 2004. In fact, European citizens’ rights could and should be better protected.
Franck Proust (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the new Passenger Name Records (PNR) Agreement because it strikes a balance between data protection and the security of European citizens. The United States, a longstanding partner, and Europe are pursuing the same goal: the fight against terrorism. However, as an MEP, I shall keep a close watch to ensure that our high standards of protection of privacy are the norm in any agreement signed by the European Union. Lastly, to have rejected it would have been tantamount to leaving a legal gap for airlines and passengers. Without the support of Europe, the United States would have favoured bilateral agreements. European passengers would not have enjoyed sufficient guarantees. This agreement had to be adopted to defend all these fundamental freedoms.
Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The European Union and the United States are facing a number of challenges in ensuring the effective combating of international terrorism as an integral part of a wider-ranging global agenda. As part of this common effort, the exchange of information, particularly in terms of airlines that operate EU-US flights transferring passenger name records (PNRs), serves the purpose of combating the threat to international peace and security. PNR data can only be processed to prevent, detect, and repress acts of terrorism and serious forms of cross-border crime. Moreover, data are only kept for a limited time, dissemination of information from PNRs is subject to legal restrictions, and the ‘push’ method for exporting data is considered the normal means of transfer. I therefore voted in favour.
Frédérique Ries (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) I, like 409 fellow members, supported the Passenger Name Records (PNR) Agreement on the transfer of passenger data to the United States Department of Homeland Security. This is a compromise and the text is flawed. So be it. However, to have rejected it would simply have had the effect of maintaining the preceding agreement in force, which was less satisfactory in terms of protection of privacy. Nor would its rejection have led to new negotiations with the United States. For some people, what is at issue is respect for privacy. For others, it boils down to the fight against terrorism. Our role was to strike a balance between these two demands. That is what I think has been achieved. The right to security is fundamental, a cardinal right. Without security about who we are and what we own, what is the point of being able to travel, think, speak, publish or demonstrate? Frankly, the ‘privacy’ hardliners, who merrily throw the baby out with the bathwater, might be better advised to take a look at the control to which we willingly allow ourselves to be subjected on social networks. This is a rather more intrusive kind of ‘Big Brother’ and, as you will no doubt agree, a rather less legitimate one.
Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − Against. A majority of MEPs has today voted to reverse the European Parliament’s long-standing role in defence of EU citizens’ civil liberties and to endorse intrusive big-brother-style surveillance. Instead of rejecting this senseless and excessive collection and retention of private data, those MEPs who voted in favour of the deal have engaged in gross hypocrisy and sought to wash their hands of the PNR controversy. The core fundamental rights concerns raised by the Parliament and courts across Europe have not been addressed in the deal endorsed today.
Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of this document, because I believe it is necessary to make a commitment to reach an agreement that will strengthen the shared fight by the EU and the US against international terrorism in the interest of the security of European citizens.
The EU and the US must unite to face a series of shared challenges and make sure that the fight against international terrorism is effective within the framework of a broader global agenda, through information sharing, in particular the transfer of passenger name records by air carriers operating flights between the EU and the US.
I hope that the European Parliament will maintain the same determination shown so far in the fight against international terrorism and organised and transnational crime, which it considers a key component of European external action and to pursue a suitable policy of prevention.
Amalia Sartori (PPE), in writing. −(IT) The European Union and the United States are together in the front line of the fight against international terrorism.
Close cooperation between these two political entities is a requirement for reducing any kind of threat to a minimum. The agreement reached in 2007 is an initial step towards the end goal and now the agreement signed in November 2011 introduces important new provisions, including more efficient exchanges of information and greater protection for passenger data.
I voted in favour of the agreement because it will shore up the fight against various criminal activities, aid in the capture of those guilty of terrorist acts, strengthen the transatlantic partnership and ensure that passengers’ privacy and personal details are protected.
Petri Sarvamaa (PPE), in writing. − (FI) The Agreement between the United States of America and the European Union on Passenger Name Records, which entered into force in 2007, was renegotiated. Parliament did not accept the terms of the agreement and called on the European Commission to hold additional talks with the USA on those terms and conditions. In the talks, improvements were sought to the implementation of civil rights causing the greatest concern with respect to the protection of privacy. The reformed agreement now before us includes a maximum period of 15 years for the retention of data, and allows EU authorities to verify the implementation of the agreement in the United States.
I judged the success of this agreement mainly according to how well it would work, on the one hand, to help partner countries combat terrorism and crime, and, on the other, to guarantee the civil rights of European air passengers travelling to the USA in an acceptable way. In voting on the recommendation to adopt the agreement on the transfer of PNR data, and in consideration of the fact that rejecting the recommendation would mean that we would have no agreement in force with the USA, I am absolutely convinced that a contractual arrangement will do more to protect the rights of air passengers than having no agreement in place at all.
I would also like to say emphatically that, to me, it is only natural that the European Union should seek to promote action to combat terrorism and crime in collaboration with the US security authorities. Cooperation in this area is definitely in the interests of the EU and its Member States. Consequently, I voted in favour of the recommendation leading to the adoption of this agreement.
Vilja Savisaar-Toomast (ALDE), in writing. − (ET) Firstly, I would like to note that the Agreement between the European Union and the United States on Passenger Name Records does not measure up to the guarantees the European Parliament has demanded in its previous resolutions. The agreement that is to be concluded creates a basis for the disproportionate and unjustified gathering and storage of data. There is also no guarantee that the data will be used only for the purpose of reducing and preventing terrorism and international crimes. Unfortunately the decision adopted today infringes the foundations of democracy, more precisely people’s fundamental rights. This agreement does not guarantee the protection of personal data or individuals’ right to privacy and legal protection. The Commission has failed to improve the 2007 agreement in any way. Profiles continue to be prepared about completely unsuspicious passengers, they are classified into opaque risk categories and their data are stored for 15 years. After that the data are ‘fully anonymised’ instead of being deleted. This causes genuine concern as to whether the agreement is in compliance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the legal precedents of the European Court of Human Rights and the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany. For that reason, I voted against this report.
Christel Schaldemose, Dan Jørgensen, Britta Thomsen and Ole Christensen (S&D), in writing. − (DA) The Danish Social Democrats in the European Parliament have voted in favour of consenting to the Agreement between the United States of America and the European Union on the use and transfer of Passenger Name Records to the United States Department of Homeland Security (2011/0382(NLE)), as it is our view that the Member States would be in a worse position without such an agreement. The reason for this is that, without this draft agreement, the legal basis will remain as it was in 2007. Thus, the expectation is that the US would enter into bilateral agreements with the Member States. That would weaken the Member States’ negotiating power and, ultimately, the result of the bilateral agreements in question.
Brian Simpson (S&D), in writing. − I voted in favour of the PNR agreement with the USA, even though I recognise that this agreement is far from perfect. However, we have to recognise that the deal before us today is better by far than not only the previous agreement that was rejected by this Parliament, but the present agreement that is in force.
To reject the agreement would leave us with the status quo, which everybody accepts is a poor agreement. Such action would also weaken our oversight on PNR, which surely would be questioned by our constituents, leaving us open to the accusation of dereliction of our duty.
Whether we like it or not, PNR is an essential tool in fighting terrorism. I believe this agreement is the best deal we are going to get, which is why I support it.
Marek Siwiec (S&D), in writing. − I decided to vote in favour since I believe this is a strong agreement which will protect lives against terrorism and serious crimes. The PNR data has already led to the capture of hundreds of criminals and its use cannot be underestimated. Moreover, the agreement sets clear limits on the purposes for which PNR data may be used and guarantees data protection in a more efficient way than the 2007 agreement. It is better to have an agreement that specifies the stringent conditions under which specific pieces of information can be transferred than to have no agreement at all, or a number of bilateral deals between the US and individual EU countries.
Francisco Sosa Wagner (NI), in writing. − (ES) I voted in favour, conscious that the Agreement could be improved and in the hope that it will be improved in future.
Michèle Striffler (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the international Agreement between the European Union and the United States on the use of ‘passenger data’. This agreement, which was approved today by Parliament, will allow a clear legal framework to be set up for the exchange of these data. It is the result of lengthy negotiations with our US partners and it provides considerably more guarantees for European citizens than the temporary agreement that had been in force until now. The Toulouse tragedy showed us that we cannot relax our efforts in the fight against terrorism. It must be a priority for the European Union and can only come about through mutual help and close collaboration with our US partners. It is our duty to guarantee the highest standards of security for European citizens.
Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The renegotiated agreement concluded in November 2011 on the US Department of Homeland Security using passenger name records and their transfer thereto, gives passengers and airlines greater legal certainty. The European Union has achieved significant changes regarding data protection and cooperation with the US authorities. I believe that rejecting the agreement, as the rapporteur proposes, will mean that the United States could go on to conclude bilateral agreements with the Member States and the airlines. However, the agreement does not guarantee complete reciprocity in data processing, so I am abstaining.
Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the Agreement between the United States of America (US) and the EU on the use and transfer of Passenger Name Records (PNR), because this agreement replaces the 2007 agreement and provides more guarantees compared to the 2007 version. So far, several Member States have concluded agreements or Memorandums of Understanding with the US, including with regard to the transfer of passenger data, which was a preliminary condition laid down by the US for waiving visas for Member States’ citizens wishing to travel to the US. This is why, in light of approving the agreement between the US and EU on the use and transfer of PNRs, I call on the US to apply the visa waiver to Romanian citizens travelling to the US. We welcome the adoption of the ‘push’ method as the standard data transfer method and the provisions of Article 5 on data security and integrity. We regret that the agreement does not provide reciprocity between the parties or sufficient guarantees with regard to appeals being made by European citizens, as US law is applicable. I should emphasise that the agreement needs to be interpreted as part of a global approach to PNRs, which includes negotiations with other third countries (Australia and Canada), and also in light of the proposal for a PNR system at EU level.
Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE), in writing. − I voted against the agreement on the transfer of Passenger Name Records because I have some reservations on the use that under the current terms can be given to personal data. I think that our citizens have the right to data protection and it is our duty as legislators to work with this goal. Personal data should only be used to fight against terrorism and organised crime, not on other grounds.
Thomas Ulmer (PPE), in writing. − (DE) I voted in favour of this dossier, but I will be keeping a critical eye on how matters progress. Whether anything meaningful can come from the ‘data cemeteries’ that will be created without costs arising is questionable. This agreement substantially improves data protection for our EU citizens compared with the current situation, but it is still far from ideal. ‘Agreement’ is a tricky term in any case, as the United States will not allow any interference in its national security or its sense of security. The simplest solution is not to travel to the United States.
Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. − (DE) Many aspects of this agreement have been improved – and the protection of our citizens and the fight against terrorism go without saying as far as I am concerned, as these are the common objectives of us all. However, if you read this agreement very carefully you will discover, for example, that Article 13 and Article 21 clearly contradict each other. I am convinced that, by working together, the Commission and the US authorities could still manage to eradicate the shortcomings in this agreement, the approach and basic idea of which is not only necessary, but also important and sound, so that there can and will be an acceptable compromise – and one that our citizens will find acceptable, too.
Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) The EU-US Agreement on passenger name records gives the US Department of Homeland Security access to a panoply of personal data on all passengers travelling to the United States or making connecting flights there. By way of example, these data could constitute hotel and travel reservations, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses, personal and business addresses, credit card numbers, personal data revealing racial or ethnic origin, details of political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs and trade-union membership, as well as other data on health or sexual orientation. This agreement uses the so-called ‘war on terror’ as a pretext for a shameful attack on the public’s fundamental rights and freedoms. This agreement can be unilaterally amended by the US Department of Homeland Security at any time. These data can be used for unspecific purposes and will be kept for 15 years, after which they will not be destroyed. In short, the purpose is clear: to provide the US security services with information leading them to criminalise and persecute all those opposed to their imperialist dictates; all those who dare resist the capitalist system.
Damien Abad (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The European Parliament only has a consultative role in fiscal matters. In this instance, we were consulted about the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB). It is not a question of having a common tax, the introduction of which remains under the control of the Member States, but a common tax base. The replacement of 27 tax bases by one single tax base will make it possible to improve the functioning of the internal market. From now on, companies will calculate their taxable profits on the basis of common rules. I therefore voted in favour of this system.
Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I am voting for this report, since it enables a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base for companies operating in the internal market, within which they will have to fill in a single tax return. The major upside of this report is that it allocates the income from these taxes to the various Member States using a formula that takes into account three factors: labour, assets and turnover. The European Parliament’s version essentially has two major advantages over that of the European Commission: it provides for the mandatory application of this regulation to large companies or cooperatives two years after it comes into force, and for its mandatory application to small and medium-sized enterprises after five years.
Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for the report by Ms Thyssen from the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), which supports the introduction of a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB). The aim is to help companies by harmonising the internal market. For example, it aims to cut down on red tape (companies will only have a uniform tax return to fill in for all their activities in the European Union and will only have to deal with the tax authority of the country in which their headquarters is located), and to reduce the costs arising from complying with 27 diverse tax systems, and so on. It will also make the EU more attractive to foreign investors by offering a single tax system. We went further than the Commission’s proposal by planning for this tax to become obligatory after five years for all companies, with the exception of small and medium-sized enterprises for which it would remain optional because we must protect them from any additional cost.
Margrete Auken (Verts/ALE), in writing. − (DA) I decided to vote in favour of the report on the proposal for a Council directive on a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base, because such a base – in addition to a reduction in the administrative burden for companies operating across national borders – is an effective way to counter tax evasion. I therefore fundamentally support a common European tax base. However, the tax base ought to be much broader and more robust than that provided for in either the report or the Commission’s proposal, so that countries that already have a much broader corporate tax base – including Denmark – do not run the risk of losing a large part of their current tax revenue.
Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I welcomed this document. The Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB) is aimed at tackling some major fiscal impediments to growth in the single market. In the absence of common corporate tax rules, the differences in national tax systems often lead to over-taxation and double taxation, and businesses are facing heavy administrative burdens and high tax compliance costs. This situation creates disincentives for investment in the EU and, as a result, runs counter to the priorities set in the Europe 2020 strategy. Although in the Commission’s proposal the CCCTB is optional, in order for this framework to have a real impact on businesses, and bring greater fiscal transparency and make the tax system more equitable and efficient, this system must become compulsory for all companies operating in the EU. I therefore support the European Parliament’s proposal for a roadmap, which would result in the CCCTB becoming compulsory.
Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) There is no doubt that one of the causes of the current crisis in Europe is the absence of fiscal coordination. We voted in plenary on Thursday 19 April in favour of the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB) in order to determine a set of rules for calculating the taxable profits of companies. This reform does not aim to achieve fiscal harmonisation and does not impose uniform rates of taxation but contributes to greater fiscal coordination between Member States. While the Commission had initially proposed a voluntary system, we came to the view that this system should become compulsory after a transitional period, and I support this fully. Of course this reform will be implemented gradually: over the first five years, the CCCTB will apply only to European companies and cooperatives; after five years, the system will be extended to all companies, with the exception of small and medium-sized enterprises, which will nonetheless have the opportunity to participate on a voluntary basis. Simplified accounting rules, a reduction in red tape, more importance given to economic and social rather than purely fiscal matters when companies decide where to locate their headquarters: it is high time for us to work towards this if we want to make progress in fiscal harmonisation in Europe.
Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this report because the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB) is an indispensable instrument for completion of the European internal market and for European economic integration, which is necessary for the stability of the Eurozone. European Union Member States have different tax bases, which partly constitute trade barriers to growth and employment. The European Union CCCTB framework comprises a full set of rules to consolidate the individual fiscal results of each company or branch, to consolidate those results (profits and losses) and to apportion the consolidated tax base to all relevant Member States if it is positive. It is important that each Member State will apply its own tax rate to the share of the tax base assigned to it. Only the calculation and apportionment of the tax base is being harmonised. Member States themselves will retain the power to set the tax rates. The harmonisation also will not apply to national rules on financial reporting. Taking into account the CCCTB, the aim is to reduce compliance costs for companies in the internal market in the area of taxation by establishing a system for a common base for company taxation so that groups of companies are able to deal with a single tax administration. However, in order to ensure that artificial transactions with the main purpose of avoiding taxation are ignored for calculating the tax base, stricter abuse rules need to be considered.
Zuzana Brzobohatá (S&D), in writing. – (CS) I can understand the feelings of entrepreneurs who, thanks to the open single market, are doing business in many EU countries and yet are left wondering how they should tax on individual operating sites under Europe’s varying legislative principles. The complexity of cost and revenue allocation is an onerous burden. Entrepreneurs will thus be able to choose whether to take this more complex route or whether to use the option of a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base. This also addresses the question of double taxation, which will lead to less tax evasion. Last but not least, it will reduce the administrative burden. At the same time, as a social democrat, I welcome any harmonisation in the common economic area of the EU. I have therefore voted in favour of the motion.
Lara Comi (PPE) , in writing. − (IT) I think that differences in the methods for calculating the tax base among Member States bring huge bureaucratic costs and represent one of the main remaining barriers to trade within the European Union. Accordingly, establishing a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB) would reduce these costs, with obvious advantages for enterprises operating across various countries. This proposal helps cut red tape and reduce the costs related to tax obligations by establishing a single approach to calculating the base and by adopting the ‘one-stop-shop’ concept, as a result of which enterprises will only have to submit only one statement. It also makes it possible to offset the profits made in one country with the losses incurred in another, thereby eliminating the phenomenon of double taxation. I think this directive could help businesses that operate in a number of countries to grow, especially small and medium-sized enterprises which face proportionally higher costs due to excessive red tape. The proposal therefore helps towards the achievement of the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy and provides a way to boost growth and employment in the Union. That is why I decided to vote in favour of the proposal.
Anna Maria Corazza Bildt, Christofer Fjellner, Gunnar Hökmark and Anna Ibrisagic (PPE), in writing. − (SV) We Swedish Conservatives in the European Parliament voted today in favour of the report on a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base, as this would promote the single market. However, we do not support an apportionment formula of the kind discussed in the report.
Emer Costello (S&D), in writing. − I abstained in the final vote on Parliament’s consultative resolution on the CCCTB. I agree that cooperation among tax authorities can reduce costs and excessive administrative burdens for businesses operating cross-border within the EU (Amendment 1), that tax obstacles can be particularly severe for SMEs operating cross-border (Amendment 3) and that Member States should retain the power to adopt certain incentives for businesses (Amendment 9). However, I could not accept the clauses making the CCCTB compulsory and on moving towards the harmonisation of rates. Under the EU treaties, taxation is a matter of national competence where the principle of unanimity applies. Discussion on this issue has to have regard to the needs of geographically peripheral Member States whose prosperity and employment levels depend to a large extent on their capacity to attract foreign direct investment, particularly in the current very difficult economic circumstances. The Irish Government, like the governments of all Member States, is actively engaging in the detailed examination of this proposal because only in that way can we ensure that all of the arguments are debated in full.
George Sabin Cutaş (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the report on the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base, given that European administrative rules are needed for taxation to get rid of some of the costs and provide investors with greater certainty. At the same time, I hope that this framework will be applied as quickly as possible to every type of enterprise and that it will mark a first step towards introducing a minimum level of taxation across Europe. We must remember that the European Union needs common fiscal policies in order to encourage Member States’ economic integration.
Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) In view of the fact that European Union countries have different tax bases which act, in practice, as trade barriers to economic growth and employment, I regard this proposal as beneficial as it may bring about improvements for companies operating across borders in terms of boosting the competitiveness of EU companies.
Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported the adoption of this new Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB) system, which enables Europe to make progress in supporting our companies. This is an important step for our companies in cross-border areas because today we are removing further brakes on their development. European companies will now find it easier to set up branches throughout the EU, with the guarantee that they will not be overtaxed. Among the measures that will come into force, the one-stop shop principle will simplify procedures for our smallest companies as they will have to deal with one single authority on behalf of all of their branches, wherever they may be in Europe. Now our entrepreneurs need no longer be afraid of entering new territories beyond our borders.
Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I voted for this legislative proposal because it will enable companies and groups of companies operating within the internal market to pay a common rate of corporate tax after a transition period, which will be allocated to the various Member States using an apportionment formula that takes three factors into account: labour, assets and turnover.
José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) This text, by Ms Thyssen, concerns the proposal for a Council directive on a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base. At a time of crisis like the one we are experiencing, it is important to implement reforms that improve the economy and stimulate growth. Although implementing this proposal for a directive is not obligatory for the Member States, it represents a very important step towards creating a more favourable competition environment for companies and the relaunch of the economy. This, therefore, is a more transparent system that halts double taxation, and demonstrates less bureaucracy – the Member States will apply their taxation via a single access point – and less tax flight. The existence of a revision clause enables the Member States to verify whether the implementation of this directive is positive or negative for a market economy that generates growth and creates jobs. I voted in favour because this is an optional system without costs for companies, which will contribute to economic growth within the EU.
João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) The proposal is to regulate taxation on the income of companies and groups of companies active in more than one Member State. It puts forward a formula that will determine apportionment of the tax base among the Member States. Value of sales, number of workers, staff costs and value of fixed assets are factors in this formula. It is not accurate because it does not take account of concrete factors, the importance of which may not be negligible. Moreover, considering wage bills or labour costs also has the harmful consequence of disproportionately distributing profits to countries where these are higher. In fact, any companies opting for this system will stop being taxed on their profits and will start being taxed according to the results of applying the designated factors to the group’s profits, which may not – and, the majority of the time, will not – be the same as the company’s real profit. The Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base is optional. However, it cannot be applied to small and medium-sized enterprises, but only to European companies and European cooperatives, which will create a situation that gives multinationals an advantage over domestic companies.
Monika Flašíková Benová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) A Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base should tackle some major fiscal impediments to growth in the Single Market. Without common rules on corporate taxation there is often excessive and double taxation (due to the concurrent jurisdiction of national tax systems), a heavy administrative burden on businesses and high costs in order to comply with tax legislation. This situation discourages investment, which is thus contrary to the objectives set in Europe 2020. This situation creates disincentives for investment, which runs counter to the objectives set out in the Europe 2020 strategy. The proposed common approach would ensure the harmonisation of national tax systems, but not tax rates. Differences between the rates will allow some degree of tax competition to be maintained within the internal market. I firmly believe that fair competition ensures greater transparency and allows Member States to take into account both their competitiveness on the market and their own budgetary needs when setting their tax rates. Since the proposed system is primarily designed to serve the needs of companies that operate across borders, it should be an optional scheme, accompanying the existing national corporate tax systems.
Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), in writing. − (IT) At time of profound economic crisis like the present, simplifying the tax system and reducing the tax and administrative burden on our businesses is not only desirable, it is necessary. This piece of legislation aims to help small and medium-sized enterprises as well as Europe’s big businesses, encouraging the former to expand over the medium term and lowering the cost of opening subsidiaries in other Member States for the latter. Furthermore, it aims to stimulate foreign investment in Europe, which is currently discouraged by the fact that the interaction between different national systems can cause double taxation or over-taxation. That is why I will be voting in favour.
Pat the Cope Gallagher (ALDE), in writing. – (GA) We voted against the report and would like to strongly oppose what is in this document. In the first version of the legislative proposal, the European Commission proposed a voluntary scheme. According to the European Parliament text, however, it would be an obligatory scheme for all Member States once the transitional period was over.
Taxation is a national competence and the European Commission and European Parliament must adhere to that. Under the additional protocol in relation to the concerns of the Irish people on the Treaty of Lisbon, which the European Parliament ratified today, it is clear that it is Member States who have the competence for taxation.
The CCCTB (Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base) would not improve the functioning of the single market at all, and could even damage small open economies such as Ireland. A change in the rate of corporation tax would interfere with a strong aspect of the Irish economy that is crucial to 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.
Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE), in writing. − (HU) The report adopted seeks to create an EU-level voluntary Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB) through the harmonisation of the calculation and apportionment of the tax base, while not affecting either tax rates or national rules on financial reporting. Its application could give a considerable boost to the competitiveness of the European economy, transparency, and the reduction of tax fraud, tax evasion and double taxation, but I still cannot vote for the report because tax base adjustments are also used by Hungary to implement its economic policy preferences. The complete harmonisation of corporate tax base calculation is therefore not in line with the Hungarian Government’s current tax policy, and would have a negative impact on tax revenues, would reduce the GDP, and would undermine the competitiveness of the domestic corporate tax system.
Estelle Grelier (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted for the report of the European Parliament on the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base. On the one hand, this report provides for harmonising the corporate tax base for companies at European level, that is taxable profits, and on the other hand, companies and groups of companies operating within the internal market will be able to add together the profits and losses of their own subsidiaries located in different Member States. The net profit will then be apportioned between these different states on the basis of a mathematical formula and pre-defined factors. The European Parliament spoke with a single voice, thanks to this text, in favour of the progressively obligatory nature of this Common Consolidated Tax Base, a major step forward in terms of adopting a political stance against fiscal dumping and relocations within Europe. An essential element in tackling this phenomenon is still lacking, however, insofar as no agreement has been reached, and that was not the aim of this directive, on the tax rates imposed by each Member State, which remain diverse. It is therefore progress in terms of politics, but is unlikely to be taken up by the Council. It is merely the first brick in the wall of a long struggle to regulate the European market.
Françoise Grossetête (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this directive, which aims to introduce to the European Union a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base, known as CCCTB.
The Common Colisdated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB) is destined to be applied to all companies within the European Union which so desire. Member States will remain free to apply their preferred tax rates on the proportion of the CCCTB base apportioned to them.
The introduction of a CCCTB within the European Union offers many advantages, as much for economic operators, through eliminating tax barriers within the internal market, as for Member States, by allowing more transparent, and consequently healthier, fiscal competition between Member States.
These measures are in line with the work relating to Franco-German convergence in corporate taxation sought by Nicolas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel.
Jim Higgins (PPE), in writing. − I like many members from smaller member states voted against the CCCTB report, which passed with a large majority (452+). The CCCTB will lay down common rules for the calculation of the tax base applicable to companies operating in the EU. The present proposal will harmonise the calculation and apportionment of the tax base, Member States will retain the power to set the tax rates; however, I am adamant that this report sets a dangerous precedent. Harmonisation of the tax base and the tax base rules is still a form of harmonisation. Worryingly the report refuses to exclude that further steps may be taken towards harmonisation of tax rates. The mere mention of possible harmonisation of tax rates and corporate tax only serves to further aggravate the subsidiary concerns already espoused by Ireland. The Treaty of Lisbon is very clear on this: taxation is sacrosanct and a matter for the Member States alone to decide. I voted against this report and I made a determined effort to encourage other MEPs to do likewise.
Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I welcomed this document because the directive on a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB) lays down common rules for the calculation of the tax base applicable to companies operating in the European Union. This EU tax framework comprises a full set of rules to consolidate the individual fiscal results of each company or branch, to consolidate those results (profits and losses) when there are other group members and to apportion the consolidated tax base to all relevant Member States if it is positive. Only the calculation and apportionment of the tax base is being harmonised. Member States themselves will retain the power to set the tax rates. The harmonisation also does not apply to national rules on financial reporting. The CCCTB is an indispensable instrument for completion of the European internal market on the one hand, and for European economic integration on the other hand. Various distortions of the internal market can only be remedied if a common system of rules is adopted with common administrative procedures and a one-stop shop system of administration. The principal advantages of introducing the CCCTB include: greater fiscal transparency; reduced enforcement costs and red tape, which will improve the prospects for growth of businesses with cross-border operations, and make the European Union more attractive to foreign investors; the expectation that allocation decisions on the internal market will be taken more in the light of social and economic considerations of a tax-neutral nature than they are at present; a reduction in two types of tax problem: tax evasion and fraud on the one hand and double taxation on the other.
Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported the report arising from the consultation procedure by the European Parliament on the adoption of a Council Directive on the establishment of a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB). The CCCTB means that the tax base on multinational companies can be calculated, and does not relate to tax rates themselves. The introduction of a system such as this will reduce red tape for companies, reduce the costs associated with the differences between Member States’ taxation systems and increase the attractiveness of the EU for foreign investors.
Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing. − I voted against this motion for a resolution, as did the ECR Group. The directive on a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB) was to have a positive impact on ‘completing the single market and enhancing competitiveness’; however, the ECON vote on 21 March 2012 called for a mandatory CCCTB for all EU27. The resolution adopted in ECON proposes a road map for the CCCTB implementation: as soon as the directive comes into force, all companies would have the possibility to opt into the CCCTB system. After two years, it would be mandatory for all transnational companies, and after five years, it would apply automatically to all companies operating on European territory, with the exception of SMEs.
Krišjānis Kariņš (PPE), in writing. – (LV) I did not support the resolution on the proposal for a Council directive on a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base, as the current wording is not advantageous to Latvia’s economy. The directive provides the opportunity for businesses to consolidate their profits or losses on a defined tax base, which is apportioned accordingly among the states in which the business operates. The relevant state’s own rate of corporate income tax is then applied to that apportioned base. In the version proposed by the Commission, Member States may introduce and operate this corporate income tax regime to businesses within their jurisdiction. This directive was amended in this House so that it now provides that introduction of this new tax regime is mandatory for Member States. As this is an untried regime and many uncertainties remain as regards the consequences of this new tax regime’s introduction and what effect it would have on the Latvian economy and Latvia’s tax revenues, I consider that the resolution does not merit support. Furthermore, this directive is a step towards tax-rate harmonisation, which is inadmissible if we hope to maintain Latvia’s competitiveness as far as tax is concerned.
Sergej Kozlík (ALDE), in writing. – (SK) The directive on a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB) lays down common rules for calculating the tax base applicable to companies operating in the European Union. Each Member State will apply its own tax rate to the share of the tax base assigned to it. Only the calculation and apportionment of the tax base is being harmonised. Setting tax rates remains a national competence. Member States will retain the power to set tax rates. All companies, irrespective of whether they have cross-border operations, will be able to apply these rules. However, none of them will be compelled to do so. I consider the CCCTB to be a step forward towards reducing the administrative burden on business in the EU area, and I support it.
Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Introducing a common corporate tax base, on the basis of a fixed formula that takes account of turnover, labour and assets, is a step towards streamlined bureaucracy for businesses that operate across borders. Such enterprises are increasingly widespread and harmonising the tax system, at least in terms of the tax base, is indicative of a desire to move towards a tax system that is as clear as possible for operators in the sector. Furthermore, this report provides that each Member State may continue to apply its own tax rate to the share of the tax base assigned to it: the calculation and apportionment of the tax base is what we are trying to harmonise. This will ensure that the individual Member States can continue to retain autonomy over their tax systems.
Agnès Le Brun (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The fact that each Member State of the European Union still has its own tax rules is a major obstacle to the full establishment of the internal market. This is particularly true in connection with corporate taxation where 27 diverse rates of taxation are applied. This situation creates distortions of competition and handicaps European companies which operate in more than one Member State. That is why I supported the Council’s proposal to create a corporate tax base for the 27 Member States of the European Union.
Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE), in writing. − The proposed directive will likely produce certain positive effects such a lower risk of double taxation and tax evasion and fraud as well as greater fiscal transparency and legal certitude for multinational corporations. On the other hand the proposal will be applied to a highly heterogeneous economical area, where any harmonising measure has to be thoroughly considered. Apportionment formulas based on factors such as wage costs or assets are likely to harm the economic balance of the newer member states. Such factors should only play a decisive role within a common corporate tax policy once their convergence in all member states is adequate. Otherwise reduced enforcement costs and red tape in the EU will be achieved at the expense of the competitiveness of some of its member states. Moreover, the proposal can be perceived as a first step in the creation of a common EU corporate tax policy, which has strong subsidiarity implications, and which should be considered by all EU and national stakeholders.
Therefore I voted for the legislative resolution but against the amended proposal in order to point out that while I agree with the general idea behind the Commission’s proposal, I am not satisfied with the final result.
David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this proposal. The principal advantages of introducing the CCCTB: greater fiscal transparency, which will make the tax system more equitable and efficient; reduced enforcement costs and red tape, which will improve the prospects for growth of businesses with cross-border operations, make the European Union more attractive to foreign investors and promote the accessibility of the internal market for SMEs and for businesses which are not yet operating across borders; the expectation that allocation decisions on the internal market will be taken more in the light of social and economic considerations of a tax-neutral nature than they are at present; a reduction in two types of tax problems: tax evasion and fraud on the one hand and double taxation on the other.
Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. − Taxation is a matter of national competence and it is vital that the principle of unanimity in taxation is fully respected. While this report does not specifically call for the harmonisation of tax rates, the introduction of common rules across all Member States for the calculation of the tax base of companies should remain a competence for Member States. For this reason, I voted against the report.
Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB) is an indispensable instrument for completing the European internal market, on the one hand, and for the European economic integration that a stable euro area requires, on the other. The current crisis must not be allowed to constitute an obstacle; quite the contrary. I believe that the package sent by the German Chancellor and the French President to the European Council on 18 August 2011 is very important for introducing the CCCTB: it calls for related negotiations to be concluded by the end of 2012 and explicitly states that they are working on a bilateral Franco-German intergovernmental initiative. So as to maximise the benefits of the CCCTB system, it seems desirable to introduce it throughout the European Union.
Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − Since the legislative proposal provides for a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base, it means that companies and groups of companies operating in the internal market will be given the possibility to fill in a single tax file, effectively reducing red tape. The revenue from the tax will be allocated among the Member States through an apportionment formula which takes into account three factors: employment, assets and sales. I voted in favour.
Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) Common rules for the calculation of the tax base applicable to companies operating in the European Union are to be laid down. In apportioning the consolidated tax base, each Member State will apply its own tax rate to the share of the tax base assigned to it. In this regard, it is intended that companies should be free to apply the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base irrespective of whether or not they operate across borders. The basic idea here may indeed be quite a good one. In my opinion, however, this initiative of the Commission’s violates the principle of subsidiarity, which is why I chose to abstain.
Vital Moreira (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I voted for the Thyssen report on a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base because I consider it an important step towards tax harmonisation and transparency in the EU, making life easier for companies active in more than one country, and enabling actual taxation of corporations in the Member States to be compared. Moreover, a common tax base is a precondition for future corporation tax convergence, starting with establishing a minimum level. As a matter of fact, that is why I voted for the proposal for that very thing by the Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left. Indeed, without corporation tax harmonisation, the present system of tax competition – which runs counter to the very idea of the single market – will persist, enabling fiscal dumping and encouraging a race to the bottom with corporation tax and tax receipts.
Claudio Morganti (EFD), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of this motion for a resolution, which aims to introduce a European Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB).
This is absolutely not tantamount to harmonising tax rates across the Member States, which will retain the broadest possible autonomy in this respect. Instead, the aim of this proposal is to set out common rules on the calculation and apportionment of the tax base of companies operating in the European Union.
This entirely optional formula could help those businesses that operate in various Member States or that might wish to do so by expanding their business. This could apply particularly to small and medium-sized enterprises which find themselves having to deal with various different legal, bureaucratic and administrative systems.
After an initial test phase, we will see whether this new system has been of help to our businesses in fully exploiting the opportunities afforded by the single European market, which all too often still remain unfulfilled.
Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. − (LT) Setting a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB) across the EU is an attractive proposal ensuring convenience for companies operating in more than one Member State and guaranteeing clarity when calculating corporate tax. On the other hand, the harmonisation of the base must not lead to tariff harmonisation because this could have a negative impact on the economies of certain Member States and investments in them.
Sławomir Witold Nitras (PPE), in writing. − (PL) There is a broad consensus in favour of the introduction of a consolidated tax base for a Company Income Tax in the EU. This has been expressed on a number of occasions, for example by the signatures of the Euro Plus Pact signatories. This would be an important step in building a common market and would make life much simpler for EU companies. It would bring about a significant improvement in the competitiveness of the European economy as it would create savings for business. However the consolidation proposal is destroying the consensus around the above concept by creating artificial formulae for classifying CIT tax income, which divides EU Member States into ‘winners’ and ‘losers’, meaning those that gain from this formula and those that lose. What is more, the document voted through during the sitting of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs contained statements concerning possible CIT tax harmonisation, which represent a considerable distortion to the initial purpose of this directive. Having considered the above issues, I was forced to vote against this proposal in the hope that it will be rejected.
Siiri Oviir (ALDE), in writing. − (ET) I supported this directive, as I think it important for the tax base to be harmonised and made fairer and more effective. A more integrated tax policy would reduce EU bureaucracy and increase transparency in matters of taxation. The great differences in the taxation of corporate income are a significant factor restricting investment in the European Union, causing unfair competition and revenue allocation among Member States. Even countries with extensive tax incentives such as Estonia, where companies do not have to pay income tax on investments, the desired competitive advantage has not been achieved, and this has instead created a situation in which corporations withdraw their profits tax-free and channel them, within their group, to other countries. It is, however, vitally important to have tax incentives for small and medium-sized enterprises, and it is altogether justified to make exceptions for them. The fears of some Member States that this directive may in future be used to begin harmonising corporate tax rates are, however, unfounded. I support the proposal to calculate the tax base and divide it into parts (turnover, labour and assets), which is extremely important for the above-mentioned reasons.
Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I welcome this resolution on a Council directive on a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB). I believe that it is essential to enable all corporate taxpayers in the European Union to calculate their corporate tax base according to uniform rules on the calculation of taxable profits. This would be to the benefit of companies that operate across borders. I believe that it is appropriate for the corporate tax calculation system to be optional, not compulsory. Above all, it will ensure greater fiscal transparency, and reduce compliance costs and bureaucracy. I oppose the proposal to set a minimum European rate of corporation tax. The lower corporate tax limit of 25% proposed would not be objectively justified or suitable for the majority of companies. I believe that Member States themselves must determine the amount of corporate tax to be paid by companies.
Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. − (IT) As it stands, if a company in Europe decides to invest outside its own Member State then it has to take into account the tax system of the country where it opens for business, encountering huge difficulties caused by the excessive number of differences. Our goal is to integrate and enhance the European internal market, as well as to facilitate movement and investment in small enterprises across the EU. That is why I think the report by Ms Thyssen, which aims to establish European tax system for a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB), is very interesting indeed. This proposal for a directive of the Council also sets out the rules that the affected companies will have to comply with when calculating their contributions – the rules of a single European tax system.
Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) This directive and the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base, which I voted in favour of, introduces certain common rules for calculating the tax base applicable to companies trading in the European Union. The Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base is calculated using a specific mathematical formula that includes each company’s sales, turnover and assets. Of course, this particular directive, which is basically a technical directive, does not affect tax rates which, under the Treaty, are an internal affair for the Member States. Nonetheless, it endeavours to propose a common voluntary framework for undertakings. The European Parliament has repeatedly expressed the view that a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base would help to complete the internal market and hence to bring about stability in the euro area.
Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. − (PT) This proposal for a directive on a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base introduces common rules for calculating the tax base of companies active in the European Union. I voted in favour because I believe this directive constitutes an indispensable instrument for completing the European internal market, on the one hand, and for the European economic integration that a stable euro area requires, on the other.
Tomasz Piotr Poręba (ECR), in writing. − (PL) I voted against the report on the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base because I believe that this system should be voluntary, its introduction should be gradual and it should involve only companies that want to be included in it. However, not only does the report contain a proposal to include all international corporations in the common tax base within two years, but it also says that after five years it should include all larger companies operating within the EU. Tax matters are at present and should remain the exclusive preserve of Member States. I am against any attempts to change the status quo.
Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The Council directive on a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB) introduces common rules for calculating the tax base of companies active in the EU. The harmonisation introduced by this directive only involves calculating and apportioning the tax base, since determining what tax rate to apply is up to each Member State. The directive also does not affect national rules on financial reporting. There are countless advantages to introducing the CCCTB, such as increased tax transparency, which will make the tax system more equal and effective; reduced implementation and bureaucracy costs, making the EU more attractive to foreign investors; and reduced tax evasion and fraud, as well as double taxation. I therefore voted in favour.
Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. − (IT) In today’s sitting in Strasbourg, Ms Thyssen’s report on the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB) was put to the vote.
The differences between the tax systems of the EU Member States are sometimes enormous and are often so difficult to reconcile that it can become complicated and costly to expand a business within the single market. The CCCTB system would instead give businesses the chance to calculate their taxable incomes according to a single body of rules, rather than having to comply with different tax rules in each Member State in which they operate. The system would also make it easier to open and maintain branches in other States, cutting red tape for these companies.
The plan foresees the CCCTB becoming mandatory at the end of a transition period. In the first phase the common tax base should, however, be applied by all European cooperatives and after five years by all companies, except small and medium-enterprises, for which it would remain optional.
Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. Introducing a common corporate tax base is a key measure for ending tax arbitrage in Europe as well as reducing business costs, and the EP has today fully backed the proposals to this end. If it is to work, the CCCTB has to be binding, and the EP has today underlined this point, calling for a mandatory CCCTB for all large enterprises whilst leaving small and medium-sized enterprises the option to choose to apply the common base if they wish. A common corporate tax base would ensure greater transparency of corporate tax in the EU and reduce the scope for tax evasion, as well as reducing the administrative burden for tax-compliant cross-border firms. The CCCTB must only be the first step for tackling tax evasion and dumping in Europe and must be followed up by a minimum corporate tax rate, both of which together would help end the tax dumping that enables corporations in the EU to avoid up to EUR 100 billion in tax payments. The EP has today given a signal in this direction. We now look to the Commission and EU governments to be more proactive to this end.
Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of this text because I think setting out common rules for the calculation of the tax base for companies operating in the European Union is essential. I believe that the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB) is an indispensable instrument for completion of the European internal market on the one hand and for the European economic integration which is necessary for the stability of the euro area on the other hand. The current crisis must not be allowed to constitute an obstacle: rather, it must catalyse the introduction of this system.
Amalia Sartori (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I think we need to start simplifying and harmonising taxes across the various Member States.
Having 27 different sets of rules carries a number of disadvantages: high costs and administrative burdens, social and economic distortions, risks of discrimination and, lastly, an increase in opportunities for tax evasion. That is why, despite the reluctance of some Member States, who see their sovereignty over tax issues being threatened, I have voted in favour of Ms Thyssen’s report on the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base.
Indeed, I am very much convinced that all Member States need to comply with the same rules if the single market project is to be completed.
Petri Sarvamaa (PPE), in writing. − (FI) Uncertainty and structural challenges continue to affect the EU economy. According to investment barometers, over the next few years, Europe faces the threat of a large-scale departure of industry for areas where production costs are lower. In addition, the longer term change to the age structure in the EU is significantly hampering the successful management of public finances. These causes of the problem pose a special challenge for policymaking. Decisions at EU level must help us to do all we can to ensure that entrepreneurial activity, which provides employment and serves as the basis for the well-being of societies, can thrive.
The Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB) is a step in the right direction. Leaving a corporate tax return to just one country would cut the costs incurred by companies operating across borders substantially and proportionately: the smaller the company concerned is, the more could be saved. Thus, if the reform were to go ahead, it would encourage small and medium-sized enterprises to start business activity in the EU beyond their national borders. The CCCTB would also encourage foreign investors to invest in the EU, on account of the cheaper and clearer corporate taxation system.
Because the project to establish the CCCTB has encountered opposition in certain member states, it is important that the system is introduced on as broad a basis as possible. I also voted in favour of Ms Thyssen’s report because it contains the requirement to establish a roadmap to make the CCCTB gradually compulsory for companies other than SMEs.
Francisco Sosa Wagner (NI), in writing. − I voted for Amendment 39, although the wording is inappropriate.
Kay Swinburne (ECR), in writing. − The ECR concurs with the Commission’s view that directive on CCCTB laying down common rules for the calculation of the tax base applicable to companies operating in the European Union should be optional. We therefore disagree with the call for a mandatory CCCTB expressed in the report of the European Parliament. Moreover, unlike the Commission, we consider that this system should not be mandatory for all EU27 states but rather should be open to those Member States that would decide to opt in. For these reasons we consider that, while it is important to aim at the completion of the Single Market through means that, among other things, reduce the administrative burden for companies operating in the EU, it is equally essential to preserve the freedom to run a business in accordance with existing national laws and practices in order to ensure healthy competition between companies. Any attempt, overt or hidden, to put in place an initial step leading towards harmonisation of corporate taxation in the EU is thus to be opposed on both legal and economic grounds. The subsidiarity principle must be fully respected in the area of direct taxation where the Treaty of Lisbon does not enshrine an exclusive EU competence.
Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. − (PT) In March 2011, the European Commission tabled a proposal for a directive on a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base, with a view to combating some of the main fiscal obstacles to the growth of the single market. I believe interaction between national tax systems and the lack of rules on a common tax base will involve double taxation and high administrative costs for involved companies. As such, I am voting for this draft legislative resolution, because I believe there is a need to adopt well defined rules on the common tax base. The aforementioned rules will contribute to strengthening the single market, will facilitate the work of small and medium-sized enterprises operating across borders, and will encourage the private investment stipulated in the Europe 2020 strategy. As such, I believe greater fiscal stabilisation should be achieved at European level, so as to increase security for European companies, thereby boosting economic recovery.
Emilie Turunen (Verts/ALE), in writing. − (DA) I decided to vote in favour of Ms Thyssen’s report on the proposal for a Council directive on a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base, because such a base – in addition to a reduction in the administrative burden for companies operating across national borders – is an effective way to counter tax evasion. I therefore fundamentally support a common European tax base. However, the tax base ought to be much broader and more robust than that provided for in either the report or the Commission’s proposal, so that countries that already have a much broader corporate tax base – including Denmark – do not run the risk of losing a large part of their current tax revenue.
Vladimir Urutchev (PPE), in writing. − (BG) There is no doubt that, if there are 27 tax systems in the EU, the cross-border operation of companies is not only made difficult, but also making the final efforts to create a single internal market is cast in doubt without common tax rules. However, this does not mean that common corporate tax rates are needed immediately. Let us not forget that tax competition is an important instrument for Member States to attract investments and regulate economic and financial processes, and it is therefore no coincidence that tax policy comes entirely under their remit. This is why I supported the removal of texts on the introduction of minimum tax rates, which would adversely affect at the moment those economies that need urgent incentives to achieve growth and higher competitiveness. For economies with low, flat tax rates of around 10-12%, the introduction of tax rates of 25%, as proposed by some colleagues in Parliament, would be tantamount to eliminating the potential to attract investments, with unforeseeable economic and social consequences. Against the current background of economic and financial crisis, the time is not right to impose on Member States external tax solutions that may further erode the undermined confidence in the EU, especially if tax increases are looming on the horizon.
Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. − This report states that the introduction of a CCCTB should improve growth and lead to more jobs in the Union by reducing the administrative costs and red tape for companies – particularly for small businesses operating in several Member States – and I fully agree with this. Its adoption will improve the internal market scheme and employment rates.
Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Harmonising the procedures for calculating the taxable profits of companies in the 27 Member States is a measure that the European business community has been hoping for.
Reduced costs and red tape will improve the prospects for growth of businesses with cross-border operations and promote the accessibility of the internal market for small and medium-sized enterprises and for businesses currently only operating in domestic markets. Fiscal transparency will also be improved, with fewer opportunities for fraud and tax evasion, as well as reduced double taxation and tax discrimination.
Roberts Zīle, (ECR), in writing. – (LV) In my view, the proposal for a Council directive on a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base should not be supported. The right of Member States to set differing corporate income tax rates, as well as to decide what precisely is taxable, is one of the means of ensuring fair competition between EU countries. Member States that have joined the euro area or have pegged their exchange rates to the euro no longer have the opportunity to use monetary instruments as a means of increasing their competitiveness. As a consequence, an advantageous tax regime is almost the only opportunity for new EU Member States to create the conditions for economic growth that is more rapid than in Member States with a large accumulated capital base. Although Parliament’s stance emphasises that the new system will not apply to the level of tax rates, it expresses an unequivocal determination to move towards ever closer tax harmonisation in the EU. Parliament wishes to amend the voluntary principle as regards the introduction of the corporate income tax base which is unequivocally expressed in the European Commission’s proposed directive. Instead, European companies which are by definition ‘transnational’ ‘are considered’ to have opted to apply the system from two years after the date on which the Member States apply the provisions of the new directive. Other companies, with the exception of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), should also apply the directive no later than by the end of the fifth year of its implementation. Furthermore, the Commission is empowered to examine whether it must also become mandatory for SMEs.
Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) The proposal is to regulate taxation on the income of companies and groups of companies active in more than one EU Member State. To this end, it puts forward a fixed formula for apportionment that does not affect the tax base, but rather its apportionment among the Member States. Value of sales, number of workers, staff costs and value of fixed assets are factors in this formula. It is not accurate because it does not take account of concrete factors, the importance of which may not be negligible. Moreover, considering wage bills or labour costs also has the harmful consequence of disproportionately distributing profits to countries where these are higher. In fact, any companies opting for this system will stop being taxed on their profits and will start being taxed according to the results of applying the designated factors to the group’s profits, which may not – and, the majority of the time, will not – be the same as the company’s real profit. The Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base is optional. However, it cannot be applied to small and medium-sized enterprises, but only to European companies and European cooperatives, creating a situation beneficial to multinationals.
Damien Abad (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The European Parliament has a consultative role in energy taxation. In this particular instance, the intention was to provide recommendations to the Council on the basis of the Commission’s proposal to amend taxation on fuels and electricity within the Union. However, schemes such as this would require Member States to respect, in their national price setting, the gaps that exist in the minima (proportionality principle). This would lead to an increase in the price of diesel and would harm consumers as well as professional users. I am therefore opposed to this fiscal neutrality.
Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I am voting for this report and would stress the major advances enabled by the negotiations in restructuring green taxation; specifically, the introduction of appropriate incentives and schemes regarding domestic and business consumers. Another important issue that has been approved is that, owing to the economic and financial crisis being experienced in Europe and worldwide, businesses will have to implement the principles of this measure gradually in order to adapt to new taxation on energy products.
Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Another major issue in this plenary session concerned the taxation of energy products and electricity. With this revision, the Commission is aiming to adapt the taxation framework for energy products to EU objectives in terms of energy efficiency and combating climate change. As you know, I am a member of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, responsible for this text. In this capacity, I undertake on a daily basis to strike the best possible balance between achieving the European Union’s objectives in terms of climate change on the one hand, and increasing the competitiveness of our companies on the other. I personally voted against an increase in taxation on diesel and asked for a special scheme to protect those who use diesel in their daily work: farmers, hauliers, taxi drivers, etc.
Inés Ayala Sender (S&D), in writing. − Even though some amendments did not go through as I would have expected, I voted in favour of this important proposal as it is necessary to update the directive and to protect the environment while fostering growth and creating new, additional jobs. I am happy to see that we have voted in favour on the first block and, more precisely, on the energy efficiency efforts demanded in return for the more favourable tax treatment to be coordinated by Member States for agricultural, horticultural and piscicultural works and forestry. On the other hand, I believe that protecting and ensuring the proper functioning of the EU’s leading carmaking industry is our responsibility. Bearing this in mind, and taking into account the economic turmoil that some Member States are facing, I voted in favour of those amendments that protect EU industry and will make it stronger and, on the other hand, those that are in line with efforts to achieve a strong EU internal market while pushing our economy to higher levels of green growth and energy efficiency in accordance with the 2020 strategy.
Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I abstained from voting on this important issue. The proposal presented by the Commission on the taxation of energy products and electricity really is a significant contribution to the realisation of the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions outlined in the Europe 2020 strategy. Under the Commission’s proposal, energy taxes will be divided into tax linked to CO2 emissions and tax based on the energy content of products. This means that a single minimum rate of tax for CO2 emissions (EUR 20/t CO2) will be set for all sectors not covered by the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS). The sectors in question, notably households, the transport sector, small businesses and agriculture, will thus become subject to a carbon charge. Each energy product will be also taxed according to the amount of energy it produces. Although it is estimated that the introduction of a CO2 tax at the rate of EUR 20/t will secure EUR 20 billion in combined tax revenue for the EU countries as of 2020, it is essential to comprehensively assess the impact of this proposal on EU industry and economic growth. In a large number of Member States the adoption of this proposal would lead to a significant increase in the price of diesel, which would have a negative impact on European competitiveness in the technological development of diesel engines and the European automobile industry, which is already facing serious competition from third countries. I believe that it is essential to reconsider and thoroughly assess the consequences of this proposal.
Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I abstained from voting on this report because Romania has reservations about the current version of the proposal. This proposal favours renewable energy sources, thereby helping implement the European ‘20-20-20’ strategy aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, providing the necessary framework for taxing carbon dioxide would increase energy efficiency. I too support the rapporteur’s view about the need to send a positive message. On the other hand, the proposal for a directive would raise the minimum compulsory levels of excise duties for energy products and electricity. In addition, the price of diesel is already fairly high and a new increase would be detrimental to consumers. I think that it is important for us to adopt a constructive approach without complicating matters even more.
Bastiaan Belder (EFD), in writing. − (NL) The Lulling report will not receive my support. The principle of a review of the taxation on energy products and electricity on the basis of CO2 emissions and energy content is positive. However, increased energy taxation should be offset from other areas, for example through lower taxes on labour. The EU does not have competence to act in that respect, and rightly so.
In order to ensure a successful review of energy taxation, compensation with other taxes at the national level is necessary. Because no such measures have been provided for, the consequences of the current proposal cannot be adequately estimated.
Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The Conservatives in the European Parliament, on the pretext that austere times justify rejecting environmental measures, have decided to postpone indefinitely the Commission’s plan to remove tax advantages on certain energy and electricity products such as diesel. Most MEPs are in favour of mechanisms which give an advantage to polluting forms of energy in the European energy taxation system. I must denounce this contrived competition between social measures and environmental measures. I am committed to an ambitious environmental policy, and therefore I voted against Ms Lulling’s report. This report has outrageously simplified the Commission’s proposal and strips it of all credibility by arguing that the Commission’s draft directive on taxation would have a negative social impact due to the increase in the price of coal, natural gas, heating oil and diesel. This is false because the proposal does not aim to penalise diesel specifically but rather to tax fuels neutrally so that all fuels compete with each other on the basis of their advantages and not their taxation.
Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because it is an important contribution to the realisation of the Europe 2020 strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The existing directive on energy taxation, adopted in 2003, was concerned primarily with preventing distortions of competition in the energy sector within the internal market. With this proposal to amend the directive, the European Commission seeks to reconcile the four different areas of climate change: energy efficiency, the internal market and promoting growth and employment. It is important to adapt the structure of energy taxation in order to support the aim of a low-carbon, energy-efficient economy and to avoid problems in the internal market. The Commission intends to tax energy on a dual basis, according to both CO2 emissions and energy content. By introducing a CO2-based element into energy taxation, this proposal seeks to bring it into line with the EU’s commitments on combating climate change. It also seeks to observe proportionality with regard to the various minima set at EU level. It is therefore of the utmost importance to strike a balance between concerns in order to set the right course at EU level.
Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Energy is a vital component in any economy, exerting a major impact on every sector. The specific policies promoted in this area must nurture a climate that is conducive to promoting and utilising all the available energy sources so as to mitigate the adverse impact which is evident in this market. The proposal for a revised directive changes the structure of energy taxation in order to support the aim of a low-carbon, energy-efficient economy and to avoid problems in the internal market. By introducing a CO2-based element into energy taxation, the proposal seeks to bring this into line with the EU’s commitments on combating climate change. The measures taken by the European Union on taxing energy products and electricity are converging with the aim of providing a fiscal framework as conducive as possible to promoting with maximum efficiency the best and most extensive use of energy products, while also reducing the wasteful and unwarranted consumption of these products.
Phil Bennion (ALDE), in writing. − I voted in favour of this report which sets a logical approach to energy taxation and brings us closer in some respects to green taxation. I gave particular support to the proportionality principle which unfortunately was not carried. This principle, by removing subsidies for certain fuels via tax advantages, by sending correct price signals to consumers, and by being technology-neutral, could have provided a level playing field to new technologies and facilitated their market penetration. However, I did not support Amendment 25 which includes biomass or made-of-biomass fuels in the directive. It is indeed absolutely not practical and almost impossible to be accurate in measuring biomass energy in terms of its contribution to the CO2 balance and its energy content per quantitative unit, because of the own specificities of this energy. I will try to address this when the directive is discussed in Council by working closely with the UK Energy and Climate Change Minister.
John Bufton (EFD), in writing. − I voted against this as I am opposed to the increasing punitive measures taken against individuals and companies who have no choice but to use non renewable energy. Prices are already artificially high, meaning Europe struggles to compete with other countries on low cost manufacturing and logistics, with the extra cost passed down to the consumer, while the cost of living also soars. I am against any EU initiative which seeks to gain fiscal reward from green taxation. There is no evidence that revenue collected is used to combat climate change – which in itself is debatable as to whether it is a man-made problem– and as a result creates is politicised stealth tax on living and working costs. It is estimated that the introduction of the tax will secure EUR 20 billion as of 2020. This would lead to a rise in the price of diesel in most Member States, which would also affect consumer prices, with inflation a possible outcome. Considering the ongoing struggles in the Eurozone and the competitiveness of rising superpowers such as China and India, the €20billion would be better spent boosting rather than penalising European manufacturing.
Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I welcome the adoption of this report on the taxation of energy and electricity products in the European Union. Parliament has clearly demonstrated that CO2 emissions are harmful and that it is not reasonable, in this context of crisis, to impose high taxation on energy consumption alone. I note that the report as adopted takes a stance in favour of the fairest possible taxation and that it does not penalise consumers of diesel. I believe that the target for reducing CO2 emissions should not be a brake on activity. I expect the Council to follow the position of the European Parliament. The issue here is the competitiveness of companies as well as the purchasing power of European citizens.
Lara Comi (PPE) , in writing. − (IT) The European Union has a responsibility to promote responsible and sustainable energy policies. Accordingly, I decided to vote in favour of the report on the taxation of energy products, which sets out a series of measures designed to promote energy efficiency and reduce CO2 emissions. I also think that the amendments adopted by Parliament have significantly improved the Commission’s proposal and in particular I would highlight the importance of getting rid of the article that would have forced the Member States, for the purposes of fiscal neutrality, to apply the same rates to all energy sources put to the same use. This amendment allows the Member States to retain different levels of tax on diesel and petrol. Increasing the excise duties on gas oil would actually have caused a drop in competitiveness in the European motor vehicle industry, which is traditionally stronger in the production of diesel engines, with obvious repercussions on employment. The greater energy efficiency of diesel engines is also a scientific fact, which is why we need to be able to retain a favourable tax regime on gas oil. For these reasons I voted in favour of the amendment to the Commission’s proposal, which removes the principle of fiscal neutrality. I also voted in favour of the report in question.
Emer Costello (S&D), in writing. − Europe has to reduce CO2 emission and to provide a lead to the rest of the world when it comes to tackling climate change. I was not convinced however that the proposal to increase taxation levels on diesel was sufficiently thought through especially as regards its impact on peripheral regions such as Ireland which has no direct landlinks to mainland Europe. I would urge the Commission to look again at this and at possible countervailing measures to ensure that the necessary action to tackle climate change do not disproportionately disadvantage peripheral areas like Ireland whose prosperity to a large extent depends on exports.
Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I think that this proposal will make a major contribution to implementing the Europe 2020 strategy on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Ioan Enciu (S&D), in writing. − I voted against this Report on the proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 2003/96/EC restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity, because I strongly believe that it will constitute a further and excessive burden on our citizens, who have already been heavily subjected to the dramatic effects of the economic and financial crisis.
The main effect of this taxation will be an increase in energy and electricity bills in all EU Member States due to the imposition of a flat rate of tax in addition to other national taxes. This is unacceptable, firstly because prices for energy and fuel have increased tremendously in recent years; secondly, because a flat rate of tax is discriminatory, since it does not take into account the socio-economic, structural and infrastructural differences between EU countries; lastly, because it greatly interferes with the domestic fiscal policies of the Member States. I believe that if environment protection is the goal of the EU, this should be achieved by proposing investments in renewable energies and infrastructures, not through a tax which will have to be paid by our citizens, and them alone.
Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I voted for this report on the directive on ‘the taxation of energy products and electricity’, since it proposes gradually introducing measures, such as a CO2 tax, to adapt energy taxation systems to the EU’s commitments as regards combating climate change, whilst providing for a temporary period for the introduction thereof, and for incentives for businesses and families.
Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Finding the perfect balance between the objectives of climate and environmental policy and those of energy and industrial policy is a complex exercise and one that is rarely easy to reach an agreement on. When we add to these two objectives the third of an internal market founded on free circulation of goods and services, the exercise underlying tax calculation – founded on the principle of equal conditions for energy consumers, regardless of energy source used – becomes extremely complex.
However, the European Union has been making great efforts to find that balance. As such, this directive is intended to find a new calculation method, with final taxation based on two elements: CO2 emissions and general energy consumption taxation. An important point for Portugal that this directive intends to safeguard is the Member States’ right to apply a level of general energy consumption taxation down to zero on the consumption of energy products and electricity used for agriculture, horticulture and aquaculture, and in forestry. I should also like to congratulate my colleague, Ms Lulling, on her work in an area as sensitive as this.
José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) This report, drafted by Ms Lulling, concerns a fairly controversial issue. It is a proposal for a directive, tabled by the Council, amending Council Directive 2003/96/EC on restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity. Over the last decade, the European public have been faced with continuous price increases for energy products, which has caused production inputs to become significantly more expensive, thereby increasing living costs. At a time when the global crisis is increasing the number of unemployed, causing wage freezes and delaying retirement ages, any measure exacerbating the price of these products could have very negative social effects. While I understand the need for us to move towards a low-carbon economy to prevent climate change, this process must be gradual, and must not suffocate the economy and, above all, people. I voted for this report because I believe the energy taxation approved in 2003 is out of date with respect to new CO2-reduction rules under the Europe 2020 strategy objectives. However, I am bound to point out the social problems resulting from measures that penalise consumers.
João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) This proposal for a directive on the taxation of energy products and electricity lays down that the rate of tax on a given product will combine the tax linked to CO2 emissions and that based on energy content. Beyond that, the Member States will be free to set their own rates of taxation, above the threshold levels imposed by the EU, and to work out their own taxation structure, reproducing the ratio between the minimum rates of taxation for the various energy sources. Given the continuous trend towards increased prices of final energy carriers, the energy taxation framework being proposed here, against a backdrop of continued neoliberal policies in this sector, will not fail to penalise consumers in general as well as the countries with less competitive economies, which currently already have serious competitiveness problems due to production-input costs relating to their specific situations. We are bound to express our concern at this. Environmental objectives should certainly be pursued and deepened, but within the framework of a different socioeconomic structure that puts this strategic sector in state hands, at the service of the public.
Carlo Fidanza (PPE), in writing. −(IT) I welcome the report by Ms Lulling on a proposal to reform the tax system on energy products. I attach fundamental significance to the adoption of Amendment 7, which keeps fuel for the agricultural sector tax-free. This vote therefore sends out a strong message in defence of the agricultural sector, which was rightly concerned about the consequences that an increase in the price of agricultural fuel would have had at a time like the present. The vote also takes on even further significance given that negotiations are under way for the reform of the common agricultural policy 2014-2020, which will really get going in the coming months with the presentation of Parliament’s proposals.
Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE), in writing. − (HU) I voted ‘yes’, because this report concerns the in-depth review of the rules of the EU taxation of energy products, and encourages not only the elimination of current imbalances, but also the use of renewables and energy sources with lower CO2 emissions. The implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy and our energy and climate policy goals requires a fair and transparent system of energy taxation that can help reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. In addition to providing a strong CO2 price signal to companies and consumers, the proposal enables us to shift tax burdens from labour to consumption, thereby giving preference to taxation that promotes growth. Furthermore, since minimum levels of taxation are uniform at EU level, this amendment to the Directive will not impose any additional burdens on farmers, and will not reduce competitiveness either.
Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (S&D), in writing. − (PL) The energy directive that is currently in force only sets minimum taxation rates for energy products such as motor or heating fuels, as well as electricity, while the level of taxation depends solely on the consumption of energy sources. The European Commission proposal would change the current rules. It also proposes changes in the way that energy products are taxed in order to remove present imbalances and take into account CO2 emissions as well as the energy content of fuel products. In addition, it proposes a 10-year transition period to bring about a complete consolidation in the taxation system.
In the case of Poland the new solutions being proposed are practically impossible to implement without significant costs that, unfortunately, would be passed on to consumers. Over the next 10 years, there is no real possibility for Poland to obtain sufficient quantities of power from renewable sources, or to build nuclear power stations – as France has done – in order to discontinue use of coal. Coal has a lower calorific value than gas but has twice the emissions level, which means an increase in taxation and this means an increase in prices for the average citizen. The new provisions also affect Poland’s competitiveness, since almost 90% of electricity is generated from coal. Furthermore, a transition from a taxation system based solely on the amount of energy used to one based on fuel, where this is also dependent on the efficiency of that fuel, may result in the introduction of, in effect, a coal tax related to CO2 emissions which, in the case of my country, means an additional excise duty on coal to be introduced in 2013.
I voted against, as in my opinion the report that has been adopted today and the resulting legal changes will bring about more problems than benefits.
Adam Gierek (S&D), in writing. − (PL) It seems to me that the Commission officials who prepared this scandalous draft did not carry out any consultations and did not consider the effects of their proposals on society in Central and Eastern European countries. Yet the Commission’s proposal talks about multilateral consultations with stakeholders. With whom did these consultations take place? I would like to know who was consulted in my country.
In Poland coal is the main fuel for heating residential households, especially in small towns and in the countryside. One tonne of coal, when burned, produces about three to three and a half tonnes of CO2. If this is multiplied by EUR 20 per tonne of CO2 (where does this figure come from – plucked from thin air? – and why is it in euros?), then, assuming that the price of coal varies between PLN 500 and PLN 700 per tonne, its price will increase by about PLN 300 to PLN 800 and PLN 1 000 per tonne. The average household uses from six to seven tonnes of this fuel per annum and farmers use even more. Did these so-called consultations take the above into account? I do not think so. For this reason I voted against this execrable proposal.
Robert Goebbels (S&D), in writing. − (DE) Under the lofty pretext of pursuing a sustainable energy policy, this directive primarily seeks to impose a higher tax on diesel than on petrol. That may be in the interests of the oil industry, in particular the refineries, which are experiencing problems in connection with the sale of petrol. The proposed price increases, particularly for diesel products, will drive inflation. As 98% of all lorries are powered by diesel engines, the diesel price increases will make the whole logistics chain more expensive and place the economy and consumers under pressure. Most importantly, the millions of Europeans who drive diesel-powered vehicles will be placed under an excessive burden. The directive also sends out the wrong signals with regard to European industrial policy and it contradicts the directives that have been adopted to date aimed at reducing CO2 emissions from cars.
Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. – (FR) I voted against the Lulling report and against the European Directive on energy taxation. Not because it is unusual to tax energy, it is already heavily taxed nationally. This text will increase the burden of taxation, adding a tax on CO2 emissions to a general tax on energy consumption.
While I am on this subject, the French Government has approved the introduction of this ‘carbon tax’ at European level, knowing full well that it will further increase the price of a full tank and heating for millions of impoverished citizens.
This report’s biggest crime is the alignment of rates of taxation for products used for the same purpose. To put it bluntly, diesel is taxed the same as petrol, again with the support of the government and a potential increase of 20 cents a litre at the pump. This comes with the blessing of the French Government, and is a severe blow for the French automotive industry.
As for you, ladies and gentlemen, you have shown utter hypocrisy. You approved all that in committee and now you are sending part of it, the most contentious part, to plenary. This is not a matter of principle, as you are all in agreement: quite simply, it is a matter of avoiding problems before the elections and of passing the buck to the Council …
Estelle Grelier (S&D), in writing. – (FR) The European Parliament has been consulted on the reform of the system of taxation of energy products and electricity. While I voted in favour of Ms Lulling’s report, I believe that if it is to be understood and accepted by citizens, this change should take place gradually, bearing in mind the current socio-economic situation. Today, the cost of fuel is already a major expense for family incomes, and some families have consequently started to change their consumer habits. That is why I am opposed to the ‘proportionality’ principle between the different threshold levels applicable to each type of energy, which is likely to cause a very great increase in the cost of diesel, a widely-used fuel in France. Europe’s ecological objectives must not be achieved at the expense of the objectives of employment, competitiveness, and protection of consumers’ purchasing power, but must go hand in hand with these. Let us hope that the Council, the sole decision maker in fiscal matters, will listen to this message from the MEPs.
Mathieu Grosch (PPE), in writing. − (DE) The new EU rules on the taxation of energy products need to make a real contribution to the transition to cleaner energy sources and the reduction of CO2. Increasing taxes, which would lead to an increase in the price of diesel fuel, is not an adequate contribution.
At a time of increased demand for energy products and in consideration of the fact that the EU is still very dependent on external supplies of energy and is therefore at the mercy of the prices set by external suppliers, there will be an enormous pressure on industry and therefore also on EU citizens. In order to improve this situation, we ought to focus on renewable energies, as they are essential for economic development. Therefore, the real issue is not limited to how we should tax traditional forms of energy; it is also a question of how we can create incentives to use renewable forms of energy. Energy products must compete with one another so that the better form of energy will prevail in the future. Diesel and petrol both have advantages and disadvantages; no fuel can be classed as ‘better’. Therefore, the difference in taxation between diesel and petrol should be eradicated, but not necessarily by increasing the tax on diesel. What is more important is that, in this competition between sources of energy, the sustainable sources should gain a better position, and that is something that this proposal still fails to achieve.
Françoise Grossetête (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I welcome the adoption of Ms Lulling’s report aiming to overhaul the system of taxation of energy products and electricity in the European Union.
The draft directive proposes to revise the minimum levels of energy taxation. The methodology proposed by the Commission would have led us to believe that energies are harmful by their very nature whereas what are harmful are the emissions. It would have led to a substantial increase in excise duty on diesel in most Member States and particularly in France.
We are strongly committed to avoiding any excessive taxation of diesel vehicles which would penalise its consumers, our farmers, and the competitiveness of our companies, in particular in the energy and haulage sectors. Parliament, although only consulted on this matter, has sent a clear signal to the Council: we want an ecological Europe, but also a Europe which protects our competitiveness, our jobs, and the purchasing power of European citizens.
Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. − I voted the same way as my political group on this resolution, but for very different reasons. I do not support the harmonisation of taxation at EU level and believe that revenue-raising should remain a competence of sovereign Member States.
Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I voted against this because although an increase in energy prices encourages energy efficiency, at the end of the day the negative consequences of the increase in energy prices outweigh any positive effects. Moreover, the latest scientific achievements in Europe indicate that CO2 emissions can be reduced in part by increased use of diesel engines. The European Commission’s inconsistency is surprising in that it denounces automatic wage indexation where it still applies, but deploys the same arguments to advocate automatic indexation of energy taxes. The negative consequences for households and business would be far greater than the anticipated positive consequences. Revenue collection by taxing energy reduces people’s income.
Peter Jahr (PPE), in writing. − (DE) In order to avoid any misunderstanding: tax harmonisation in the EU in respect of fuels is important and to be welcomed. We only have to think of the disastrous tank tourism. However, this entirely meaningful debate was overshadowed by the introduction of the so-called proportionality principle, according to which not only should minimum tax rates apply, but also a minimum distance dependent on energy content should be introduced. The plans of the Commission would lead to a dramatic increase in the cost of diesel fuel and would therefore penalise diesel engines, which are actually more climate friendly. Imposing a higher tax on diesel on account of its higher energy content without taking into account the actual efficiency of the fuel is not the right approach to take. I am very pleased that, on the initiative of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), Parliament has now removed this proportionality principle. This left the sensible approach of this proposal intact and I was therefore able to vote in favour of the opinion.
Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported this report on revising the rules governing energy taxation in the European Union, to which the European Parliament contributes under a consultation procedure. The aim of this review is to align the taxation framework for energy products with goals pursued at European level in the fields of energy efficiency and combating global warming. I voted in particular against the maintenance of the principle of proportionality proposed by the Commission as it would lead to a major increase in the tax rate for diesel (and therefore in its price) by aligning it on the tax rate for petrol, which would have negative consequences both for European consumers and the European automotive industry.
Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE), in writing. − (PL) The purpose of updating Directive 2003/96/EC is to bring the European energy taxation system into line with the objectives of the Union’s strategy for combating climate change. The new fuel taxation method proposed by the European Commission involves a dual rate that includes the level of CO2 emissions and the amount of energy that can be obtained from the fuel in question. The present draft assumes that every country will be able to decide on the rates, which will be proportional to thresholds agreed at the EU level. The purpose of these changes is to increase the popularity of biofuels and other renewable sources of energy while gradually reducing the use of fossil fuels and increasing energy efficiency, and at the same time reducing carbon dioxide emissions. We cannot however ignore the effect that an increase in fuel costs will inevitably have on the industry and economies of the Member States. The automotive industry, transport and power generation itself, which in certain countries are fuelled almost entirely by coal, will suffer enormous losses. At a time of economic crisis, is this a step in the right direction? It is no surprise that this issue is creating ever deeper divisions and controversy. Let us not forget however that in this matter the European Parliament only plays an advisory role and it is up to governments to take the final decision, which must be taken unanimously by all Member States.
Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing. − I voted against this report because I believe that Member States should have the right to set their own CO2 taxation levels. In addition, the Commission’s proposal for a revised directive on energy taxation changes the existing directive adopted in 2003 with respect to the structure of the energy taxation. I do not agree that, by 2025, the Commission should make legislative proposals aimed at harmonising car purchase taxes, car registration taxes and car ownership taxes based on CO2 emissions, or issue a report explaining why it has not done so. That is a matter for Member States to decide.
Krišjānis Kariņš (PPE), in writing. – (LV) I voted against the proposal for a Council directive amending the determination of tax rates for energy products in the European Union. In my view, now is not the time to be contemplating tax increases. Although the Commission proposal envisages the introduction of an environmentally friendly system of tax computation, the possible changes are nevertheless too rapid, and European Union industry would be unable to adapt to them in such a short time. I was involved in the discussions on this directive from the very day that Parliament began to work on it. I took the firm stance in the discussions on the required amendments that this directive should be supported only if it did not give rise to tax increases for energy products and that Latvian taxpayers did not have to pay any more for them than at present. These changes in tax legislation would also give the wrong signal to industry in the European Union as a whole and could alter energy taxation structures in individual states. It is in Latvia’s interests to have stable export markets and rapid tax changes in them are not desirable.
Agnès Le Brun (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I welcome the adoption of this report and particularly of amendment 53 which eliminates proportionality, that is the Commission’s proposal to tax fuels in terms of their energy efficiency and not of the pollution caused by their combustion. Under this approach, diesel, which offers better energy efficiency than petrol, should have been taxed more heavily (EUR 390 per tonne as against EUR 359 for petrol). At a time when the price of fuel is constantly increasing, it proved necessary to protect the purchasing power of French citizens who, more than their European neighbours, use diesel motors.
Constance Le Grip (PPE) , in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of Ms Lulling’s report aiming to overhaul the system of taxation of energy products and electricity within the European Union. Bearing in mind the successive crises that have hit the global economy and our continent hard, we assert in this report our disagreement with the Commission over its proposal to change the system of energy taxation within the EU, which could potentially lead to a substantial increase in the price of diesel at the pump. In this report, we MEPs adopt a strong position with a view to maintaining our fellow citizens’ purchasing power and the competitiveness of our companies. The report thus stresses the need to respond to the legitimate expectations of economic actors, consumers and farmers who use diesel at all levels in their daily work.
Bogusław Liberadzki (S&D), in writing. − (PL) I voted against this report. It is obvious that steps should be taken and instruments introduced to help protect the natural environment, which constitutes our common good – the common good not just of EU citizens, but of all the world’s citizens. A tax on carbon dioxide emissions may be one such instrument. However, from the point of view of Poland, a tax on emissions from burning coal could have dramatic consequences. In particular, it could bring about an enormous hike in the price of coal and this could result in many Polish households finding themselves in even more difficult circumstances.
Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) This draft Council directive on restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity is proposing the revision of the old regulations on taxing energy products and electricity in the European Union. The new regulations are intended to revamp the way in which energy products are taxed so as to remove the current imbalances and take into account both the CO2 emissions they produce and their energy content. By applying differentiated rates of taxation to polluting products and services which do not comply with environmental regulations, producers are encouraged to invest in research aimed at developing more energy-efficient products and services. This will ensure that the legislative amendments proposed by this directive can help promote research and innovation.
David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I could not vote for this report because it did not give enough guarantees on exemptions for households and charities.
Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. − This report states that the rate of tax on a given product will combine the tax linked to CO2 emissions based on energy content. Although Member States would still be free to set their own rates of taxation, I supported Amendment 53 which deleted Article 4.3 concerning differentiation e.g. petrol and diesel. This Article proposed measures which could entail a substantial rise in the cost of diesel, resulting in damaging effects and a possible confliction with the Directive’s aims. I supported the text as a whole.
Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The existing Energy Taxation Directive, adopted in 2003, was concerned primarily with preventing distortions of competition in the energy sector within the internal market. It establishes common rules on the products subject to taxation, when taxation is to be applied and the permitted exemptions. Minimum rates – essentially based on the quantity of energy consumed – are laid down for fuels and electricity. Beyond these minimums, the Member States are free to set their national rates of taxation as they see fit. The proposal for a revised directive changes the structure of energy taxation in order to support the aim of a low-carbon, energy-efficient economy and to avoid problems in the internal market. By introducing a CO2-based element into energy taxation, the proposal seeks to bring it into line with the EU’s commitments on combating climate change. I support the new form of taxation, since it will contribute to reducing CO2 emissions.
Alajos Mészáros (PPE), in writing. − (HU) Just like industrial policy goals, energy policy goals are vital to the European Union. I believe that our industrial policy goals were given somewhat less attention in the review of the directive, and we must therefore strike an appropriate balance between opposing problems. We must in all respects approach the issue of energy taxation with care. We must harmonise it with the recently adopted Energy Efficiency Directive, and with EU energy policy guidelines. The taxation of energy on the basis of two factors, namely CO2 emissions and energy content, would lead to a more logical and more consistent system. This proposal could also contribute to the implementation of our Europe 2020 strategy. However, we must consider the fact that it would also entail a considerable rise in diesel fuel prices in most Member States. Thus, even if we approve the minimum value for diesel, I do not find the introduction of the principle of proportionality in its current form to be desirable. This step would constitute interference in national tax policies, not to mention that the rise in diesel fuel prices would also cause an increase in the prices of several other goods.
Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE), in writing. – (SK) I welcome the proposal from the Commission which will contribute to energy efficiency and climate protection in order not only to raise income, but mainly to reduce dependence on fossil fuels and also to influence consumer behaviour towards a more efficient use of energy and cleaner energy sources. I believe, however, that Member States should be free to make their own tax systems and to set their tax rates on energy products at a national level, whilst respecting the minimum levels. In the field of traditional fuels, I am concerned by the fact that implementing the principle of proportionality would risk increasing the tax on diesel. The negative impact would affect not only the daily lives of consumers and their purchasing habits, but also the haulage and automotive industries, which have in recent years made significant investments into research and development concerning diesel engines.
Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − To reshape green taxation the right incentives and schemes – sparing households – were introduced. I supported the report.
Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) Particularly at a time when fuel prices are rising dramatically, the Commission’s proposal is heading in the wrong direction. The burden on drivers is already excessive. Ordinary people would be particularly hard hit by an increase in the cost of diesel. They would have to pay more for fuel, which would, in turn, have an impact on purchasing power. That, in turn, would affect the economy, and an increase in transport costs would be passed on to consumers, which would push up inflation. I therefore have no option but to reject an increase in the taxation of diesel. I am pleased that it was possible to remove the passages relating to this from the text as a result of appropriate voting. The rapporteur, Ms Lulling, has essentially done a very good job and I therefore voted in favour of the report.
Vital Moreira (S&D), in writing. − (PT) There are two key reasons why I voted for the Lulling report on the taxation of energy products and electricity. Firstly, this legislation is a step in the right direction towards EU tax harmonisation, which, as I have been arguing for a long time, constitutes a key element of the very idea of the single market without internal borders, which is incompatible with fiscal dumping to gain competitiveness. Secondly, the taxation of energy products and electricity is a crucial element of the efficient use of resources of which the EU is sorely lacking, and of European policy to cut CO2 emissions and combat climate change.
Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. − (LT) When considering the issue of the taxation of energy products and electricity we are not just talking about EU energy policy but EU environmental policy. In debates in this House MEPs often regret that we do not have enough specific measures for combating climate change. In my opinion, the proposal presented by European Commissioner Algirdas Šemeta is welcome above all because uniform methods of calculation ensure fairness and uniform rules when setting taxes for different sources of energy. On the other hand, I agree that the proposal may seem too revolutionary for industry, particularly given long established practices and trends. I welcome the provision on the need to change the energy taxation framework and thus encourage energy efficiency and the use of less polluting fuel. If we want to achieve our objectives in the areas of combating climate change and energy efficiency this is a step we will still have to take. However, at the same time I also welcome the longer transition period which would enable the energy and automobile industries to adapt to the new requirements, along with the requirement that the European Commission analyse an impact assessment before taking appropriate steps.
Cristiana Muscardini (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Even though the rapporteur recognises the Commission’s contribution to the achievement of the European strategy, she rightly highlights the concerns over the industrial and transport policy that derive from it.
The road haulage sector would face serious difficulties if the price of gas oil were to increase as a result of efforts to reduce CO2 emissions in the industry. The environmental sustainability of transport by road is already guaranteed by the stringent regulations in place and businesses in the sector are already required to pay for emissions in accordance with well-defined EU and international obligations.
The principle of ‘proportionality’ across the various minimum tax thresholds set at EU level needs to be seriously re-examined in order to avoid an index-led increase in the price of diesel and the knock-on effects in terms of competition and inflation.
Fuel excises should not, in percentage terms, automatically follow inflation, as happens in Italy where fuel is among the most expensive in Europe, at EUR 1 738.19 per 1 000 litres against a European average of EUR 1 521.4. This system has got to be pulled, unless the Member States are ready to lose control over whether or not decisions on taxes are suitable. Automatic tax-setting is a terrible idea that must be avoided.
Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the amendments tabled for the report and I welcome the decision adopted by the European Parliament on the system for taxing energy products and electricity in the European Union. The method proposed by the European Commission would have pushed up the excise duty on diesel considerably in most Member States, which would have been detrimental to citizens who have invested in diesel cars, given in particular the competitive advantages they offer. Moreover, the method proposed by the Commission put farmers at a disadvantage as they would have had to invest more in agricultural activities or irrigation. However, I decided to abstain from the final vote in view of a number of other provisions in the report which I do not find totally satisfactory.
Sławomir Witold Nitras (PPE), in writing. − (PL) Energy taxation is a very delicate issue. This is because the prices of other products depend on the price of energy and without an appropriate quantity of energy at a reasonable price, economies will, at a stroke, cease to be competitive. For this reason I am sceptical of ideas for additional taxes on energy, especially where this is being done in the name of climate policy. Of course it is important, but it is not as important as a sensible energy policy. We cannot permit a situation to occur where by 2018 there is a six-fold increase in tax on a fuel that is used to create 30% of the EU’s energy. This fuel is of course coal – the object of attacks by many Members of this Parliament.
In light of the fact that the amendments tabled by myself and a group of 40 Members, proposing an optional emissions component, were rejected, I decided that I would vote against this directive. I did this despite the fact that the principle of proportionality, a principle that was unfavourable for all users of diesel-fuelled vehicles, was defeated by the votes of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats). This was not, however, sufficient to make this directive beneficial for Poland and its population.
Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. − (DE) The directive concerning the taxation of energy products, adopted in 2003, is urgently in need of revision on account of new challenges that have arisen. The new proposal incorporates two essential components into taxation. Firstly, in this proposal energy products are taxed according to their pollutant emissions. That takes into consideration the promotion of renewable energies. Secondly, it takes into account energy efficiency. However, these minimum provisions still leave the Member States some scope in connection with taxation. For these reasons, I voted in favour.
Siiri Oviir (ALDE), in writing. − (ET) I supported this report, because Amendment 53 met with my support. This amendment would mean that tax subsidies for diesel used in engines manufactured using environmentally sustainable technology would be retained, and the harmonisation of prices would not be required. In my opinion, it would have been unjust to punish with higher taxes those automobile manufacturers that have invested in the development of economical diesel engines, thereby violating their justified expectations. In conclusion, the proposals presented in this report are nevertheless an important step towards implementing the objectives reflected in the EU 2020 strategy in connection with the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I opposed this resolution. The proposed taxation of energy products and electricity will have a significant negative impact on the autonomy of Member States’ energy tax regimes, and on businesses operating in the energy market. Automatic indexation of minimum rates would remove Member State control over the level of future EU minimum rates. I believe that Member States themselves should choose the most appropriate means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It should be noted that the energy prices have recently increased and are high. However, the application of this directive would cause them to increase even more. The final customer would therefore be exposed to unreasonable and disproportionate burdens. The difficulties and problems faced by EU consumers and industry would also increase. I therefore believe that greater attention should be paid to industrial policy. This directive should not be applied to energy-intensive industry.
Justas Vincas Paleckis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I supported this report because I agree with its main idea: energy taxation rules must be adapted to the realities of today and EU objectives. A system of double taxation where part of the tax is determined by the fuel’s CO2 emission level, and the rest is based on the fuel’s energy content, will create a level playing field for all types of fuel. Less polluting biofuels will be taxed less than conventional fuels. This will encourage the creation of new environmentally friendly technologies. The new taxation rules are particularly important if Europe is seriously seeking to meet its obligations in the fight against climate change by 2020. The European Commission’s proposal will only set a minimum tax base. The EU countries will have more freedom to set taxes at the minimum or a higher level. It is important that the proposal gives EU Member States the opportunity not to apply the tax to fuel used for heating homes. I think that the transition period set until 2023 will give EU industry, transport and other sectors sufficient time to adapt to the changes.
Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Despite being a consultation legislative procedure, the amendment of the directive on the taxation of energy products and electricity has proven to be an extremely sensitive issue. A number of critically important points came out of the debate in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. The main bone of contention was the concept of ‘tax proportionality’, which was added to the directive by the Commission. The tax provides for the same minimum, mandatory rate on energy products in all Member States, which in turn will tax the various products proportionally, depending on their energy content and CO2 emission factor. Setting proportionally equal rates for all products would, however, curtail national sovereignty and restrict Member States’ room for manoeuvre, with negative repercussions on the energy sector that each country specialises in, inflationary risks, and detrimental effects for businesses and consumers. Luckily, during the vote in the sitting, the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) managed to get rid of ‘proportionality’ through a specific amendment, which I also voted for. Now it is the turn of the Council, which will in any case have to take Parliament’s position into account.
Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) The revised proposal for a directive amends the energy taxation system, in order to support the objective of an economy which is dependent and predicated less on coal and more on renewable energy sources. This report, which I voted in favour of, is positive for countries turning to solar energy and thus offers Greece another incentive to turn to new forms of energy and economic activities that will help the country get out of its economic predicament. For example, under the Commission proposal, taxes on energy are divided into two parts. The first part relates to CO2 emissions and the other relates to energy content. In both cases, Greece, which is rich in solar and wind energy, has a clear comparative advantage which it can utilise directly in order to safeguard low taxation and high competitiveness, for its and, more importantly, its citizens’ benefit.
Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The existing Energy Taxation Directive, adopted in 2003, was concerned primarily with preventing distortions of competition in the energy sector within the internal market. The proposal for a revised directive changes the structure of energy taxation in order to support the aim of a low-carbon, energy-efficient economy and to avoid problems in the internal market. By introducing a CO2-based element into energy taxation, the proposal seeks to bring it into line with the EU’s commitments on combating climate change. I voted in favour because I believe a text has been achieved that balances the very variable needs of the energy sector and its economic impact.
Tomasz Piotr Poręba (ECR), in writing. − (PL) There are many arguments against a tax on fuel prices and heating. Such a tax clearly undermines the competitiveness of the economy in Poland and the whole EU economy. The tax will increase prices for heating and industrial products in Poland which, in the long term, will result in the loss of many jobs and will increase disparities between Western and Eastern Europe. Energy-hungry industries in Central Europe must pay twice for their business activities just because coal is the main fuel in those countries. It looks as if Poland is still being punished for having large coal deposits. Even now in Poland the cost of the more severe climate policy has reached EUR 5.4 billion per annum, which constitutes over half of the profits, before tax, of all Polish industry. For this reason, I voted against this report.
Franck Proust (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Europe has set itself ambitious objectives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions for 2020-2030. We wish to increase the proportion of renewable energies in production and reduce the use of excessively harmful fossil fuels. The protection of the environment is a fundamental issue if we are to maintain some quality of life for future generations. However, we will not achieve this by crippling purchasing power with taxes now or by directly threatening an entire sector of our country’s economy, which is what will happen. Especially in the middle of a crisis. We need to adopt an educational and incentivising policy if we want to change the habits of our lifestyle. I therefore voted in favour of this resolution as a whole, as it is my duty, but against the principle of proportionality which would have caused fuel prices to soar over the coming years.
Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The existing Energy Taxation Directive, adopted in 2003, was concerned primarily with preventing distortions of competition in the energy sector within the internal market. It establishes common rules on the products subject to taxation, when taxation is to be applied and the permitted exemptions. However, the proposal for a revised directive changes the structure of energy taxation in order to support the aim of a low-carbon, energy-efficient economy and to be able to avoid problems in the internal market. By introducing a CO2-based element into energy taxation, the proposal seeks to bring it into line with the EU’s commitments on combating climate change. I voted in favour because I consider this report enormously important to achieving the Europe 20-20-20 targets on greenhouse gas reductions.
Frédérique Ries (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Increase excise duty on diesel? Along with most of my other fellow members, I voted resolutely against this resolution this afternoon. Not because this measure, which effectively aims to put the taxation of petrol and diesel on an equal footing, is wrong in itself. Indeed, one good thing is that it is accompanied by a wide series of exemptions and a very gradual phasing in. I quite simply believe that it is not appropriate here at this moment in time.
We are experiencing an unprecedented economic crisis. Citizens face incredible difficulties in paying their household energy expenses. That is why I find it unthinkable that the signal sent today is to penalise them further still.
I would simply like to remind you in passing that our Assembly is merely consulted on this matter. It is the governments which decide, unanimously, on these fiscal issues. This has not been made particularly clear in the fairly harsh press coverage over recent days. It is therefore their responsibility to move this debate on, by forcing the Commission to define the range of environmental issues more clearly and to ensure that the harmonisation sought does not depend on an automatic increase in taxes. There are other tools, other options, which, in point of fact, are too rarely taken.
Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. −(IT) Today’s part-session in Strasbourg saw the vote on the report by Ms Lulling.
The proposal for a directive changes the structure of energy taxation in order to support the aim of a low-carbon, energy-efficient economy and to avoid problems in the internal market. The proposal seeks to bring the directive into line with the EU’s commitments on combating climate change.
Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of this document because I think this proposal makes an important contribution to the achievement of the Europe 2020 Strategy in terms of reducing greenhouse emissions.
I agree with the Commission’s approach in terms of methodology: seeking to tax energy on a dual basis, according to both CO2 emissions and energy content. Indeed, energy taxes will consist of one part linked to CO2 emissions and another part based on energy content. The structure of energy taxation will hence aspire to support the aim of a low-carbon, energy-efficient economy.
By introducing a CO2-based element into energy taxation, the proposal seeks to bring it into line with the European Union’s commitments on combating climate change.
Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. − (IT) In light of the current economic crisis, Parliament ought to send a clear message by voting against the report on the taxation of energy products and electricity, which proposes increased minimum excise duties across Europe on all energy sources.
This idea is an environmental nonsense, since it favours renewables over ‘clean’ gases such as methane and biomethane. If the price of energy were to rise, what sad end would await our small and medium-sized enterprises, the real engine of our economy? In Italy, where the cost of energy is higher than the European average, a further hike in prices would hurt our businesses.
National governments are already thinking about increasing excise duties and we do not need Europe increasing the ones it is responsible for, which are then used as a basis for calculating national excise duties. The idea of increasing energy costs by around 80% by 2023 through taxes alone represents an unsustainable rise in the costs faced by citizens. Lastly, we should not underestimate the continual increase in the use of gas oil in motor vehicles, meaning that the new tax would be an even heavier burden for EU taxpayers to bear.
Kārlis Šadurskis (PPE), in writing. – (LV) The European Commission’s proposal to restructure the framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity has been an extremely controversial issue, on which both national and industry interests have sharply conflicted. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) (PPE) managed to put through very good compromise amendments together with other political groups. Nevertheless, a rise in fuel prices would be unavoidable if the proposal were to come into effect. We cannot allow this at a time when many European countries are trying to recover economically from the effects of the global crisis. I believe that this would be an extremely serious ‘blow’ to businesses, and would also have a negative effect on inflation. It is essential for countries looking to join the euro area in the near future and trying to comply with the Maastricht criteria to maintain price stability. As a result, I followed the PPE’s recommendations in the voting on the proposals, but in the vote on the Commission’s proposal as a whole, I voted against, in line with the view of our delegation.
Amalia Sartori (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of Ms Lulling’s report on the taxation of energy products and electricity because I completely agree with its basic principles: aligning provisions on energy taxation with the environmental goals of the Europe 2020 Strategy, and reducing distortions in the internal market between EU Member States.
Indeed, the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity needs to be as coherent as possible with the EU’s environmental goals. The political groups cannot reach an agreement on proportionality. I was especially supportive of Amendment 53, which aims to rid the proposal of the principle of proportionality, primarily for pragmatic reasons.
We cannot allow further increases in diesel prices at a time when, for fiscal reasons due to austerity measures, the prices of energy products are under constant pressure. Furthermore, diesel is often used for work purposes and it is obvious that road haulage would suffer major negative effects as a result of regulated minimum rate increases. Lastly, the people of Europe would not be able to comprehend such a decision.
Petri Sarvamaa (PPE), in writing. − The European Commission’s proposal to reform the taxation of energy includes the concept of proportionality, which would require Member States to apply the proportional difference in the minimum rate of tax on different forms of energy. In practice, this would mean clear rises in the taxation of diesel oil, so that the tax rate on it would in future be in proportion to other fuels, calculated in relation to current levels. On the basis of the Commission’s proposal, the minimum level of tax for diesel oil would automatically be 9% higher than that for petrol, as from 2025.
A rise in the tax on diesel oil implemented with reference to such a model would be both artificial and, moreover, disastrous for the EU economy. Its adverse impacts would extend to a dramatic increase in the cost of transport and difficulties for the European car industry. The decision would also be the wrong message for the millions of European drivers who, in recent years, have been advised, through a number of incentives and decisions, to invest in the use of diesel oil as the fuel for their vehicles, mainly on account of its lower CO2 emissions.
The EU economy cannot afford this decision. I voted in favour of the amendments tabled in Ms Lulling’s report that invalidate the principle of proportionality, as proposed by the Commission and here described, and that enables the establishment of a dual tax system for professional and private drivers at the discretion of the Member States.
Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The proposal for the amendment of Directive 2003/96/EC that we put to the vote this morning was presented by the Commission on last 13 April.
The goal of this legislation is to align energy tax measures with the environmental objectives set out in the Europe 2020 strategy and to reduce the distortions in the internal market caused by the current differences between the Member States on the level and scope of energy taxes.
These objectives are essentially being pursued by breaking down current taxes on energy products into two components: a ‘carbon tax’ component, based on emission levels, which would aim specifically to reduce CO2 emissions not offset by the Emissions Trading System (ETS), which only covers 50% of CO2 emissions (small installations, services, agriculture, transport, heating); and an ‘energy tax’ component based on energy content (fixed rates per gigajoule, regardless of the energy product).
I used my vote this morning to try and ward off the requirement for Member States to reproduce a pre-set ratio between the minimum tax levels applied to the various energy products (‘excise duty concatenation’ or ‘excise duty proportionality’), which would not only have caused a major rise in the prices of some energy products but also the gradual disappearance of several industrial sectors.
Michèle Striffler (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on the taxation of energy products which adapts the energy taxation framework in order to support the objective of a low-carbon and energy-efficient economy.
The report does not, however, provide for excessive taxation on diesel which would have penalised consumers, farmers, and the competitiveness of our European companies. At this time of economic crisis, I think that an increase in the price of diesel would have been an irresponsible decision, the main victim of which would have been the purchasing power of millions of Europeans.
Kay Swinburne (ECR), in writing. − Taking into account the already tight financial situation which European companies in all sectors of the Union’s economy are having to cope with as a result of the global financial crisis and the ongoing sovereign debt crisis in the euro area, the ECR Group does not consider the timing is right for a Copernican-type revolution with respect to the structure of energy taxation and would rather see a more modest review of the existing directive on energy taxation adopted in 2003. Moreover, we consider it crucial for both the Council and Parliament to request an independent impact assessment of the Commission’s proposal for the future energy taxation that is to be based on two components – CO2 emissions and the energy content of products – before any changes to the current regime are implemented. We have persistent doubts about the economic sustainability of the Commission’s proposal.
Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) The Lulling report, aimed at revising the 2003 directive on energy taxation, justifies the proposed taxation of energy products with the need to meet the objectives of the European energy and industrial policies. However, the direct effects of the measures planned in the report entail an increase in fuel prices, which will have direct fiscal repercussions on the final consumer. I am opposed to a report which exposes the citizens to disproportionate charges. I am opposed to a sudden change which penalises fuel consumers without giving them either the time or the resources to adapt. Whilst it is of the utmost importance to reduce pollution and CO2, I believe that the Lulling report is punitive as, by increasing the taxation on energy products, it merely aggravates the economic difficulties of the citizens who are most affected by the crisis that we are currently experiencing. The fight against climate change must be introduced without the most vulnerable having to pay the highest price.
Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The European Commission has tabled a proposal intended to restructure the EU framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity, with a view to bringing the directive more into line with European Union energy and climate change objectives. I am voting for this report, as I believe EU energy taxation should take account of environmental policy as well as of energy and industrial policy, so as to encourage the creation of a common strategy that enhances the internal market and makes it more effective. It is important to stress that applying a new taxation structure should not involve an increased taxation rate on diesel, so as to bring the price in line with that for petrol, thereby enabling the automobile industry to continue concentrating on producing cleaner, more efficient combustion engines that reduce CO2 emissions. Finally, the primary objective of taxing energy is to encourage consumers to use cleaner and more efficient sources of energy, so a natural process for the industry to adapt by 2025 should be implemented.
Marianne Thyssen (PPE), in writing. − (NL) I voted emphatically in favour of the Lulling report on major changes to the taxation legislation relating to energy products and electricity. The current excise duty system for energy provides insufficient encouragement for energy consumers to use less energy and to opt for cleaner energy. Sometimes, the taxation system even encourages consumers to choose forms of energy which produce more pollution, such as coal. This makes no sense. We all benefit from switching to cleaner energy, more efficient energy use and the reduction of CO2 emissions. Changes in energy taxation regulations will make an important contribution to that.
We, in the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), support the principle that taxes on motor fuels, fuel oil and electricity should henceforth be based on energy content as CO2 emissions and, in addition, that a product should be taxed more heavily the more polluting it is. However, we could not support the principle of proportionality because this would have led to a sharp rise in the price of diesel, with all the negative consequences for companies and private consumers that would entail. It is now for the Council to deal with this considered opinion of Parliament wisely.
Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted against amending the directive on energy taxation because the proposal introduces two energy taxation components: one with taxation relating to carbon dioxide emissions and the other relating to the general consumption of energy. I voted against Amendments 21 and 44, which have been adopted by the European Parliament. Amendment 21 removes the option of applying exemptions and reductions benefiting households and charitable organisations, as provided for by Directive 2003/96/EC, while Amendment 44 restricts reductions being granted for heating to households only up to the start of 2025. I voted against Amendments 23 and 40 which removed the existing exemptions for fuels used in maritime and air transport. Maritime transport causes less pollution and is cheaper, which is why it must be encouraged. Air transport has been included in the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) since 1 January 2012, and applying a new emissions-based tax would have meant double taxation. I also do not think it is appropriate to raise the level of duty on diesel, since in 2009 car producers were requested, based on a European regulation, to invest in cleaner engines. Raising the level of duty on diesel will affect both car producers and European citizens who have bought cleaner cars running on diesel.
Thomas Ulmer (PPE), in writing. − (DE) The report has been amended to the effect that the taxation of diesel is not being increased. That is a fundamental element in not preventing the further development of diesel technology and in giving commuters a chance to keep their jobs. After a long discussion, the socialists have also consented, which is something that I very much welcome. This will give the Council and the Commission a clear signal from Parliament. I am pleased to be among the broad majority of those who voted in favour.
Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. − Although I sympathise with the aim of this report to reduce CO2 emissions and create a better environment, I was unfortunately unable to give my full backing to this report. It was impossible to support the phasing out of the exemption on household fuels by 2025. This measure will hit the poorest the hardest. The wording of this report does not sufficiently address the problems of fuel poverty, which is faced by millions of people, and I feel that this is not an appropriate measure to take in the current economic climate. Furthermore, I could not support the proposal for fiscal neutrality for fuel, which would result in a huge hike in diesel prices at home. However, there were positive aspects of this report – for example the proposal to ensure that CO2 taxation will not apply to those industries that are already subject to the ETS – and I believe that this exemption is vital for industry across the UK.
Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) I voted against this revision of the directive aimed at preventing distortions of competitiveness in the energy sector. In theory, it is about setting up common rules on taxation and permitted exemptions by setting minimal rates, essentially based on the quantity of energy consumed, beyond which the Member States are free to set their rates of taxation as they see fit. The introduction of a CO2-based element is introduced to support the objective of a low-carbon economy.
The objective is admirable but it forgets two essential points. First of all, the harmonisation of European taxation standards removes the possibility of the Member States exempting certain sectors from energy taxation, in particular in the transport sector. What does this mean? The increase in transport costs will primarily affect those in economic difficulty. Secondly, energy taxation will essentially affect households: like VAT, it can only be socially unjust. To be effective and efficient, the fight against climate change and environmental protection in general must not forget social justice.
Dominique Vlasto (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Never has it been so expensive to fill up our tanks and it would be madness to impose an extra increase of 23 centimes on the price of a litre of diesel at the pumps! Therefore, I welcome our assembly’s vote to reject an unjustified increase in taxation and its refusal to tax not only the CO2 emissions from diesel, but also its energy efficiency. In environmental terms, this was an aberration, as it amounted to the tax on diesel being 9% higher than that on petrol. In other words, the most efficient and therefore the cleanest energy would have been subject to punitive tax levels. Moreover, given the severity of the crisis that has hit the automotive industry, we can see that such a measure could only weaken a key component of the European economy which, let me remind you, provides work for millions of people. I have no doubt that the Council will follow our opinion and will reject this measure, which, as you will have understood, would be detrimental to purchasing power, jobs and, irony of ironies, the environment!
Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. − (DE) In my view as a member of the Committee on Budgets, a tax on energy products could be part of the EU’s own resources in the future, so reducing the burden on national budgets. However, it should also be borne in mind that price increases in the area of fuels can hardly be considered acceptable at the current time against the background of the fragile economic situation in Europe, the worrying levels of youth unemployment in some Member States and the realistic expectation that it is likely to take a long time for our economies to recover.
Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. − (PL) In my country, Poland, almost three million households use coal for heating. The average consumption per household is between five and seven tonnes of coal per annum and, for agricultural holdings, this is considerably more. When burned, one tonne of coal produces about 3.5 tonnes of CO2. If we add, according to Ms Lulling’s report, EUR 20 in tax per tonne of CO2 emitted, this means an average increase of about PLN 300 in the price of a tonne of coal. This is absolutely too high. It is an unacceptable increase in the cost of living and my fellow Poles cannot afford it. In addition, I see in this a continuation of the climate and energy package. For this reason I voted against the report.
Anna Záborská (PPE), in writing. – (SK) On the one hand, taxing energy products used on the dual basis of CO2 emissions and energy content and, on the other, the observance by Member States of the principle of proportionality between the various minima set at EU level, would result in a substantial increase in the price of diesel in the vast majority of Member States. I therefore supported the opinion of the rapporteur, who rejected this proportionality because of its destabilising effect. Perhaps the worst result would be inflation, because the increase in diesel prices would translate into an increase in retail prices. I would like to clarify in this context that I do not reject the Commission’s efforts to eliminate the price advantage of diesel fuel. Such a neutral treatment of all fuels would provide a technologically neutral advantage to all CO2-free fuels and would also encourage energy efficiency. However, I do not agree with the raising of the minimum tax rate using the method by which the Commission intends to achieve this status. Neutral taxation of fuels could also be achieved by reducing the minimum tax rate on petrol. Sadly, this solution did not occur to the Commission, the Member States, or my colleagues in this Parliament. The outcome of today’s vote also means that the one-sided cost advantage for manufacturers and users of diesel engines, which is increasingly difficult to defend, is maintained. I consider this to be unfair.
Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD), in writing. − (PL) Implementing the proposals put forward in this document will lead directly to higher energy prices. At a time when we are experiencing an economic crisis, this is the equivalent of shooting ourselves in the foot. For this reason I am even more surprised that the European Parliament should permit such strong interference in the market. Our activities should be aimed in the opposite direction, towards reductions in energy costs and simplifying power generation. We must finally put up a stand against the new European disease of green energy policy as well as to unilateral and irrational reductions in CO2 emissions.
Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) With this directive, the rate of tax on a given product will combine the tax linked to CO2 emissions and that based on energy content. Beyond that, the Member States will be free to set their own rates of taxation, above the threshold levels imposed by the EU, and to work out their own taxation structure, reproducing the ratio between the minimum rates of taxation for the various energy sources. This voluntarist narrowing of European policy on climate and environmental issues, to the detriment of energy and industrial issues, will have an extremely negative impact on consumers. At a time when the prices of the various final energy carriers have been continuously increasing and few renewable energy sources have been introduced, it is worrying that, on the basis of climate concerns, the introduction of an energy taxation framework that will not fail to penalise consumers in general, as well as the countries with less competitive economies, which currently already have serious competitiveness problems due to production-input costs relating to their specific situations, is being proposed. Despite the positive reasons mentioned by the rapporteur, the final product of the report remains negative for the type of European development that would be desirable.
Call for concrete ways to combat tax fraud and tax evasion B7-0203/2012
Damien Abad (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this resolution, which proposes stronger European fiscal systems to combat tax fraud and tax evasion. This depends on an increased use of the tools for exchanging information and improved cooperation between the tax authorities.
Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I am voting for this report, since I consider it extremely important for imposing justice among the Member States and cohesion within the EU, as well as making an important contribution to social cohesion. We in the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament have demonstrated, using a study, that around EUR 1 trillion in potential tax revenue is lost to tax evasion every year. We must combat this situation. It is also important that we focus on the goals of contributing to the necessary stabilisation of the financial markets and the wider economy by significantly reducing the liquidity available for financial transactions unrelated to economic activity, of increasing public revenues to accelerate the necessary budgetary consolidation, and, at the same time, of reducing the climate of austerity that the state is imposing on the public throughout Europe. For all these reasons, I would once again stress the importance of the action plan proposed by the S&D Group.
Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of a resolution that calls on the players in the European Union to take concrete action against fraud and tax evasion. We need to review our tax regimes and have to make them more effective and efficient. We need to get rid of unjustified exemptions, broaden the tax base, alleviate the tax burden on employment, improve the efficiency of tax collection and fight tax fraud, quickly step up the fight against tax fraud and tax evasion, especially with regard to third countries, and report back in June 2012. All of the measures that we are asking for here in the European Parliament, such as the common consolidated company tax base, can play a role in combating tax fraud. In this time of crisis, Europe must, more than ever before, help itself to recover.
Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Combating tax fraud and tax avoidance is now a major political challenge. In addition to the reduction in public spending, it is only by beating tax evasion that we will find a way out of the current economic crisis. As Greece, stuck in the economic doldrums, has shown, for the State, tax fraud represents a missed opportunity due to the amount of uncollected income. Since national policies have been unable to obtain convincing results, it becomes a matter of urgency for the European Union to react. Its action must be geared as a priority to the fight against tax havens, in particular by drawing up a global strategy focused on transparency. It is high time that the European Union introduced practical measures to make tax evasion more difficult and prevent the use of tax havens which reject any cooperation with foreign tax authorities. In this resolution we also request the early implementation of improved cooperation and greater coordination on tax issues, not only between the Member States of the European Union but also with third countries. Social justice within our Member States is at stake.
Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution because the problem of non-payment of tax is becoming increasingly acute in the European Union’s Member States. Estimates indicate that tax fraud and tax evasion cost the governments of the EU Member States a significant amount in uncollected revenues. This increases the deficit and debt levels of the Member States. It also reduces the funds available to boost public investment, growth and employment. Major problems also come about because tax fraud and tax evasion undermine citizens’ confidence in the fairness and legitimacy of tax collection. Countries participating in assistance programmes have, after stepping up tax collection and eliminating privileges in line with European Union’s proposals, seen many of their larger companies leave in order to benefit from tax privileges offered by other countries. Major improvements are therefore needed in the publicly available information on tax fraud and tax evasion in each Member State. EU Member States should review their tax systems with the aim of making them more effective and efficient, removing unjustified exemptions, broadening the tax base, shifting taxes away from labour, improving the efficiency of tax collection and tackling tax evasion It is also important to adopt European Union rules to prevent such forms of tax competition, which undermine the recovery strategies of the countries concerned. It would thus be possible to intensify the fight against tax fraud and tax evasion, including in relation to third countries.
John Bufton (EFD), in writing. − While tax fraud and tax evasion are serious topics, the collection and regulation of revenue collection is the final preserve of a sovereign state. More often than not tax evasion occurs through third country accounts, such as those based in Switzerland and the Cayman Islands, and it is up to individual member states to choose how they wish to control and penalise evasion and fraud through the exchange of information which has become a global standard undermining bank secrecy. It is not up to the EU as a supra national body to interfere in such fiscal matters.
Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the Martin report as I believe that surveillance and democratic control are fundamental elements that the European Union should implement. I agree with the rapporteur that we need to ensure that Parliamentary committees of inquiry have adequate resources. Their effectiveness and credibility are at stake. Moreover, I welcome the new powers granted to the committees of inquiry that allow them to carry out inquiries on the spot and that make it easier for them to summon witnesses.
Lara Comi (PPE) , in writing. − (IT) The problem of tax evasion is increasingly important given the disproportionate size of the Member States’ public debts, which have further deteriorated as a result of the financial instability implicit in the current economic cycle. Rising taxes due to the austerity policies inevitably put in place by the Member States might actually be rather ineffectual if they are not accompanied by a move to bolster the means for combating tax evasion. Furthermore, we need to avoid the measures taken in Member States with financial difficulties resulting in businesses moving to countries offering tax privileges. Indeed, such forms of tax competition are among the most deleterious. Over the long term, they could lead to a disproportionate reduction in tax on business, which would be offset by an increase in taxes on employees, which by their nature are not so mobile. Accordingly, I decided to vote in favour of Parliament’s Resolution, which identifies concrete ways to combat tax evasion. Among these methods, I would especially like to highlight the need to abolish banking secrecy, increased controls to avoid funds being transferred to so-called ‘tax havens’, and the creation of new tools for combating value added tax evasion. Lastly, I would like to point out the important role played by the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB) in the fight against tax evasion.
Andrea Cozzolino (S&D), in writing. − (IT) The resolution retraces the link between effective measures to stimulate growth and defining a clear and united EU strategy for halving tax evasion by 2020. Lost revenues caused by the underground economy has pernicious effects on the European economy and a negative impact on the amounts invested in growth and employment. By recovering these lost revenues (20% of public spending and some 105.8% of total health spending), governments could wipe out their public debt in eight or nine years. At the same time, they would be able to increase public investment, helping towards the achievement of the goals of the EU 2020 strategy. We therefore welcome EU-wide initiatives and strategies that will cut back bilateral agreements and bring an end to banking secrecy, accelerating the exchange of information. Combating tax evasion must become an absolute priority for the EU. So far, much has been said but little has been done; now is the time to take incisive action. Paying taxes is a basic civic duty and a matter of social justice that can generate the funds required for leaving the crisis behind and reviving the real economy, without once again heaping further burdens on workers and the most vulnerable sections of society.
George Sabin Cutaş (S&D), in writing. – (RO) According to some estimates, annual losses in tax revenue for the 27 EU Member States amount to approximately EUR 1 billion. I think that closer cooperation is needed at European Union level to tackle fraud and tax evasion. This is why I voted for the report on finding specific solutions in this area. In order to achieve the aim of rooting out this damaging practice, a common European fiscal framework is needed, along with reforming the accounting rules and regulating company registers more tightly. The revenues recovered from combating fraud and evasion would help pay EU governments’ debts and make substantial public investments.
Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I think that the focus needs to continue to be placed on the key role that the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base can play in combating tax fraud at EU level.
Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this resolution, which proposes a reinforcement of the fight against tax fraud and tax evasion. This text demands greater transparency and stricter controls to prevent the use of tax havens. It is in keeping with the conclusions of the G20 at Cannes, which were adopted as a result of the impetus from the French President, Nicolas Sarkozy.
Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I voted for the resolution on ‘concrete ways to combat tax fraud and tax evasion’ because I believe there is a need to make EU tax systems more effective, transparent and harmonised, so as to combat tax fraud and evasion and put a stop to tax havens.
Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Many, if not all, Member States are currently making major efforts to consolidate the budget and balance their public accounts. Inevitably, such efforts require a fiscal policy geared towards increasing revenue and cutting public spending. At the same time, ideally, attempts are made to use fiscal policy to find measures attracting investment from companies and job creators. However, the Member States have been hitting multiple obstacles to the pursuit of this end, with tax fraud and evasion increasing considerably in recent years. It is therefore essential to adopt various simultaneous measures that could effectively combat tax fraud and evasion. It is essential that the Member States make their tax systems more effective and adopt measures for cooperating with each other, as well as that the Commission study ways of minimising the situation and negotiate bilateral tax contracts with third countries on behalf of the EU.
José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The present economic and financial crisis is obliging Member States to seek increased revenue in order to penalise taxpayers’ purchasing power, at the least. One of the various means adopted is combating tax fraud and evasion. We all know that, if those who do not pay their taxes started paying, we would all pay less. Companies’ flight to tax havens, especially from the countries undergoing bailout programmes, which have had to abolish privileges in line with the Troika’s proposals; the lack of financial cooperation and collaboration between Member States; and shortcomings existing in European Union legislation on taxation contribute to creating a climate of lack of confidence in taxation. This harms economic development and, consequently, growth and job creation. I welcome the implementation of new strategies in this struggle and tighter controls on capital flights to tax havens. A fairer European Union involves an end to the black economy. I voted for this motion for a resolution, since I am aware of the significant loss of revenue for EU Member States represented by tax fraud and evasion.
João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (PT) Amongst a number of generally positive proposals and recommendations on combating tax fraud and evasion, this resolution includes fallacious ideas – which are unusual and borderline propaganda – on the EU-IMF programmes under way in Portugal, Greece and Ireland. If we look at what is happening in Portugal, they claim to have eliminated ‘privileges’, at the Troika’s suggestion. Beyond being offensive, this constitutes indecently falling in line with the rhetoric that has been used to justify intolerable social terrorism, whilst keeping intact the privileges – real ones, this time – of the sectors benefiting from this intervention; banking, for example, which will pocket at least EUR 12 billion in shamefully saved taxation on account of this programme. The IMF, the Commission and the European Central Bank continue their rhetoric about ‘eliminating unjustified exemptions’, etc. However, the thing that stands out most from this resolution is the glaring omission of a key issue: tax havens. Instead of appropriately calling into question the existence of these financial black holes that swallow up millions upon millions of euro that should have gone into state coffers, these out-and-out havens for economic crime, the resolution ends up timidly calling for ‘the use of tax havens’ to be prevented; that is unacceptable.
Monika Flašíková Benová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The conclusions of the study presented by the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament point to the fact that each year the 27 Member States lose EUR 1 trillion in potential tax revenue. On this basis alone, I believe it is important to make appropriate efforts to reduce this tax gap by 2020. The European Union should seek to contribute to the essential stabilisation of financial markets and the economy as a whole by significantly reducing liquidity in financial trading, which is not associated with real economic activity. It is also important to achieve an increase in public revenue, thereby helping to speed up fiscal consolidation and at the same time to alleviate the current pressure placed on public expenditure on education, health and social policy. Finally, I believe it is important to make an effort to increase public investment, which would ultimately lead to the strengthening of the European Union as a whole and an effort to effectively prevent tax fraud and evasion.
Pat the Cope Gallagher (ALDE), in writing. − We voted to support this report on concrete ways to combat tax fraud and tax evasion and to support the majority of the key recommendations. However, we note with concern the inclusion of a reference to the role of CCCTB in Paragraph 4. While we do not agree with the inclusion of Paragraph 4, we have voted to support the report overall due to several of its positive recommendations.
Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I welcomed this document because it calls on the Commission to rapidly address the issues raised by the review of the EU Savings Taxation Directive and to find a swift agreement with Switzerland and the Member States concerned. Strengthening the regulation of and transparency of company registries and registers of trust is a prerequisite for dealing with tax avoidance. The Commission should identify areas in which improvements to both EU legislation and administrative cooperation between Member States can be implemented in order to reduce tax fraud. The Member States must ensure smooth cooperation and coordination between their tax systems in order to avoid unintended non-taxation and tax evasion and fraud. Member States must also allocate adequate resources to the national services that are empowered to combat tax fraud. It is important to implement new and innovative strategies for combating VAT fraud across the EU. The Member States must review bilateral agreements currently in force between Member States and bilateral agreements between Member States and third countries, and determine how much they contribute to tax avoidance and complicate effective source taxation in certain Member States. We must ensure increased transparency and tighter control to prevent the use of tax havens, which are foreign non-cooperative jurisdictions characterised in particular by no or nominal taxes, a lack of effective exchange of information with foreign tax authorities and a lack of transparency in legislative, legal or administrative provisions.
Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this resolution to step up the fight against fraud and tax evasion as it stresses the key issues, such as strengthening the automatic exchange of information, increased cooperation between Member States and the coordination of the tax systems, in addition to increased transparency and the development of stricter controls to prevent the use of tax havens.
Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I am pleased to note that the Danish Presidency has made fiscal cooperation one of its priorities as this is a very topical subject, especially in the current economic climate. I hope that the European Commission will table specific measures in June for tackling tax evasion, in keeping with the decision made during the Council meeting in March. I also hope that the European Commission will come up as soon as possible with a proposal for revising the Interests and Royalties Directive in order to eliminate tax evasion in the EU via hybrid financial instruments.
Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE), in writing. − I fully support this resolution. Tax fraud generates illicit funding which is invested in illicit activities and is often subject to money laundering. Too light an approach can result in tax fraud and tax evasion generating – in time – complex mechanisms that secure virtually inexhaustible resources for organised crime networks and corruption. The resolution touches upon some of the more substantial problems that we witness today across Europe, such as: secrecy within the banking sector, the resort to foreign non-cooperating jurisdictions (tax havens) in order to conceal both licit and illicit financial interests, corporate tax avoidance, inefficient collection of tax, the abundance of unjustified exemptions etc.
Expectedly, each of these forms of tax avoidance and evasion are more specific to some countries than others. Within the EU these specificities should be accurately traced out and countered by region-specific measures.
David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this resolution, which ‘welcomes the conclusions of the European Council meeting of 1 and 2 March calling on Member States, where appropriate, to review their tax systems with the aim of making them more effective and efficient, removing unjustified exemptions, broadening the tax base, shifting taxes away from labour, improving the efficiency of tax collection and tackling tax evasion, to rapidly intensify the fight against tax fraud and tax evasion, including in relation to third countries, and to report by June 2012’.
Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Everyone accepts that tax fraud and evasion represent a significant loss of revenue for EU Member States. This situation increases the Member States’ deficits and debt levels, and reduces the funds available for promoting public investment, growth and employment. Furthermore, tax fraud and evasion shake public trust in the equality and legitimacy of tax collection. We therefore need to increase considerably the information made available to the public on tax fraud and evasion in each Member State. To this end, we should make every effort to prevent the continuation of practices that harm everyone.
Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − Up to EUR 1 trillion in potential tax revenue in the EU is lost every year because of tax evasion. I think the Member State governments could repay all public debt within 8 to 9 years with resolute action against tax evasion. With an additional sum of EUR 200 billion, the EU could increase public investment from the current 2.7% of GDP to a realistic target of 3.5% within a few years. I am in favour.
Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) On the one hand, tax fraud and tax evasion result in a significant loss of revenues and, on the other, they undermine the confidence of citizens in the fairness and legitimacy of the tax system. Many large companies have left countries in which tax collection has been improved and tax privileges have been eliminated in order to benefit from the tax privileges in other countries. Similar trends have been seen in connection with subsidies, too. Therefore, what is needed now is not only a review of the Parent-Subsidiary Directive and the Interests and Royalties Directive in order to eliminate evasion via hybrid financial instruments in the EU, but also a review of the EU subsidy jungle. Although we should support the fight against tax evasion, which is a burden on honest taxpayers, it does not befit the EU to call on the Member States in this context to refrain from bilateral negotiations with third countries. I therefore abstained.
Vital Moreira (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I voted for the resolution on the call for concrete ways to combat tax fraud and evasion because it concerns one of the scourges that – along with tax havens – does most damage to Member States’ tax capacity. As a recent study commissioned by the European Parliament Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament confirmed, the tax gap – that is, the difference between the sum chargeable in taxation and the sum actually collected – is overwhelming in the majority of EU Member States. If we want to safeguard the Member States’ to ensure funding for public duties, including the welfare state, we cannot allow such levels of lost taxation, particularly at a time of budgetary discipline and consolidation. Furthermore, it is clear that this cannot be achieved exclusively at national level.
Claudio Morganti (EFD), in writing. − (IT) Combating fraud and tax evasion is a goal that must also be vigorously pursued at EU level. We therefore welcome measures that provide for greater coordination and better exchange of information between EU Member States.
There is however one point of the report which baffles me, which is why I decided to abstain in the final vote. In my opinion, Member States must retain the option to make agreements with third countries, if such negotiations can bring benefits in terms of recovering illegally exported money.
It would be desirable however if these problems could be prevented a priori, making it more difficult to find shelter in tax havens or obliging countries where it is then extremely difficult to investigate the nature and provenance of the money. The phenomena of fraud and tax evasion are common to all EU Member States and therefore a coordinated initiative would definitely be useful, without this being tantamount to giving up fiscal sovereignty or restricting Member States’ actions.
Where offences have been committed, they are offences against the citizens of every single country, so every single country is therefore right to act to protect its interests in the way it deems best.
Paul Murphy (GUE/NGL), in writing. − I abstained on the resolution ‘Call for concrete ways to combat tax fraud and tax evasion’. I absolutely agree that tax fraud and tax evasion by big business needs to be tackled. It is scandalous that they fraudulently avoid paying taxes despite already legally getting away with a scandalously low level of taxation. I call for an increase in taxation on big business and supported amendments which called for a 25% minimum rate of corporate taxation in the EU. I support the parts of the resolution that called for an end to banking secrecy, regulation and transparency of company registries and making the tax system more effective and efficient. However, the resolution favours less tax for corporations and supports the Fiscal Treaty. Moreover, experience shows that claims like ‘shifting tax away from labour’ in reality mean less direct taxation and more indirect taxation that hit workers and the poor hardest and are antisocial. This is seen in Ireland now with the imposition of household and water taxes which is another attempt to make workers pay for the crisis of capitalism. Therefore I could not vote in favour of this resolution.
Wojciech Michał Olejniczak (S&D), in writing. − (PL) In Poland the grey economy comprises about 25% of GDP. In the European Union as a whole it averages 15%. This means there are enormous losses for state budgets. It results in increases in the indebtedness of individual countries and a lack of funds for important public services. In addition, the grey economy means there is a serious shortfall of funds for the pension systems of Member States. This is particularly important as public debates are taking place in many countries about a possible increase in the age of retirement. Tax avoidance on a massive scale was one of the causes of the Greek crisis. The example of Greece should be a lesson for the whole of the European Union and should force EU institutions and Member States to introduce rapid legal changes aimed at closing loopholes in the tax collection system.
Parliament’s resolution calling for concrete ways to combat tax fraud and tax evasion will be an important gesture that will help to mobilise other EU institutions and Member States to make changes in their legal systems and improve tax collectability. In view of the above I had no hesitation in voting in favour of the above resolution.
Younous Omarjee (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) This report is going in the right direction, but its observations do not go far enough. There is no reference to European tax havens (Andorra, Monaco, Lichtenstein and so on) nor to the European Parliament’s desire to be rid of them. These European tax havens are, though, providing protection for those evading tax and they have to be tackled.
There is no reference to the problem of shell companies which set up fake headquarters in a country in which, in the end, they have only a letter box, with the aim of avoiding taxes and the tax rules of the country in which they actually carry out their business.
There is no reference to the inadequate resources allocated to the fight against tax fraud and tax evasion, although these are the only effective tools against evasion. Without adequate resources, nothing can be resolved.
There is no denunciation of the mechanisms whereby companies with headquarters in Europe which make most of their profits abroad are relieved of part of their tax burden (niche Copé), an arrangement which allows companies such as Total to pay almost no tax in France. Tax dumping, tax evasion and tax fraud continue to hold sway in the European Union and even have a bright future in front of them.
Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. − (LT) I welcome this resolution calling for concrete ways to combat tax fraud and tax evasion. In the context of today’s European economy and economic downturn, tax collecting and tax policy issues become particularly important. Tax evasion and fraud are a key factor threatening the revenue of all countries and costing billions. It is not a problem that can be addressed at national level alone. Only an effective and targeted fight against tax fraud and evasion is the main way of obtaining the resources necessary to increase public investment in opportunities to improve Europe’s international competitiveness and increase growth. We should be effective in this fight not by policing but by creating an environment where evading taxes does not bring any benefits and is not worth the effort. The Council should draw up quantitative targets for the reduction of tax evasion in the EU by 2020 and complete the reform of the Savings Taxation Directive as soon as possible. This would reinforce automatic information exchange and ensure fair and appropriate taxation of savings throughout the EU.
Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. −(IT) I am a staunch supporter of this request, especially given the dark period of history we are facing. Fraud and tax evasion are issues that must be kept under the utmost control given the risks we are running as a Union and as individual States. Finding common measures that will genuinely contribute to fighting this type of problem and that can be put into action as soon as possible must be a priority.
Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I voted for this European Parliament resolution, of 19 April 2012, on the call for concrete ways to combat tax fraud and tax evasion. I did so because I believe increased transparency and tighter controls to prevent the use of tax havens is the path towards combatting tax fraud and evasion.
Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. − (PT) As well as representing a significant loss of revenue for EU Member States, tax fraud and evasion undermine public confidence in the fairness and legitimacy of tax collection. This report calls on the Member States and the EU itself to implement concrete measures, so as to reverse this situation quickly. I am fully behind measures such as strengthening the regulation of company registries and registers of trust, identifying areas in which improvements may be made to both EU legislation and administrative cooperation among Member States, and increased transparency and tighter controls to prevent the use of tax havens. I voted for this report for these reasons.
Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Bearing in mind the adoption of this motion for a resolution on the call for concrete ways to combat tax fraud and tax evasion, in view of the conclusions of the European Council meeting of 1-2 March 2012 and having regard to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s study of March 2012, Parliament today calls on the Member States to review their tax systems and make them more efficient, removing unjustified exemptions and expanding the tax base.
As pointed out in the report, I also think it is necessary for the Member States to concentrate on tax collection and combating tax evasion. They must also guarantee that reciprocal cooperation will be established with the tax authorities, ensuring that they have the necessary resources to face up to and combat fraud.
Robert Rochefort (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) For the governments of the European Union Member States, tax fraud and tax evasion represent a missed opportunity due to the resulting uncollected taxes, increasing the level of deficit and indebtedness of the Member States and reducing the funds available to stimulate public investments, growth and jobs. It is essential to act to prevent these phenomena and to this end I gave my support to this resolution. In its text, we call on the Commission to identify areas in which improvements to both EU legislation and administrative cooperation between the Member States can be implemented to reduce tax, call on the Member States to ensure smooth cooperation and coordination between their tax systems to avoid unintended non-taxation and tax avoidance and fraud, and to allocate adequate resources to the national services that are empowered to combat tax fraud, and recall the European Parliament’s request for increased transparency and tighter control to prevent the use of tax havens.
Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. Although insufficient, we consider that this calls on the Member States to allocate adequate resources to the national services that are empowered to combat tax fraud and, in accordance with Article 65 of the TFEU, in close cooperation with the Commission and in liaison with the ECB, to take measures to prevent infringements of national law and regulations, in particular in the field of taxation, and we note that this is of particular importance as regards Member States experiencing, or threatened with, serious difficulties with respect to their financial stability in the euro area, as well as recalling the request for increased transparency and tighter control to prevent the use of tax havens, which are foreign non-cooperative jurisdictions characterised in particular by no or nominal taxes, a lack of effective exchange of information with foreign tax authorities and a lack of transparency in legislative, legal or administrative provisions.
Carl Schlyter (Verts/ALE), in writing. − (SV) Despite the fact that I do not believe that harmonised taxes are a solution to this problem, I am voting in favour of this resolution, which demands concrete measures to combat the extensive problem of tax evasion, of which many companies are guilty. The positive sections in the text of the resolution that point out the serious consequences of tax evasion and tax fraud outweigh any negatives.
Olga Sehnalová (S&D), in writing. – (CS) I voted for the adoption of the resolution calling for concrete ways to combat tax fraud and tax evasion, which has the aim of making the fight against these practices more efficient. Tax evasion amounts to losses of more than EUR 860 billion annually for the budgets of individual EU Member States. It also undermines the confidence of citizens in the fair collection of taxes and the fair distribution of the tax burden. The policy of stabilising public budgets must focus on combating tax evasion more consistently and effectively. According to a study from the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, the Czech Republic is losing a sum equal to 83.5% of overall state spending on health every year. Resources are also lacking for public investments and job creation.
Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. − (IT) A proper campaign against tax evasion is an essential part of a fair and modern tax reform suited to crises like today’s, where reduced fiscal pressure on families could have a decisive impact on enduring improvements in consumer spending, employment levels and contribute to a strong economic recovery.
I maintain that an effective anti-fraud initiative is of basic importance for finding the resources needed to boost public investment aimed at reinvigorating international competitiveness and Europe’s potential for growth. The new Italian Government has brought in various anti-fraud measures that are getting satisfying results.
I welcome the mandate handed to the Council and the Commission, since – I reiterate – an energetic initiative at EU and national level is both right and necessary.
Monika Smolková (S&D), in writing. – (SK) We must be uncompromising and intolerant in the fight against tax fraud and tax evasion. If we want to encourage growth, we cannot offset the deficit with further taxation of entrepreneurs and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The spectre of high unemployment is looming, and education and health are underfinanced. In my opinion, we should search for sources of finance in preventing massive tax evasion and tax fraud. I therefore expect the Commission and Council to accelerate initiatives to address this problem, because in my country too, the new government took over an economy from its predecessor where EUR 1.5 billion will be needed just for the consolidation of public funds. We need a further EUR 1.5 billion in order to meet the Maastricht criteria. At the same time, each year we are losing EUR 3 billion on tax evasion, of which EUR 2 billion is spent on VAT. Another estimated EUR 3 billion goes into the grey economy, and this is certainly money that, when eliminated, will not only ensure social peace, but will also be able to deliver growth very successfully. For this reason, I supported the draft proposal and amendments.
Michèle Striffler (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the resolution calling for concrete solutions in the fight against fraud and tax evasion. For the governments of the European Union Member States, tax fraud and tax evasion represent a major missed opportunity. The loss of revenue contributes to increased levels of deficit and indebtedness of the Member States, leading to a reduction in the funds available to stimulate public investments, growth and employment. This resolution also underlines the importance of generalising the exchange of information between the European Union and third countries to bring an end to banking secrecy.