Verbatim report of proceedings

Wednesday, 23 May 2012 - Strasbourg

9. Explanations of vote

Oral explanations of vote

Report: Raül Romeva i Rueda (A7-0449/2011)

  Giovanni La Via (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as you know, the establishment of the recovery plan for the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean stock of bluefin tuna has been a highly controversial and hotly debated subject, mainly due to the inherent difficulty in striking the right balance between catching tuna and environmental sustainability.

With today’s vote, we are providing an initial response to the needs and demands that have emerged at national level, by means of a management tool that will standardise procedures.

The next step will be to work hard to achieve a fair distribution of quotas among the various fisheries instruments. In this regard, we must not forget – especially at this time of crisis – that while it is important to protect biological resources by strengthening the measures to protect tuna, it is equally important to ensure that we safeguard employment levels and the socio-economic sustainability of the entire fisheries sector.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, the history of management of the bluefin tuna fishery is long and somewhat complicated, dating back to the 1990s. Today, it is probably the most tightly regulated field in the EU. While massive investment in control has led to much better compliance with the rules, concerns remain about overfishing.

I therefore voted in favour of Mr Romeva i Rueda’s report, which proposes a reduction in the allowable catch, tighter controls and a strengthening of measures to reduce the fishing capacity.

  Andrea Zanoni (ALDE). – (IT) Mr President, I voted in favour of the amendments to the regulation on the recovery of bluefin tuna stocks because, as acknowledged by the international scientific community, this is a species at risk of extinction.

The figures speak for themselves: since 2009, there has been a sharp decrease in catches in all our seas. We therefore need to act swiftly in order to prevent the stock from disappearing completely. A telling example of the seriousness of the situation is the reduction in the average size of tuna fish, a phenomenon which is strikingly obvious in the Adriatic Sea, my region.

We must urgently set up closed areas and sanctuaries for bluefin tuna where fishing is banned to allow stocks to recover. We need to step up controls, since illegal fishing in all European seas is still too widespread and too frequent.

The envisaged measures, such as the seizure of illegal vessels and gear, must go hand in hand with effective, efficient controls, carried out by an appropriate number of employees. Lastly, it is essential to raise the minimum weight of tuna fish that may be caught, currently just 30 kilograms, and ban fishing during the spawning season. In order to save bluefin tuna we can, and must, do more.

  Peter Jahr (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, this report is a step in the right direction, which is why I, too, voted in favour. All the same, we need to be open and honest with each other. The main problem in fisheries is not simply laying down appropriate quotas, but also maintaining effective and lasting checks on these. Of course, that also requires bilateral international agreements, which are not that easy to implement. I would therefore like to ask Parliament and the competent committee to reconsider once more whether we should not create sanctuaries. We have experience of this on land, where we have created reserves for animals worthy of protection or species requiring total protection. We need to do something similar in our waters and oceans.

  Julie Girling (ECR). – Mr President, I voted for this report because I am pleased to see some action being taken on bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean. The status of this stock has been controversial for many years.

Maybe this is a rare example of the situation of a specific fish stock improving. I do hope so. But it also highlights a major problem for those of us faced with the task of developing fishing policy which is both economically and environmentally sustainable. I refer, of course, to the difficult issue of data collection and validation, which is addressed in this report.

The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas has clearly taken a very precautionary approach. I welcome this but I believe that its initial proposals were too hardline, so I am very happy to accept and support the report from the Committee on Fisheries, which takes a slightly softer line, although it still means that we are watching and that we will take action in the future.

  Diane Dodds (NI). – Mr President, I can draw parallels between the evolution of the recovery plan for bluefin tuna and those for other Atlantic species, notably cod: reduced quotas, spawning area closures and tighter enforcement will sound familiar to many fishermen. Whilst it is imperative that we move towards sustainable fisheries, we must pay heed to the lessons which can be learnt from recovery plans applied elsewhere.

If I might quote from the Commission’s own Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries in their evaluation of the recovery plan for cod, overall, STECF concludes that the plan is not delivering reduced fishing mortality and, additionally, in many areas does not have stakeholders’ support. A plan with stakeholders’ support is more likely to succeed because the stakeholder actions are needed to contribute to its success. Support of the plan also should, in theory, lead to their acceptance of responsibility to fulfil their obligations. These lessons are equally applicable to bluefin tuna.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). – Mr President, I, too, voted in favour of the Romeva i Rueda report. After indiscriminate depletion of bluefin stocks over many years, the species mercifully has recovered its numbers now. This view has been corroborated by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, a respected authority on tuna stocks, which has recommended a strict management plan for bluefin tuna stocks in the Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean seas, areas of particular commercial fishing activity.

I maintain that fishing of all species must be conducted sustainably, for example, by using pole-and-line methods which allow caught juvenile fish to be returned immediately to the sea, enabling them to spawn, as opposed to these huge industrial trawling nets which indiscriminately catch all fish and also additional by-catches of sharks and turtles, etc. This is shocking, and leads to severe depletion of the stocks, calling into question long-term species sustainability and marine conservation.

Report: Anni Podimata (A7-0154/2012)

  Joseph Cuschieri (S&D). – (MT) Mr President, I would like to refer to the report on the proposal for a Council directive on a common system of financial transaction tax. This report favours the establishment of a financial transaction tax that will burden the financial sector with new taxes. I voted against this report because the introduction of a financial transaction tax goes against the interests of the countries and of the Maltese and Gozitan workers. This tax will lead to a loss of jobs in the Maltese financial sector at a time when our economy is weak. This is an important sector for Malta since it represents 15% of GDP and employs around 6 000 people. In addition, this tax will eat away at the sector’s competitiveness, have a negative impact on GDP and reduce the volume of financial operations due to the delocalisation of financial transactions. With a tax such as this one, financial activities and transactions will end up taking place outside of Malta, in countries that do not have this tax obligation, making it cheaper. Aside from this, it is the consumer who will ultimately end up shouldering the burden of the financial transaction tax.

  Jens Rohde (ALDE). – (DA) Mr President, that speech may indeed have been delivered very rapidly, but it was excellent. It is absolutely spot on as regards how the world works. It is also rare to hear such well-versed and wise words from the socialist side of the Chamber, so I was pleased to hear it. Europe is in a severe economic crisis. Everyone is talking about growth, everyone is talking about creating jobs, and what does a huge majority of the European Parliament do? They withdraw venture capital from Europe, thereby making it more expensive to borrow money and thus more expensive and more difficult for enterprises to create jobs. I do not consider that to be a particularly good remedy. All right, then: all of you who voted in favour of this, perhaps you would now like to go home to your respective countries and convince your governments that they can simply implement a transaction tax, if it is as wonderful as some people are making it out to be. Just let the rest of us carry on without it. I can tell you that it will not be passed with Danish votes at any rate.

  Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR). – Mr President, I am against an EU financial transaction tax. The UK Government is against an EU financial transaction tax. So are the governments of the Czech Republic, Sweden, Luxembourg and Malta.

So, if we are not unanimous, why are we still talking about this tax? A tax which will damage growth and cost jobs.

Let us face facts. It is Britain which will lose most of these jobs. The EU financial transaction tax is a tax on the City of London. France and Germany may well be willing to see jobs and businesses driven out of my constituency, but I will not stand by and let London become the EU’s whipping boy.

  George Lyon (ALDE). – Mr President, today, I voted against this report on a European tax on financial transactions because I consider that the text proposed failed one fundamental test – namely, to ensure that an EU financial transaction tax (FTT) would be paid by financial institutions and bankers but not by ordinary citizens. The text today does not include the necessary safeguards to ensure that the price of an FTT would not be passed on to ordinary people through reduced returns in their pensions, increased home or car insurance or higher prices for manufactured goods.

I am convinced that the tax which is proposed today can lead only to a hidden tax on the real economy: the so-called Robin Hood tax has turned into the Sheriff of Nottingham tax. Moreover, the prospects of seeing an FTT implemented at EU level with 27 Member States involved, let alone at global level, are extremely unlikely. A European FTT without London involved in the system cannot be a serious exercise which delivers what we want – namely, to make financial institutions, bankers and speculators contribute more in return for the huge cost to taxpayers of bailing them out. The tax will simply not deliver.

  Ewald Stadler (NI). – (DE) Mr President, I voted against this proposal today even though I am fundamentally in favour of such a tax. It is simply that I feel that without a simultaneous reduction in the Member States’ contributions in the event that the revenue remains with the EU as own resources, and without the simultaneous introduction of rules for the financial markets and strict supervision of the financial markets, there is little point in such a transaction tax. In the final event, it would only become a burden on our citizens. The citizens will have to pay it. It is not enough; it does not allow us to really regulate the financial markets and does nothing to avert a future crisis or to overcome the current crisis.

There would have been a point to it had we drawn the right conclusions, which would be to introduce strict rules for the financial markets, actually to accompany such rules with effective supervision and to implement them. Unfortunately, that is not the case. In my view, the Commission has only done half its job. That is why I voted against this proposal despite my political conviction that such a tax could be worthwhile.

  Andrea Češková (ECR). – (CS) Mr President, it is obvious why the EU is trying to progress beyond the current situation, where 85% of its revenues come from the Member States. In my opinion, however, the financial transaction tax is not the right system for securing the Union’s own resources. We must first and foremost identify savings in budget expenditure, something which the European Conservatives and Reformists Group points out every year in the discussions on granting discharge. In my opinion, the financial transaction tax will make banking services more expensive, provoking an anti-EU backlash among European citizens and encouraging them to focus on financial transactions that are not as yet taxed. The result will be that many transactions start to be made outside the EU. I also believe that tax levels should not be identical across the EU, and that Member States should have the power to set these levels. For these reasons in particular, I was unable to back the report and I voted against.

  Janusz Władysław Zemke (S&D). – (PL) Mr President, there is a very clear division in this Chamber on the issue of whether a financial transaction tax should be introduced in Europe. In my opinion, this tax should definitely be introduced. We need to stimulate the European financial sector so that it can bear at least part of the cost of getting through the current crisis, since it actively contributed to it. The hardships of overcoming the crisis rest largely on taxpayers and consumers today, which is grossly unfair.

There is a further weighty reason in favour of taxing transactions between financial institutions. This is the need for the European Union to generate significantly more funds, but also – which, in my view, is very important – its own funds, which could be allocated to a greater extent to investments and job creation. In other words, I support this proposal.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE). – (ES) Mr President, I supported this report on the financial transaction tax because I want there to be transparency and proper scrutiny of the markets, and because I believe it is a way to supervise and tax pure speculation, and a way to help resolve the crisis in public finances in terms of revenue.

We talk a great deal about expenditure, but I see that certain Member States have very little interest in tackling issues at European level, such as financial transactions and tax fraud, a matter that is particularly scandalous and was denounced by Mr Rehn yesterday. The resistance shown by Member States deprives us of billions of euro every year that could be used to stimulate the productive economy and the real economy.

Lastly, may I remind you that we are being consistent on this issue. In 2002, just before Spain took over the Presidency of the Council, the Basque parliament adopted a proposal made by my party requesting that the ‘Tobin tax’, as it was then called, should be promoted in the Presidency’s work programme. They took no notice whatsoever. Ten years after our proposal, I am pleased that we are moving in that direction, although there is still room for improvement.

  Peter Jahr (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, I voted in favour of this motion; in other words, for a transaction tax. I would like to start with a correction: we are talking here about trading in derivatives and shares. That means we are not talking about the normal bank charges that citizens have to pay. We should keep it in mind that we are talking here about a tax rate of 0.01% for derivatives and 0.1% for shares. The real economy can only dream of such tax rates. Perhaps we should swap sometime and say that the stock exchange can have the taxes on the real economy and we will have the taxes on derivatives and shares for the real economy.

Secondly, I would like to stress once again that there is also a political dimension to this. The global financial crisis was not triggered by the real economy; rather, it is a result of stock market speculation, and it is an essential aspect and an act of justice for the stock market to finally share in dealing with this crisis. For me, then, the tax is more or less an act of major global justice.

  Giommaria Uggias (ALDE). – (IT) Mr President, I, together with the Italian Italia dei Valori delegation, have backed the introduction of the Tobin tax, a financial speculation tax, since 2010. Today, Parliament voted in favour of introducing this tax, which we believe to be an essential tool to ensure that the financial sector assumes its responsibilities and is steered back towards the real economy.

As far as we are concerned, the introduction of a European financial transaction tax (FTT) reasserts the supremacy of democratic politics over the serious discrepancies in the functioning of the financial markets, which caused the economic crisis we are experiencing today.

The FTT does away with the exemption from tax on financial transactions and makes financial speculators responsible in the same way as ordinary citizens, who have to pay taxes even on bread and petrol on a daily basis. With expected revenues of over EUR 50 billion a year, the European Parliament is today sending a signal that it is taking responsibility, in order to create more solidarity in the world.

  Emma McClarkin (ECR). – Mr President, the report on a common system for taxing financial transactions states that such a tax can have a positive impact on the long-term growth of the EU. However, I believe it will do exactly the opposite. As I have said before, surely my colleagues from Sweden can understand and share my position towards an EU-wide FTT.

The report acknowledges that there is a lack of international agreement but states that the EU should go ahead anyway. However, if the EU does go it alone, we may find that, as in Sweden in the 1980s, the vast majority of our traders in bonds, equities and derivatives will relocate outside of the EU. This is unlikely to promote the growth that we all desire. The City of London plays host to a comparatively large financial services sector which is already subject to stamp duty at national level, therefore contributing to the prosperity of the EU as a whole. It would be disproportionate to request the City of London to pay in addition an EU-wide FTT, putting it at a comparative disadvantage internationally. I find this tax to be unfair and I have voted against the report.

  Norica Nicolai (ALDE). – (RO) Mr President, I do not know whether this tax will be applied or not in the future. However, I do know that the policies which encouraged discrimination and privileges favouring the banking system have led to this debate in Parliament. I do not believe that this tax can be effective unless it is applied across the whole of the European Union and, above all, globally because, if we only manage to apply it in part, it will only affect consumers.

I agree that measures need to be taken against those who caused this economic disaster. However, I do not believe that we can take them unless we consider stopping European banks from being registered in tax havens and repatriating their profits to these havens which are exempt from the specific tax on profits and dividends. I believe that this is the solution. I agree that we need a clearly defined, tight regulation supportive of European banks. What we need is a new Glass-Steagall Act, but I think that this tax is not going to be effective. This is why I voted against.

  Julie Girling (ECR). – Mr President, I voted against the report on this proposal for a common system for taxing financial transactions on a number of grounds. I have a fundamental objection to the concept of a proposed tax which is supposed to help us out of an economic crisis. I simply fail to see any intellectual connection between those two things. Taxes do not create growth. We should be concentrating on growth. It makes no sense at all.

The consumer is the one who will pay, leaving less money to spend on things that we wish them to spend it on – the things we make, the services we provide. It will not be the bankers, who are, I presume, the target of the left of this House. I would also object because my own Member State – and I say this unashamedly – is disproportionately and, I believe, in some ways maliciously being targeted here. We must resist that at all costs.

  Erminia Mazzoni (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, I am part of the large majority who voted for this report and who wish to congratulate Ms Podimata. I will answer the question posed by some MEPs as to why we drew up this document when the majority of Member States are opposed and the introduction of the financial transaction tax would need to be adopted unanimously.

We did so because we think it right for the European Parliament to send a political signal to the Council: it must do its part. With the broad majority achieved today, we have done our part. Voting in favour, however, does not mean that we have dispelled all the doubts. I think that the Council and the national governments should take into account the aspects that are still unclear which, although they are causing understandable concern, do not justify the panic-mongering that I have heard during today’s debate.

It is important to assess both the impact on consumers and the possible effects if this tax were to be applied only by some of the Member States. Furthermore, it is essential to take action to regulate the financial markets, something which is not clear from the Commission’s proposal.

  Adam Bielan (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, I voted against the report as a whole because, in my opinion, implementing the proposed regulations would, in practice, mean imposing an excessive burden on citizens at a time when Europe is experiencing the difficulties involved in an economic crisis. Imposing new taxes, with the pretext of fighting the crisis, is a road that is leading nowhere. In my view, the solutions set out in the directive will not have the effect intended, but instead they will only lead to confusion and bring negative effects for the national economies of Europe.

I agree that the financial sector was the main cause of the crisis, and it therefore bears a great deal of responsibility. However, a common system of taxation risks having a negative impact on the EU’s development and competitiveness at a global level, and also places a disproportionate burden on the financial sector of individual countries. There are enormous differences between the economic situations of citizens in the various countries, and thus any financial transaction tax system should remain under the control of the Member States.

  Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, I voted for this resolution in the belief that introducing new taxes will not, in itself, solve our problems; nevertheless, the introduction of certain taxes may lead to a reduction in taxation in other sectors.

The financial sector is not contributing in a fair way to the cost of the global crisis at a time when EU citizens are faced with an increase in direct and indirect taxation and severe cuts in wages and pensions. The financial sector is still exempted from taxation in its activities and transactions.

I therefore support Ms Podimata’s proposal, which envisages a taxation rate of 0.1% in respect of transactions other than those related to derivatives arrangements, and 0.01% in respect of transactions related to derivatives arrangements, which would generate new revenues of EUR 57 billion at EU level.

I have one final comment to make: I would point out that, according to a Eurobarometer poll carried out in June 2011, a large majority of EU citizens are in favour of bringing in these measures.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, every day, the press and the television report just how badly the economic crisis is affecting EU citizens, but, above all, we can see it for ourselves on the streets of our cities.

By adopting Ms Podimata’s report today, we want to send out a signal. Apart from seeking to obtain greater revenues in the future, the introduction of a financial transaction tax shows that the European institutions are endeavouring to tackle the crisis on a daily basis, without forgetting the difficulties that Europeans face every day.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – (GA) Mr President, it is a good thing that we discussed this issue this morning: a common system of taxation, or the FTT as it is known, and that we voted on it today. It was accepted with a large majority: 187 in favour, 152 against, and 46 abstentions. I was amongst those who abstained, I and my colleagues from Fine Gael. We abstained not because we were against it in principle – we are in favour of it in principle – but because conditions are not suitable now for introducing it. In particular, if it were introduced within the euro area only, it could do extensive and expensive damage, and we would not be doing ourselves justice, especially as there is a severe economic recession at present. Therefore, it should be introduced on the G20 global level, and if that were done, everyone would be satisfied.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). – Mr President, like all British Conservatives, I firmly oppose this report and voted against it regarding the FTT within the European Union. I would be far more sympathetic if this were a global tax, which would have to include the USA, the BRIC countries, as well as the European Union Member States to be remotely viable, otherwise this is an example of economic illiteracy and anti-growth which will drive financial services away from the European Union.

London, which I proudly represent, would be hit particularly badly given its prime EU position as a centre for financial services. It is estimated that up to some 50 000 jobs would be negatively impacted, particularly if the issue of issuance goes through, which would give powers to capture London within the jurisdiction of the FTT. So this would be financial suicide for the United Kingdom, which is why Prime Minister David Cameron and the City of London will fight this measure tooth and nail.

  Glenis Willmott (S&D). – Mr President, the British Labour delegation has worked with NGOs and trade unions over a number of years to campaign for a fair tax on financial transactions. This has the support of two-thirds of the British public. Yet today we had no option but to abstain on the final vote on the Podimata report.

The campaign for a tax on financial transactions has always been about supporting the fight against poverty, unemployment and climate change at home and abroad, as well as stabilising the economy with a shift away from short-term profit towards the needs of the real economy. It was never intended to provide funds for the EU budget. We are committed to continuing our work with the trade unions and NGOs for a fair policy on taxation of the financial services industry, which enjoys VAT exemption worth GBP 18 billion in the UK. By including the issue of own resources, the Podimata report has hijacked a great idea and a great campaign. Therefore, with a heavy heart, we are unable to give it our full support.

  Arlene McCarthy (S&D). – Mr President, it would be nice to have a little less hypocrisy and more honesty from our Tory colleagues across the way, since the real reason they voted against it is that over half of Tory party funds come from the financial services industry.

The EPLP supports the Robin Hood campaign for an FTT, supported by two thirds of the public. We support the principle of an FTT to tackle speculation and stabilise the economy, away from short-term profit-chasing towards the needs of the real economy. A well-designed, effective FTT can raise revenue to meet global development priorities and tackle climate change, and help fund domestic priorities. We remain committed to the campaign for an FTT, for a fair taxation policy (as has been said) for an industry which enjoys a VAT exemption in the UK of circa EUR 18 billion per year. But prioritising own resources for the EU budget is very far removed from the original and laudable aims and ambitions of the Robin Hood tax campaigners.

The EU does not have the competence or the legal base to raise financial taxes or allocate their resources to the EU budget. We therefore had to abstain on the Podimata report, but we will continue to engage constructively on an EU FTT debate, unlike the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government in the UK.

Report: Marielle de Sarnez (A7-0141/2012)

  Cristiana Muscardini (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, we welcome the report, which underlines that it is important for the EU to focus on a trade policy that does not seek to simply open up European markets, but that is capable of laying down fair and shared rules, based on the principle of reciprocity.

The EU is continuing to negotiate with countries such as China, already a market economy, without taking into account problems such as the lack of fairness for European businesses in public procurement, imbalances in the protection of intellectual property rights, the lack of guarantees in the procurement of rare earth element raw materials, and the lack of export controls on counterfeit goods. It is no coincidence that the increase in counterfeit goods exports is paralleled by the increase in Chinese exports.

The EU must provide, with the appropriate trade measures, an investment policy that will help our manufacturing industry, in danger of disappearing owing to Europe’s inability to defend our economic model. This is why I, together with Mr Susta, Mr Rinaldi, Mr Daul and Mr Guerrero, tabled written declaration 0016/2012 to make the Commission and the Council reflect on the importance of having an appropriate trade policy for EU development which safeguards employment and defends citizens’ interests.

  Francesco De Angelis (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, I voted for this report since I believe that the time has come to build a more balanced partnership with China, based on reciprocity, fair competition, friendship and trust. The Chinese economy has grown significantly over the last 30 years. It has benefited from trade and is set to become the strongest global economy towards the middle of this century.

We therefore need to open a new stage in EU-China trade relations based on transparent rules, an equal partnership and common development. Hence, we must encourage China to further open up its market to European companies and allow them to invest under the same conditions as those governing Chinese investments in Europe.

A new partnership, then, so that China will no longer be viewed with concern by our businesses, but as an important opportunity for development and growth for our economy and, above all, for work and employment.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD). – (IT) Mr President, I support the text tabled by Ms de Sarnez since it highlights, extremely clearly, the trade imbalance between the European Union and China, and sets out concerns that I share, especially during this time of international crisis.

The relocation of many companies, aided by the lack of rules on workers’ rights and the environment, has led to many job losses in Europe to the detriment of our citizens. The social costs of the EU-China imbalance are rising all the time. Furthermore, while a terrible recession is affecting European countries, the Chinese economy, on the other hand, is expected to grow by 9% annually.

First of all, the European Commission needs to commit itself to securing a level of reciprocity from the Chinese in highly delicate areas such as public procurement, provision of services and the protection of workers. The European Union should be stricter with third countries which are penalising European businesses through unfair competition.

  Marco Scurria (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, I voted in favour of this resolution because I think it is a positive first step towards bringing order to EU-China relations, which are clearly imbalanced.

The EU is founded on certain fundamental values. For example, we rightly ask our businesses to respect the environment; we give importance to workers’ rights, first and foremost, women’s rights; we do not make children work; and we do not have concentration camps with free labour.

In China, however, all this protection and these rights do not exist. Far from it! There are still barriers to European goods accessing the Chinese market, and goods are clearly produced there at a lower cost, resulting in unfair competition with European companies and goods.

We must establish true reciprocity in relations with countries outside the EU so that, where there are causes for imbalance, they are offset by financial and trade provisions that safeguard our businesses and our goods.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, EU-China relations clearly show that there are trade imbalances. The European institutions must therefore strive to help European businesses emerge from the crisis and make their access to international markets fairer.

I therefore voted in favour of this report, and among the issues highlighted by the rapporteur, I agree, in particular, with applying the principle of reciprocity to EU-China relations to allow proper competition on international markets, and the call for greater protection of intellectual property rights.

  Claudio Morganti (EFD). – (IT) Mr President, I voted in favour of this report since it sets out many of the concerns that we in the Lega Nord have been voicing for a long time. Perhaps we were the only ones to realise the damage that the growing Chinese economy would do to our businesses and workers. Nevertheless, when we talk about applying duties to Chinese goods, we are considered backward and anti-development. The tragic results of this liberalism are, however, clear to all, and I in particular am well aware of them as I am from Prato, the city with the highest number of Chinese people in Italy.

In Italy we say: ‘better late than never’, but I am not sure that Europe has truly realised that it has almost reached the point of no return. Just think, some people still see China as a potential lifeline. It would be interesting to find out how much of Europe’s public debt is in China’s hands. This might be a key to understanding why the EU is weak and to at least trying to avoid making these tragic mistakes in the future.

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, according to the data at our disposal, it would appear that we cannot talk about a Europe-China imbalance. However, there is an imbalance – and several fellow Members have already spoken about it – which we are sometimes afraid to mention, which is not only the imbalance in trade. It is the social dumping and environmental imbalance which characterises the production of some of these Chinese goods; it is the violation of human rights, the exploitation of workers, the unfair competition and the lack of reciprocity which results in the European markets being flooded with Chinese goods – sometimes without controls with the goods often being counterfeit – while our businesses find it far from easy to enter the Chinese market. I believe that these issues need more attentive and strategic consideration.

  Emma McClarkin (ECR). – Mr President, this report on trade with China is of vital importance and I am pleased that the Committee on International Trade decided to draft it. I am fully behind maintaining and developing further good relations with a state that will soon become the world’s most powerful economy, provided that we address the imbalances of the current relationship.

There are a number of points, therefore, that I would like to support within this report. Restrictions on rare earth exports, of which China accounts for 97% of world production, must be remedied. I welcome the call for China to accede to the multilateral agreement on government procurement so that European firms have the same market access as Chinese firms.

The Chinese authorities should also do more to protect intellectual property, so as to encourage, not discourage, European investors. It is regrettable that in 2010, 85% of all goods seized at the EU’s external borders for infringing intellectual rights originated in China. I must, however, point out that, whilst supporting the report as a whole, I do not support full reciprocity in trade relations with major emerging economies such as China.

  Norica Nicolai (ALDE). – (RO) Mr President, I voted for this report because I think it provides a fair analysis of relations between China and the European Union, as well as a fair analysis of the European Union’s situation in relation to China. This is because, if there is one thing we must admit, it is that the European Union has a certain paradoxical type of dependency on China, by which I mean the public debt situation. I believe that the European Union is obliged, as a matter of urgency, to assess how much of Europe’s public debt is held by China and initiate new negotiations with China because relations are governed by an old agreement dating from 1985.

I think that the solution is a strategic partnership with China. At the same time, this report allows us to ask a further two questions: why have we ourselves failed in Africa and Latin America, while China is starting to have success, and what solutions are available so that we can try to restore this imbalance in the European Union’s favour because we need to acknowledge that an emerging power and traditional power cannot be reconciled at the moment?

  Julie Girling (ECR). – Mr President, EU and China: unbalanced trade? It is the first time I have spoken on something that had a question mark, and indeed it is a very big one. We have all heard the predictions, that China becoming the world’s biggest and most dominant economy within the next 20 years is a fact. Of course we tend to use this; it is the latest bogeyman that we talk to our children about. Of course we must heed these warnings and we must fight back.

I use the word ‘fight’ and the terminology of conflict advisedly. We are engaged in a struggle to maintain and improve our current standards of living in Europe and to protect and promote our economic growth. This report calls on China to adopt European standards across areas such as intellectual property, environmental protection and climate change mitigation.

All well and good, but how long is that going to take? We must also create conditions in Europe to take the fight to China. We need to free up business from unnecessary regulation and artificial restrictions, and let the European entrepreneurial spirit shine through.

  Jim Higgins (PPE). – Mr President, I welcome this report. I voted for it and I commend the rapporteur. It focuses on the glaring trade imbalances and the need to update the 1985 agreement. However, if we do get binding rules under a new agreement, and a level playing field, the potential for EU exports to China is absolutely huge.

A number of weeks ago, the Chinese Vice-President spent three days in Ireland. He was extremely interested in our farming methodology. A week later, the Irish Prime Minister, Enda Kenny, visited China. What is obvious is that there is a huge potential food export market for EU farmers under the new common agricultural policy: a population in China of 1.3 billion people and growing. The Chinese are extremely health conscious and, with top-quality, clean food, the possibilities for EU farming and agriculture are endless.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). – Mr President, I, too, voted in favour of the de Sarnez report on unbalanced trade between the EU and China. The report analyses the trade relationship between these two massive economies, and I support the recommendations that it makes for the Chinese Government, particularly on improving market access for EU companies.

China, sadly, does not do enough in terms of fighting piracy, stopping the production of counterfeit goods or improving labour rights, animal welfare and, most importantly, human rights. But that is another issue.

The report also notes that the Chinese economy does not yet earn the World Trade Organisation definition of a functioning market economy, and I back the call for the Commission to work with the Chinese Government in order to remove the remaining obstacles so that this can be achieved. I also support the call to the Commission to submit a proposal to Parliament on the measures required before China can be recognised as a functioning market economy by the European Union.

Sadly, China functions as a form of crony capitalism with massive state intervention and huge secrecy, particularly in the banking sector, which make the long-term dangers of overheating of the economy, or even serious malfunction, all the greater.

  Adam Bielan (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, China already determines the state of the global economy. It regularly achieves growth of 10%, and will be the strongest economy in the world by the middle of this century. Policies in relation to Beijing thus need to be based on a carefully developed strategy, looking many years ahead. As China’s largest trade partner at present and the main recipient of Chinese products, the European Union must create trade relations based on an equal partnership, which will bring benefits to both parties.

The report takes a range of factors into account which will help to achieve this objective. The most important of these is the call for the abolition of trade barriers as regards access to the Chinese market. Poor protection of intellectual property rights is also a problem, making it difficult to invest in Chinese enterprises that offer advanced technologies. Chinese policies on raw materials, which clearly discriminate against European counterparties, also cause problems for this sector. In the hope of consistently strengthening the EU’s position in relations with Beijing, I support this report.

  Petri Sarvamaa (PPE). – Mr President, indeed, more reciprocity is needed in trade between the European Union and China. I greet with great pleasure the work done by the rapporteur, Marielle de Sarnez.

Perhaps the most harmful obstacle to balancing our trade with China is the difficulty that European companies face when trying to invest in China. Without achieving the same terms for Europe in this respect, we are doomed to an ever-increasing imbalance in our economic relations with China.

Equally important for us is fair market access. European firms must have access to the Chinese market on the same terms as Chinese firms have access to the European market. We also need new tools for greater transparency. Under-valuation of the yuan and the fact that it is non-convertible hamper our efforts to have more open and honest trading with that country. For all these reasons, it was clear to me that I should vote in favour of this report.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – (GA) Mr President, China has made great progress in relation to economic affairs, especially in the past few years. They are to be commended for that. That said, however, we also have problems with China, especially problems relating to reciprocity, which should be established as a matter of importance as soon as possible. There are barriers to trade, and those must also be discussed and removed. And there are also other problems, especially in relation to scarce minerals. The Chinese control 97% of the world’s scarce minerals. Their currency is undervalued and that creates an imbalance in their favour and gives them an illegal advantage in trade affairs. All these issues must be discussed with them. Therefore, there is an urgent need to reach a new investment agreement with China, in particular, one that is based on reciprocity. That is our aim, and if we manage to achieve it, both we and they will prosper.

  Morten Løkkegaard (ALDE). – (DA) Mr President, I have now listened to a whole raft of people who are all in agreement that what we need is to be treated fairly by the Chinese. I do not suppose anybody in this Parliament would disagree with that. What surprises me, when I hear so many honourable Members standing up and talking about reciprocity, is that people think that the word reciprocity is the key thing in this regard. The problem is that when drawing up agreements with other trading partners, you have to be very careful that you are not preparing the way for a trade war, and that is what reciprocity does. It is the first step towards a trade war, and that certainly does not lead to more open markets or greater access to China or more growth.

What we need in Europe is a realistic view of what the Chinese can do and want to do. We must not be naïve, of course. We have to set requirements, and this report is also an expression of that. However, I would warn against using the word reciprocity as a basis in this context. It is the first step towards a trade war – in other words, it is protectionism, which is the opposite of what I imagine most Members of this Parliament would want. We must have a level playing field, as I described in my opinion on this report that I drafted for the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection. We must not take reciprocity as a basis; what we need is a level playing field.

Report: David Martin (A7-0352/2011)

  Julie Girling (ECR). – Mr President, the European Parliament’s right of inquiry report that we voted on today is a very interesting one for my constituents. I am pleased that we actually decided not to give it a positive, or indeed negative, vote at this stage.

This report has provided an interesting insight into a fundamental division in this Parliament. There are those who believe that this Parliament should promote itself as some kind of higher level chamber of inquiry for European citizens. Indeed, the Lisbon Treaty – a sordid deal stitched up by the European elite without consulting the citizens in many cases, particularly in my own Member State – calls for just such a development. This proposal would give the European Parliament the power to summon government officials from Member States to appear before it, explaining themselves like naughty schoolboys.

I cannot accept that this is a reasonable way forward. We need to look again at the details. The European Parliament is not held in high regard in Member States, despite what many Members may think. Many of my constituents question its right to exist, or indeed its usefulness. This sort of inquiry would not help.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). – Mr President, I, too, voted against this report on the European Parliament’s right of inquiry. I support the existing rights of the standard European Parliament committee of inquiry, but much of what this report now seeks to achieve is, and should remain, the preserve of the national governments and the national parliaments of our Member States.

I find that the new idea that a committee of inquiry of the European Parliament should have the legal power to subpoena witnesses, including Member State officials, to give explanations in the line of its inquiries, is unacceptable and goes too far. As my colleague, Julie Girling, has said, we do not actually get much respect nor are we even seen as legitimate in many cases by our constituents, so we are really pushing the issue much too far as far as the public of our countries are concerned.

The notion that the European Parliament should be given the right to carry out on-the-spot investigations in the event that it does not feel its rights in this area are being respected goes beyond its remit. Frankly, it would be regarded as a bit of a joke by most of the British public.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, I voted for this regulation because it will allow a suitable amount of reflection on the new institutional balance resulting in the wake of the Lisbon Treaty. By clearly defining the methods for exercising the right of inquiry, Parliament will strengthen its democratic scrutiny role. With this in mind, its powers must be outlined precisely with regard to the principle of proportionality and utility.

I should draw your attention to paragraph 5, which distinguishes between political and judicial inquiries. I think that it is extremely important for Parliament’s activities not to interfere with the judicial mechanisms. I should stress the need to strike a balance between the transparency of the Parliament’s work and the protection of privacy or of the vital interests of Member States. I also support the provisions on the possibility of lodging a complaint against the report compiled by a committee of inquiry.

Written explanations of vote

Report: Raül Romeva i Rueda (A7-0449/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report, but I would highlight the fact that Parliament has attached a declaration to this regulation underscoring the possibility of implementing acts, which should not be taken into account or used as precedents for addressing situations like this one, thus requiring the European Union to transpose the measures adopted by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas into EU law. Only then can it be said that future international conservation measures have been transposed effectively. I should like to conclude by pointing out that the democratic process should be strengthened for any kind of act relating to this matter, and that the importance of this regulation should not be overlooked, as it enables the effective protection of bluefin tuna, which is vital for many coastal regions and islands of the EU.

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) At a time when intensive fishing of bluefin tuna has resulted, according to several independent assessments, in a huge drop in fish stocks, it is absolutely vital for the European authorities to adopt important policies for promoting conservation and implementing control procedures effectively. Fishing is one of the areas on which the European economy and a large number of workers in Member States depend. Ensuring the conditions for its sustainable development requires measures to be adopted offering prospects for long-term growth and stability.

At the same time, it is important for European institutions to assume in a clear, consistent manner their obligations to biodiversity conservation, as indicated from EU strategic documents and the Europe 2020 strategy. I support the adoption of the report as a powerful indication of the commitment of the European Union and its institutions to the obligations to protect the environment and rebuild stocks.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Bluefin tuna, one of the most prized species in the Mediterranean, is now under threat as a result of regional overfishing. To protect this species, the European Union and the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) has established a monitoring system and has drawn up a multiannual recovery plan for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean. We had hoped to strengthen this plan. However, the debate has been heated for a number of years now. Is it necessary to continue to allocate quotas or to suspend fishing of this threatened species? As you know, I prefer pragmatism and realism, and I do not support zero quotas. However, it is vital, in my opinion, to revise quotas downwards and to strengthen monitoring.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report. I agree that the EU should not only transpose the amendments to the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) multiannual recovery plan for the eastern stock of bluefin tuna, but should commit to providing even greater protection for the marine environment than provided for in this plan. I welcome the amendments regarding a reduction in the Total Allowable Catch and a strengthening of the control measures used to implement the recovery plan, specifically those control measures relating to caging and transfer operations. I also agree with the European Parliament’s proposals to establish areas in the Mediterranean that are closed to fishing and to remove the derogation for EU vessels concerning a minimum size for tuna. The EU faces serious problems with regard to historical overfishing and illegal, undeclared and unregulated fishing. Therefore, it is very important to take steps to ensure a sustainable marine environment and guarantee fish stocks.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this report because we need not only rapid, concrete measures, but also a comprehensive multiannual strategy to ensure the recovery of the bluefin stocks in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean. This species is currently under threat both from overfishing and due to the fishing methods and practices being used. In this situation, the existing regulations need to be supplemented by detailed provisions aimed at resolving the legislative loopholes concerning specific aspects such as caging the fish. The European Union has an important role in this process. However, the measures adopted solely at European level will only have a limited impact unless they are followed by other similar measures globally. This is why I encourage European states to support tighter regulations within the ICCAT.

I also think that the EU must be involved in promoting sensible, sustainable management of bluefin tuna stocks by advocating these principles to other major players in this sector, particularly Japan. I should also point out the importance of monitoring activities to ensure compliance with existing legislation and combat illegal fishing.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because in November 2010, in Paris, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) amended its multiannual recovery plan for the eastern stock of bluefin tuna. As the EU is a contracting party to ICCAT, it is obliged to transpose those amendments into EU law. Stocks of Atlantic bluefin tuna have been drastically reduced and urgent action is required to protect them. In this context, ICCAT agreed a new recommendation. The changes include a reduction in the Total Allowable Catch and a strengthening of the control measures used to implement the recovery plan, specifically those relating to caging and transfer operations. This is very relevant for the European Union because, despite major investment in fishing management measures, many problems still remain with regard to historical overfishing. Given that the ICCAT recommendation has already been adopted at international level, there is limited scope for amending the text of the transposition. However, there are some modifications which could be made in order to improve the proposal. It is necessary to reflect the obligations contained in the Marine Strategy Framework Directive in the multiannual recovery plan for bluefin tuna.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The tuna population has been on the wane for more than 10 years and the conditions are in place for it to disappear altogether unless measures are adopted promoting the recovery of the stock. In the past 20 years, 64 measures have been adopted to manage this decline, 13 of which are still in force.

The recovery plan was first adopted in 2006 and was subsequently amended in 2008, 2009 and 2010. At present, the fishing of eastern bluefin tuna is the most tightly regulated in the EU, and probably among the most regulated in the world. The significant decline in tuna stocks is attributed, in particular, to the huge market demand for fish, illegal fishing and fishing out of season.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. – (IT) It is true that in the last decade illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing seems to have decreased, not least thanks to the countermeasures adopted by international institutions. However, it is a fact that we could consider incidental and absolutely temporary, compared with the general market trend. Pressure on this kind of fishing remains high, not least because technological advances have put fish-aggregating devices (FADs), costing next to nothing, at the disposal of a huge number of operators. It is reasonable to expect repeated episodes of non-selective fishing, including IUU fishing, especially in the outer areas of the Mediterranean and the Atlantic which are politically unstable and therefore suffer setbacks on the path of economic and civil development.

The significant discrepancy between the declared volume of fish and that sold on the market demonstrates, if proof were needed, that we have not yet achieved a balanced and rational system to exploit this resource. From a technical point of view, I am well aware that we do not have an alternative to transposing the amendments to the ICAAT plan, to which objections have not been tabled. I do, however, wish to register my support for the report.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – Whilst it is essential all efforts are made internationally to protect the Atlantic and Mediterranean bluefin tuna, it is laughable to assume the EU is an appropriate body to commit to adherence to the conditions of the ICCAT recovery plan. The EU’s record of maritime maintenance under the common fisheries policy has led to some of the worst depletion in fish stocks in the world. It is the macro-management and division of national waters between the entire territory of the Union, and erroneous quota and catch limits that have led to the exploitative overfishing we see not only in European waters but the waters of third countries, often in the developing world, who have signed bilateral trade agreements. In order for worthwhile adherence to ICCAT stipulations to be achieved, fishing policy must be devolved back to the territorial governments.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report on bluefin tuna stocks in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean. I support amending Regulation (EC) No 302/2009, which is a follow-up to the recommendation of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). I approve the recovery plan drawn up by this organisation. However, I would like to say that it is necessary to strike an appropriate balance between protective measures and continued activity. I share the rapporteur’s desire to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing and to make the European Union a model of fisheries management.

  Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 302/2009 concerning a multiannual recovery plan for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean. The EU must declare those zones as closed areas or sanctuaries for bluefin tuna and ban fishermen from accessing them during the spawning season. Such a step would also be in line with EU environmental legislation (MSFD, Natura 2000, etc.). The EU could make a major contribution to bluefin tuna conservation and dramatically increase the probability of the stock’s recovery. A unilateral EU declaration of spawning closures could apply to EU-flagged vessels throughout all six zones and to vessels flying third-country flags only in waters under EU jurisdiction (in areas 1, 2 and 3). The fact that the EU has 56% of the TAC for bluefin tuna means that the temptation to leave the EU register in order to fish in these waters would be minimal.

  Marielle de Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Bluefin tuna is now at risk of extinction in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean. This is the inevitable consequence of overfishing over the last ten years. The European authorities must fight vigorously against this danger to the marine ecosystem. Parliament, by voting in favour of this resolution to rebuild stocks of bluefin tuna, endorses the introduction of new international rules to reduce the number of vessels authorised to fish for this particular species. Furthermore, the Member States must reduce their fishing quota by 2013 to help rebuild global stocks of bluefin tuna. The fight against the disappearance of fisheries resources requires dogged determination on the part of the Union.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D), in writing. – I voted in favour of the report on the proposal for a regulation concerning a multiannual recovery plan for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean because I truly believe that the European Union needed to urgently comply with the most recent international standards in tuna catching. The report, by adopting the necessary amendments to the ICCAT recovery plan, improves the tuna fishing practice in Europe by increasing the protection of bluefin tuna, which risks disappearing from our seas. Fish is a fundamental resource for our economy and the biodiversity of our seas is of undisputable value. A careful and well-tuned regulation of fishing practices and environmental protection is therefore essential. I believe this report will have a very positive impact in the fishery sector, by forbidding malpractices, overfishing and illegal catches.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report amending Regulation (EC) No 302/2009 concerning a multiannual recovery plan for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean because there is a need to transpose into EU law the changes made by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas to its multiannual recovery plan for the eastern stock of bluefin tuna.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) On 3 May 2010, the writer Arturo Pérez-Reverte wrote the following in his weekly column, Patente de Corso: ‘for years, I passed (…) boats at sea (…) designed for the task. Thus, weaving an intricate design with European legislation, using light aircraft to locate tuna, surrounding it with ultra-modern technology, looking further and further, in Sicily and off the coast of Libya, and bringing it to concentration and killing sites in towed cages, four lynx were made of gold, while bluefin tuna, which had been crossing the Straits of Gibraltar for years, silvery, red riches that peppered our ancestral trap-net jargon with Greek, Latin and Arabic words, are inevitably becoming extinct’. My transcription of his words sums up the current state of affairs more accurately than anything that I might add. I believe that the EU simply needs to make up for lost time and adopt measures that enable it to act effectively in order to save bluefin tuna. I hope that it will succeed.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Sustainable management of fisheries resources is one of the EU’s concerns, in particular, when it comes to endangered species. This report, by Mr Romeva i Rueda, concerns the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 302/2009 and establishing a multiannual recovery plan for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean. As tuna is a much sought-after species, it is vital that there be legislation regulating the catch that does not jeopardise existing stocks of this species. Moreover, illegal fishing is a serious threat to its recovery. Although the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas has a recovery plan with measures that have been in force since July 2011, the fact is that these have not yet been transposed into EU law, and this is undermining the credibility of the EU. I understand, however, that the restrictions should apply to everyone, and not only to European fishermen. I voted for this report because it combines the economic consequences of reducing catches with combating illegal fishing and the need to ensure the maintenance of the species in future.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The main objective of this report is to transpose into EU law the amendments set out by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), a multilateral organisation for the management of tuna fisheries, in its multiannual recovery plan for bluefin tuna stocks. The rapporteur highlights the difficulty of establishing a management plan for the bluefin tuna fishery. He also states that the difficulty of establishing a management plan for the bluefin tuna fishery may be related to the ICCAT’s lack of financial, administrative and technological resources for controlling fishing. It is worth noting that ‘the ICCAT recovery plan is less ambitious than EU domestic legislation’. Concerns have been raised about the lack of up-to-date statistical data regarding bluefin tuna stocks and the validity of existing data. The rapporteur supports the Commission proposal, with the amendments it has introduced. We would reassert the principle that decisions on the management of living marine resources should be based on scientific knowledge and that this should be supported by data that is as concrete as possible. This report took that concern on board, hence our vote in favour. We would, however, highlight the rapporteur’s own caveats relating to the aforementioned issues; it is important that these be addressed in the future.

  Monika Flašíková Benová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) In November 2010, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) amended its multiannual recovery plan for the eastern stock of bluefin tuna. As the EU is a contracting party to ICCAT, it is obliged to transpose those amendments into EU law. The history of management of the bluefin tuna fishery is long and complicated. Though the stock has been fished for millennia, the problems began in earnest in the 1990s when the practice of caging bluefin in order to fatten them up for the Japanese market was introduced. The fishery for the eastern bluefin is the most tightly regulated fishery in the EU and probably among the most regulated in the world. The fishery is an unusual one in some ways. What makes the fishery unusual is the extraordinary price that the fish obtain on the market and the degree of concentration of the market in one country, Japan. This led to the dominant role in the fishery played by the combined purse seining/tuna fattening operations. I believe that extensive management and control measures in the recovery plan are needed, as well as the detailed catch documentation scheme for monitoring international trade. ICCAT members, in many cases, simply do not have the means to control the fishery. In many cases, they also lack the political will. The result is the annual amendments to both the recovery plan and the catch documentation scheme. In addition, the ICCAT recovery plan is less ambitious than EU domestic legislation.

  Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), in writing. – (IT) We need to take urgent action to protect stocks of Atlantic bluefin tuna which have drastically reduced over the years. It is, therefore, extremely important to transpose into EU law ICCAT Recommendation 10-04, which seeks to increase measures to protect bluefin tuna, especially since the EU is a contracting party to ICCAT. I voted in favour for the above reasons.

  Catherine Grèze (Verts/ALE), in writing. – (FR) We had the opportunity to prevent the disappearance of bluefin tuna, and the EU, the main exploiter of this species, also had the opportunity to assume its responsibilities. It is regrettable, however, that the European Parliament did not succeed in adopting more ambitious measures to address the plight of this iconic endangered species. The new legislation, which I certainly could not vote against, is only the bare minimum, but it will at least make it possible to enforce existing international standards. Although the European Union has just complied with the commitments made within the framework of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), we are still far from taking the necessary measures. Measures should have been taken, for example, to close zones to fishing, especially during the spawning season. In addition, stricter measures should have been adopted concerning illegal fishing and overfishing in particular, in order to fill certain gaps, which are currently exacerbating the problem of the over-exploitation of fish stocks. It may not be too late, and the EU will once again have the opportunity to enforce more stringent regulations this November.

  Mikael Gustafsson (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (SV) I voted in favour of the report. This recovery plan for tuna is better than the previous one. It allows for smaller catches and is based on the recommendations of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). Naturally, it would be better if no catches at all were permitted, but I believe that this is a step towards creating a more sustainable fishery industry.

  Brice Hortefeux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Fishing for bluefin tuna is a major concern, which has been on the European agenda countless times, so fragile is the balance between the need to secure the future of the tuna fishing industry and the need to guarantee the preservation of the species. The Community has been a contracting party to the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) since 1997, and its recommendations are binding. However, in 2010, ICCAT adopted a recommendation modifying the recovery plan for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean. This plan provides for strengthening measures to reduce fishing capacity and for reinforcing control measures. Because of the high price that bluefin tuna obtains on the market, illegal activities in the industry have increased. The speedy implementation of recommendations must therefore encourage better stock management in order to ensure that stocks recover.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this document because the ICCAT bluefin recovery plan has been frequently amended and strengthened. The amendments in the present report date from November 2010 and concern the following: a reduction in the TAC from 13 500 to 12 900 tonnes (though the TAC is not included in this regulation); tightening up of various aspects of control, especially relating to transfer of tuna from the net to the cages; further details required in the annual fishing plans, the capacity management plans and the inspection plans of the Member States; strengthening measures for the reduction of capacity; extending the closed season for purse seiners in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean; prohibition of joint fishing operations with non EU-flagged vessels; various provisions to increase inspection and observer capacities and corresponding changes to the annexes. The EU has no choice but to adopt these amendments as they have been agreed by an international organisation and the EU has not tabled an objection. The rapporteur therefore endorses them, as far as they go.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Bluefin tuna fishing is one of the most highly regulated forms of fishing in the European Union. In my view, this proposal for a regulation adopts a balanced approach. It aims to reinforce control measures, on the one hand, and to strengthen measures to reduce fishing capacity, on the other. I supported this report in the plenary vote. The report was adopted by 635 votes in favour, 16 votes against and 11 abstentions.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing. – (PL) In Paris in November 2010, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) made certain amendments to the multiannual recovery plan for Eastern bluefin tuna. The history of bluefin tuna fisheries management is complex and EU legislation in this area is very extensive. Eastern bluefin tuna fisheries are the most regulated in the EU, and perhaps even the world. The EU and its Member States spend enormous amounts on ensuring compliance with these regulations, and there can be no doubt that this has resulted in significantly better compliance with the legislation.

The situation today is significantly better than it was even a few years ago. In common with the rest of my group, therefore, I voted in favour of adopting the report in the form approved by the Committee on Fisheries, which quite rightly does not include the rapporteur’s amendments.

  Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE), in writing. – (DE) The purpose of this report is to implement more effectively the recommendation by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) amending the recovery plan for the endangered species of bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean, and to transpose this into Union law. At the ICCAT sessions, and in the examination of the measures adopted to counter overfishing, the impression was given that ICCAT is not sufficiently ensuring the protection of bluefin tuna. I voted in favour of the report, since only a strengthening of measures to reduce the fishing capacity and for reinforcing the control measures, in particular, as regards the transfer and the caging operations, can ensure there is no further reduction in fish stocks.

  Kartika Tamara Liotard (GUE/NGL), in writing. – I abstained on the vote on this report. This is a better and improved recovery plan for the bluefin tuna, compared to the previous one. It allows for less catches and is based on the recommendations of ICCAT, taking into consideration all the scientific data available and accordingly all the necessary concrete measures (i.e. spawning areas). It would, of course, be better if no catches at all were allowed for this overfished species, but I felt this is at least a step towards better fishing practices and sustainability.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The recommendation made by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) is binding on the EU and must therefore be transposed into European Union law. This provides for a further reduction in the Total Allowable Catch, for strengthening measures to reduce fishing capacity and for tightening control measures, particularly with regard to transfer and caging operations. The objective of the measures aimed at reducing fishing capacity is to make the tuna stock recovery plan effective in order to achieve by 2022 a biomass corresponding to the maximum sustainable yield of at least 60%. I think that a timetable is needed in the coming period for adjusting the capacity of each Member State so that all Member States eliminate completely the discrepancy between their fishing capacity and their actual capacity in proportion to the allocated quota, applicable to both fishing vessels and catches by trap.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I backed new international measures to further reduce illegal catches of bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean aimed at ensuring more sustainable development of stocks. These also called for more advice on the identification of spawning grounds and the creation of sanctuaries. The new rules, which focus chiefly on reducing the size of fishing fleets, extending closed seasons for purse seiners and beefing up controls, were agreed at the annual meeting of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) in November 2010. The EU, as a contracting party to ICCAT, is obliged to incorporate its recommendations into EU law. The new rules must be implemented quickly now that the bluefin fishing season has just opened.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The problem of bluefin tuna stocks arose in the early 1990s, when the practice of caging bluefin in order to fatten them up for the Japanese market was introduced. It is necessary to adopt stringent management measures, and that is why I voted in favour of the regulation concerning a multiannual recovery plan for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean. The new rules include reducing the size of fishing fleets, extending spawning closures to certain types of vessel and reinforcing control measures. These rules, having been adopted at international level, must now be integrated into EU law.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) This report is grossly inadequate given the ecological disaster created by the critically low level of the bluefin tuna population in the Mediterranean. While the scientific consensus is that we urgently need to enforce the fixed quotas at the very least, this mixed text still does not require Member States to introduce an effective mechanism to monitor and control fishing in the Mediterranean, nor does it call for the establishment of spawning sanctuaries. It does not even mention the time limits granted by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) for the adjustment of fishing effort in accordance with fixed quotas. As a result, it does not specify the necessary financial compensation to be granted to tuna vessels.

What we need is a plan for sustainable fishing and for the effective and shared protection of the common good that is the sea and all that lives in it. I am opposed to devastating offshore factories. I am in favour of artisanal fishing by coastal populations. This report is far from satisfying this dual requirement. I abstain.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this legislative resolution, which reduces fishing quotas and strengthens monitoring of bluefin tuna catches in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean. There is evidence that illegal catches make up more than half the EU total, so it is imperative that new rules be created requiring the Member States to ensure that their national observers are monitoring all purse seines within their territory. Previously, only 20% of boats were monitored. The reduction in fishing quotas and the size of fishing fleets, the extended closed season for purse seines and greater monitoring will help to manage a species being endangered as a result of excessive catches.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (ES) I voted in favour of this report because the EU has an obligation to transpose the amendments that the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), at its meeting in Paris in November 2010, incorporated into its multiannual recovery plan for the eastern stock of bluefin tuna. As the EU is a contracting party to ICCAT, it is obliged to transpose those amendments into EU law. They concern the following: a reduction in the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) from 13 500 to 12 900 tonnes (though the TAC is not included in this regulation); tightening up of control relating to transfer of tuna from the net to the cages; further details required in the annual fishing plans, the capacity management plans and the inspection plans of the Member States; strengthening measures for the reduction of capacity; extending the closed season for purse seines in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean; prohibition of joint fishing operations with non EU-flagged vessels; and various provisions to increase inspection and observer capacities. The EU must adopt these amendments as they have been agreed by an international organisation and the EU has not tabled an objection.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – In November 2010, in Paris, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas amended its multiannual recovery plan for the eastern stock of bluefin tuna in order to provide for a further reduction in the Total Allowable Catch, to strengthen measures to reduce the fishing capacity and to reinforce the control measures, particularly as regards the transfer and the caging operations. As the EU is a contracting party to the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, I think that these amendments are very timely and I voted in favour.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) The fishing of eastern stocks of bluefin tuna is the most heavily regulated fishery in the EU. Apparently, however, people are dodging the regulations even here. Illegal fishing, misreporting and so on mean that the management of bluefin tuna stocks in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean is a disgrace. As a contracting party to the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), the EU is obliged to implement the amendments adopted in November 2010. If we have not succeeded to date in ensuring compliance with the fisheries rules, however, then I see no purpose in a further tightening up and complication of the rules. Instead, we should put more effort into addressing the fundamental problems in respect of compliance and look for solutions to these. For this reason, I abstained from voting.

  Claudio Morganti (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of this report, which seeks to create a plan to protect and safeguard bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean. Indeed, in recent years, massive and poorly regulated fishing activity has threatened to seriously endanger the existence of this fish in our seas. The measures taken are a step in the right direction; that is, they require better regulation and propose the creation of closed areas to help this species recover. Fishing is certainly an important industry which must by no means be abandoned and which can, on the contrary, offer ever greater opportunities, including in the immediate future. Nevertheless, the resources are not limitless, meaning we must plan our action so that we avoid making certain difficult situations – such as that of bluefin tuna – a hundred times worse.

  Tiziano Motti (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the report because we need a new agreement balancing the needs of fishermen with the requirements for the recovery of bluefin tuna stock. The new rules on the reduction in the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) rightly seek a balance aiming to compensate European fishermen fishing for bluefin tuna, who are competing with the Americans and the Japanese. We are calling for appropriate transition processes during the conversion of those European fishing fleets which must be progressively decommissioned in proportion to the reduction in the TAC and the fishing season. Indeed, the measures focus on reducing the size of the fishing fleets, but also on extending the closed seasons for purse seines and tightening up controls, including those relating to the transfer of tuna from nets to cages. Our objective must be to balance the protection of the species with the socio-professional needs of fishermen and fish-processing processes and to avoid endangering thousands of jobs, already seriously threatened during the TAC reductions in recent years.

  Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The recommendation adopted in 2010 by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, which the EU has signed up to, needs to be transposed into EU legislation as a matter of urgency, given the need to bolster the measures aimed at protecting bluefin tuna. We also need to bear in mind that it is not only bluefin tuna which is endangered, but also five of the eight subspecies of tuna, such as the Southern bluefin tuna or albacore.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. – (DE) The new law provides no specific measures to protect the species of fish that is threatened with extinction. Bluefin tuna have long been under threat from overfishing in the Atlantic and in the Mediterranean. As the main fishery, the EU ought at least to adhere to the strict rules that already exist so that stocks can recover, but apparently it is not doing so – there are still plenty of loopholes. Accordingly, the report falls short of all the scientific recommendations for the recovery of the stocks; it seems to me that we need stricter control of the fishing fleets and the associated industry. As far as I am concerned, the report contains nothing but a poor compromise that I cannot vote for, which is why I abstained from voting.

  Younous Omarjee (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) I voted for the report on rebuilding bluefin tuna stocks in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean. I recognise the difficulties faced by the fishermen concerned, but nothing would be worse for them than the disappearance of this species, which is seriously under threat. The protection of marine biodiversity is a major issue. If we continue at the current pace of predation, even before 2050, there will be no known fish or crustacean left to fish commercially.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (S&D), in writing. – I welcome the effort made by the rapporteur in bringing together issues from different policy areas and creating a comprehensive and proactive approach to the problem of bluefin tuna conservation and recovery. The report mentions that the standard ICCAT regulations are only a response to identified problems. We must, however, take advantage of our joint force of 27 Member States. I support the rapporteur’s proposals for unilateral EU measures which would help us to implement our environmental objectives. We should also look to the abnormally inflated demand. One country’s market – that of Japan – threatens the preservation of bluefin tuna in the whole Mediterranean Sea. I voted in favour of this report because I support calls for the practices of limited and reasonable consumption. The monitoring of food wastage could also significantly contribute to the preservation of bluefin tuna via market relations. While current excessive fishing is a response to current inflated demand, a decrease in demand would provoke a decrease in fishing.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The objective of the proposal for a regulation that we have just adopted is the recovery of bluefin tuna populations in the Mediterranean and the eastern Atlantic in accordance with the decisions adopted by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas. Owing to the fishing practices of the last 20 years, the conservation of bluefin tuna is at risk. We therefore need appropriate rules to aid the repopulation of our seas. Firstly, we will need to control the level of fishing activity and the derogations granted to fishing vessels. Then we must ban the fishing of bluefin tuna during the spawning season. The equilibrium of our seas is more important than trade in a product. We must therefore protect and guarantee this equilibrium with control measures.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the amendment to the Regulation establishing a multiannual recovery plan for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean as I believe that it is vital that this be brought up to date in view of the changes that have taken place in the meantime, in particular, those relating to stocks of the species. Recommendation 10-04 by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, which is binding for the EU, seeks to reduce the Total Allowable Catch, among other measures. It is therefore vital that this regulation, which dates from 2009, be brought up to date.

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Today in Strasbourg, the House voted in favour of Mr Romeva i Rueda’s report on bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean. The problems associated with the management of the bluefin tuna fishery originate in the 1990s, owing to the introduction of the practice of caging bluefin tuna in order to fatten them up for the Japanese market and, so far, we have the impression that the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) is always at least a step behind in terms of adapting to the current fishery, very often as a result of the lack of means or political will to control the fishery.

The rapporteur therefore believes that ICCAT must change its approach and try to jump ahead, moving further and faster. The EU, for its part, could declare some areas to be sanctuaries for bluefin tuna and close them to fishing during the spawning season, and could remove the derogation, for its own fishing vessels, for the fishing of bluefin tuna with a minimum weight of 8 kg for farming purposes.

  Jean Roatta (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Bluefin tuna stocks in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean have fallen dramatically over the years, and urgent action is needed to protect them. The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), to which the EU is a contracting party under the common commercial policy, adopted a new recommendation at its annual meeting in 2010. The amendments include reducing the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and strengthening control measures used to implement a recovery plan. I am therefore in favour of the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 302/2009 concerning a multiannual recovery plan for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean. The financial returns on fishing are so high that they actively encourage illegal fishing and other illegal activities. The time has come, therefore, to reassess the management measures adopted by ICCAT and to adapt them to current activities. It is also high time that the European Union acted quickly on its own initiative and as a precautionary measure to protect bluefin tuna and to rebuild stocks.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. The sorry state of bluefin tuna in the Atlantic and Mediterranean is well known and the EU, as the main fisher of the stock, must accept a large chunk of responsibility for driving bluefin to the brink. What has been adopted today represents the bare minimum and is no more than a minimalist implementation of the international ICCAT recovery plan. This falls far below what scientists believe is necessary to give the bluefin stock a fighting chance of recovery. In that sense, this represents a missed opportunity for the EU to take meaningful steps to prevent the demise of bluefin. If the EU wants to get serious about saving bluefin, this means closing areas to fishing – particularly during the breeding season – as well as adopting more stringent measures to close some of the loopholes, which exacerbate the over-exploitation of the stock. Tougher controls of the fleet and the related industry are also necessary to prevent illegal fishing and overfishing.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of this resolution since I believe that the European Union must boost the protection of bluefin tuna, an extremely important predator for the preservation of the ecosystem in the Mediterranean Sea. We must immediately consolidate the recovery plan for bluefin tuna in the Mediterranean, including by meeting the EU’s objectives in advance. Spawning areas in international waters could also be declared ‘closed areas’, enabling fishing to be banned during the spawning season.

  Antolín Sánchez Presedo (S&D), in writing. – (ES) I support the introduction of stricter measures to ensure the recovery of bluefin tuna populations in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean: the 600 tonne reduction in the TAC and stronger measures aimed at reducing capacity and tightening up various aspects of control, such as the transfer of tuna from the net to the cages, will improve conditions for developing the fishing industry.

The multiannual recovery plan, adopted in 2006 and continuing through 2022, has been subject to numerous modifications over time, which were the result of recommendations adopted by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), the regional organisation that is responsible for its management and to which the EU is a contracting party.

The adoption of this report incorporates into EU law those recommendations adopted at the ICCAT’s annual meeting in November 2010, held in Paris, which I attended as a member of a European Parliament delegation. In our efforts to properly implement these, it is a positive sign that we have finally reached a flexible compromise at first reading which, without setting a precedent, enables us to be ready for their immediate transposition and application at the start of the next fishing season, which is already under way.

  Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report, although not without some reservations. It is regrettable that the text does not represent a significant improvement on the Commission’s proposal, and I am not convinced that it is consistent with the EU’s obligation, as laid down in the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, to achieve good environmental status by 2020. On the plus side, the new rules will come into effect before the next fishing season. For the long term, however, a much greater level of ambition is needed if we are to save our fish stocks.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The report debated by the House entailed a first reading by Parliament of the Council regulation which incorporates a recommendation of the International Committee for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) concerning a multiannual recovery plan for this stock. The aim of the proposal that we voted on in the House is to transpose into EU law the ICCAT recommendation modifying the recovery plan for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean. Personally, I voted in favour of the report since I support the decisions on the recovery plan adopted in ICCAT. This plan is considered to be a useful management instrument. I am keen to highlight just one point, namely, the need to take particular care to properly transpose the decisions taken in ICCAT, especially in order to ensure all contracting parties use the same procedures.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) At its annual meeting in 2010, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) adopted a recommendation amending its multiannual recovery plan for the eastern stock of bluefin tuna. This plan is aimed at strengthening measures to reduce fishing capacity and reinforce measures for monitoring catches. This proposal for a regulation seeks to transpose this recommendation by the ICCAT, to which the EU is a contracting party, into EU law. As the proposed plan is less ambitious than EU legislation, the ICCAT also needs to prepare to answer crucial questions about its competence. I voted for this report for these reasons.

  Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. – Overfishing of bluefin tuna and illegal catches have led to stocks decreasing significantly; this is why there is a need for a renewed effort to preserve the species in Europe. I voted in favour of measures aiming to further reduce fishing quotas and strengthen controls over bluefin tuna fishing in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean. Some 56% of all legally captured bluefin tuna comes from EU waters. The main countries fishing it are Spain, France and Italy, and the main importer is Japan. In this resolution, which I voted in favour of, Parliament aims to tighten rules protecting EU bluefin tuna stocks, along the lines proposed by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). The proposals include reducing the allowable quotas and establishing sanctuaries, calling for some zones in the Mediterranean to be declared closed areas or sanctuaries for bluefin tuna. These proposals are vital in helping to rebuild the tuna population.

  Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa (PPE), in writing. – (PL) I voted in favour of the amendments to the multiannual recovery plan for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean. In recent years, there has been a noticeable decrease in numbers of this type of fish. Steps should therefore be taken aimed at rebuilding these stocks, by 2019 with zero catch and by 2022 with current catch. In order to do so, it is necessary to reduce the Total Allowable Catch from 13 500 to 12 900 tonnes.

I fully support the amendments aimed at increasing control, extending the closed season for purse seines in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean, banning joint fishing operations with non EU-flagged vessels and strengthening measures to reduce fishing capacity. To this end, it is necessary to maintain a detailed documentation system intended to limit profits from illegal, unreported and unregulated tuna fishing. I think that these amendments could make a significant contribution to rebuilding bluefin tuna stocks and achieving the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – The new legislation aims to introduce more stringent rules in order to ensure the recovery of bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean. It provides for a reduction in the Total Allowable Catch and the reinforcing of control measures. In November 2010, in Paris, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) amended its multiannual recovery plan for the eastern stock of bluefin tuna. As the EU is a contracting party to ICCAT, it is obliged to transpose those amendments into EU law. It is the Commission’s proposal to that end that is the subject of the present report.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report concerns the principle, which we have always advocated, that decisions on the management of living marine resources should be based on scientific knowledge, and that this should be supported by data that is as concrete as possible. We therefore voted for this report, not only because it is aimed at transposing into EU law the amendments set out by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) relating to its multiannual recovery plan for bluefin tuna stocks, but also because of the concerns raised by the rapporteur, both in terms of the ICCAT’s lack of financial and logistical support, and in terms of the need to strengthen statistical data on the matters covered in the report.

Report: Dominique Riquet (A7-0034/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report as I believe that the new double-hull requirements for boats are important for environmental reasons, and also because I share the view of the rapporteur that the scope of the delegation of powers to the Commission is too broad. The duration of the Commission’s power to adopt delegated acts should be limited, with a report enabling Parliament and the Council to assess future proposals.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The European Parliament took up the issue of double-hull vessels following several accidents involving cruise ships in recent months. My French colleague, Dominique Riquet, of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) produced the report on the recasting of the regulation on the accelerated phasing-in of double-hull requirements, the primary aim of which was to incorporate new international rules established by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) into a regulation dating from 2002. Furthermore, as a member of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, I could only support this report, which is also a tool to fight pollution. The regulation on double-hull vessels prevents the contents of cargo tanks from being discharged into the sea and causing major oil pollution following a collision or grounding. It is therefore essential that single-hull ships speed up their compliance.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this document. The issue of double-hulls or the accelerated phasing-in of equivalent design requirements for single-hull oil tankers is very important. Oil slicks resulting from oil tanker accidents such as those involving the Erika in 1999 and the Prestige in 2002 are major environmental disasters with tragic repercussions for marine fauna and flora. Reflecting a concern for the environment and a willingness to learn from past mistakes, this regulation seeks to reduce the risks of accidental oil pollution in European waters through the accelerated phasing-in of double-hull requirements. This proposal does not alter the substance of the regulation, but it includes certain updates. Given the power conferred on the Commission to adopt delegated acts under the Treaty of Lisbon, I welcome the Commission’s proposal to recast the regulation.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this report because the consequences of major environmental disasters highlight the need for the accelerated phasing-in of double-hull or equivalent design for single-hull oil tankers. I think that adequate protection needs to be provided in the event of accidents occurring, thereby preventing the disastrous effects of oil spills on water, soil and marine fauna and flora.

At the same time, when defining regulations in this area, it is important to respect the specific powers of each European institution. I endorse the position of the rapporteur, who amended the Commission’s proposal to reflect the European Parliament’s stance on delegated acts. On this point, I should highlight Amendment 1, which not only mentions the importance of the Commission organising appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level, but also recommends that it should send relevant documents to the European Parliament and the Council.

  Adam Bielan (ECR) , in writing. – (PL) I support this report. It is always worth considering measures which improve environmental protection. The report put to the vote today is an example of a very important initiative to protect marine fauna and flora, which are most vulnerable to the effects of potential oil tanker disasters. We have seen the scale of such disasters in the tragedies involving the Erika and Prestige tankers.

A double hull construction better protects cargo tanks from damage and thus reduces the pollution risk. This solution is particularly desirable in the relatively shallow inland coastal waters of Europe. The Commission has proposed converting the existing legislation into a single regulation in this area. This is a good solution, which does not give rise to additional financial burdens. An extension of the deadline for raising objections against delegated acts will also strengthen this procedure.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this European Parliament report because the issue of the accelerated phasing-in of safety requirements for single-hull oil tankers is very important for the European Union. Oil slicks resulting from oil tanker accidents are major environmental disasters with tragic repercussions for marine fauna and flora. Reflecting a concern for the environment, this regulation seeks to reduce the risks of accidental oil pollution in European waters through the introduction of double-hull requirements. This requirement for oil tankers to have a double hull would protect the cargo tanks from damage and reduce the pollution risk. In single-hull vessels, the oil in the cargo tanks is separated from the seawater only by the bottom and side plating. If the hull is damaged following a collision or grounding, there is a risk that the cargo tanks will discharge their contents into the sea and cause major pollution. An effective means of avoiding this risk is to surround the cargo tanks with a second inner plate at a sufficient distance from the outer shell.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – I abstained from this vote as the regulation, while valid in its proposition, negates the freedom of the free market and arrogates it to the EU Commission. Oil slicks are major environmental disasters that must be mitigated and managed, thus, I wholeheartedly agree that an appropriate way of controlling risk of spillage is via the international adoption of double-hulled vessels. However, the proposal enables such a broad scope of legislative power to be subsumed by the Commission without significant recourse to the Parliament and the Council that it would be in contradiction to my sentiments to support the draft legislation.

  Derek Roland Clark (EFD), in writing. – UKIP MEPs can see both sides of the argument in that protection of the environment is good but double hulls would be a massive cost to shipping and make us uncompetitive with the rest of the world if they were brought in just for the EU.

  William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD), in writing. – UKIP MEPs can see both sides of the argument in that protection of the environment is good but double hulls would be a massive cost to shipping and make us uncompetitive with the rest of the world, if it was brought in just for the EU. We therefore abstained on the report.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The environmental disasters of the Erika in 1999 and the Prestige in 2000 highlighted the need to improve the protection of oil tankers against accidents which have, in the past, damaged our marine environment and coastal zones. That is why I voted in favour of this text, which seeks to do just that. Indeed, several years ago, the European Parliament adopted effective decisions to increase the safety of oil tankers and to reduce the risks of pollution.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report because I believe that the double-hull design requirements are a positive step. The aim of this regulation is to reduce the risks of accidental oil pollution in European waters by the phasing-in of double-hull requirements. This ‘double hull’ design protects the cargo tanks from damage, and will thus be able to prevent future incidents, such as the environmental disasters involving the Erika in 1999 and the Prestige in 2002.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The many environmental disasters caused by the rupturing of single-hull oil tankers are still fresh in our memory, including the notorious case of the Prestige. Quite apart from the jurisdiction issue that has been dividing Parliament and the Commission, the EU must do everything possible to avoid similar situations from happening again, and must therefore promote the timely adoption of more stringent requirements from the owners and builders of these ships. This is vital in order to ensure environmental security.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report by Mr Riquet concerns the proposed recast of a resolution of the European Parliament and of the Council on the accelerated phasing-in of double-hull or equivalent design requirements for single-hull oil tankers. Millions of barrels of oil are transported across the oceans every day. Indeed, the sea remains the main ‘highway’ for large oil tankers. The safe transportation of oil by sea is of concern to the public in general, and environmentalists in particular. We all remember the environmental disasters caused by oil slicks following oil tanker accidents such as those involving the Erika in 1999 and the Prestige in 2002. Given that most oil tankers use the single-hull design, which causes its cargo to pour straight into the water if it is damaged, with major repercussions for marine fauna and flora, the most effective solution is believed to be to give these vessels a double hull. Therefore, taking into account the view of the Committee on Legal Affairs that ‘the proposal contains a straightforward codification of the existing texts, without any change in their substance’, I voted in favour.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The phasing-in of double-hull or equivalent design requirements for single-hull oil tankers is very important because of, inter alia, the notorious cases of the Erika in 1999 and the Prestige in 2002, which caused major environmental disasters. The aim of this regulation is therefore to reduce the risk of accidental oil pollution in European waters. If the hull plating is damaged after the ship has crashed or run aground, it is considered less likely that the cargo tanks will discharge their contents. This is a matter of obvious importance, and the appropriate and necessary steps are now being taken. We voted for the report for this reason.

This report seeks to limit the duration of the Commission’s power to adopt delegated acts to five years, and to lay down the conditions for extending this power. It also calls for a report to be drafted so that Parliament and the Council are provided with regular information to enable them to assess future proposals. The period in which Parliament and the Council can lodge objections to delegated acts will be extended to two months. This will give a total timeframe of four months, which is a more realistic period in which to raise an objection.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The accelerated phasing-in of double-hull or equivalent design requirements for single-hull oil tankers is a very important issue. Oil slicks resulting from oil tanker accidents are major environmental disasters with tragic repercussions for marine fauna and flora. In an attempt to protect the environment and learn from past mistakes, steps leading to the accelerated phasing-in of double-hull oil tankers will reduce the risk of accidental oil pollution in European waters. In single-hull vessels, the oil in the cargo tanks is separated from the seawater only by the bottom and side plating. If the hull is damaged following a collision or grounding, there is a risk that the cargo tanks will discharge their contents into the sea and cause major pollution. An effective means of avoiding this risk is to surround the cargo tanks with a second inner plate at a sufficient distance from the outer shell. This ‘double hull’ design protects the cargo tanks from damage and thus reduces the pollution risk. I therefore consider the introduction of the aforementioned design requirements for double-hull or equivalent for single-hull oil tankers in the near future to be justified.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the accelerated phasing-in of double-hull or equivalent design requirements for single-hull oil tankers (recast) because, according to the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, the proposal in question does not include any substantive amendments other than those identified as such in the proposal and, as regards the codification of the unchanged provisions of the earlier acts together with those amendments, the proposal contains a straightforward codification of the existing texts, without any change in their substance. Reflecting a concern for the environment and a willingness to learn from past mistakes, this regulation seeks to reduce the risks of accidental oil pollution in European waters through accelerated phasing-in of double-hull requirements. In single-hull vessels, the oil in the cargo tanks is separated from the seawater only by the bottom and side plating. If the hull is damaged following a collision or grounding, there is a risk that the cargo tanks will discharge their contents into the sea and cause major pollution. An effective means of avoiding this risk is to surround the cargo tanks with a second inner plate at a sufficient distance from the outer shell. This ‘double hull’ design protects the cargo tanks from damage and thus reduces the pollution risk.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported the report by my colleague, Dominique Riquet, which was adopted in plenary by 656 votes to 4, with 15 abstentions. Specifically, this report seeks, crucially, to recast a robust text to take account, first, of the many amendments it has undergone since its adoption in 2002 following accidents at sea involving oil tankers and, second, of the amendments resulting from the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, in particular, concerning the possibility for the European Commission to adopt delegated acts.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing. – (PL) I remember very well the oil spills caused by the tanker disasters which were widely reported in the media. These were enormous environmental disasters and tragedies for marine fauna and flora. A double hull construction protects the cargo tanks from damage and thus reduces the pollution risk. In single hull tankers, the oil in the tanks is separated from the seawater only by the bottom and side plating. If the hull is damaged following a collision or grounding, there is a risk that the cargo tanks will discharge their contents into the sea and cause major pollution. I therefore fully support the intention of this regulation, which is to limit the risk of the accidental oil pollution of European waters by means of an accelerated introduction of double-hull tankers.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report. The accelerated phasing-in of double-hull or equivalent design requirements for single-hull oil tankers is a very important issue. Oil slicks resulting from oil tanker accidents, such as those involving the Erika in 1999 and the Prestige in 2002, are major environmental disasters with tragic repercussions for marine fauna and flora. Reflecting a concern for the environment and a willingness to learn from past mistakes, this regulation seeks to reduce the risks of accidental oil pollution in European waters through accelerated phasing-in of double-hull requirements. In single-hull vessels, the oil in the cargo tanks is separated from the seawater only by the bottom and side plating. If the hull is damaged following a collision or grounding, there is a risk that the cargo tanks will discharge their contents into the sea and cause major pollution. An effective means of avoiding this risk is to surround the cargo tanks with a second inner plate at a sufficient distance from the outer shell. This ‘double hull’ design protects the cargo tanks from damage and thus reduces the pollution risk.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) This report calls for greater parliamentary control over the delegated acts the European Commission has to adopt in relation to regulating the safety of oil tankers, and I support this. The issue is too sensitive for the Commission to be able to take the relevant decisions on its own. In general terms, the control of the Commission by the elected representatives of the people should be strengthened.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report setting out the double-hull or equivalent design requirements for single-hull oil tankers. This position is justified by major accidents involving oil tankers and the subsequent pollution of coasts and resulting damage to fauna, flora and other marine resources. Stricter and more effective measures need to be taken at international and EU level in order to bring about a marked improvement in maritime safety.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – This regulation seeks to reduce the risks of accidental oil pollution in European waters through accelerated phasing-in of double-hull requirements. In single-hull vessels, the oil in the cargo tanks is separated from the seawater only by the bottom and side plating. If the hull is damaged following a collision or grounding, there is a risk that the cargo tanks will discharge their contents into the sea and cause major pollution. An effective means of avoiding this risk is to surround the cargo tanks with a second inner plate at a sufficient distance from the outer shell. This ‘double hull’ design protects the cargo tanks from damage and thus reduces the pollution risk. I voted in favour.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) Oil tanker accidents pose a huge threat to marine ecosystems. Time and time again, we see such cargo ships running aground or being holed, resulting in discharges of crude oil that depend on the load they are carrying. Since there are scarcely any suitable means of controlling such oil slicks once they have occurred, it seems to make sense to provide tankers with double hulls in order to prevent any discharge in the event that there is a leak. I voted in favour of the report because we need to arrive at a uniform solution for the EU swiftly, since the potential threat posed by oil tankers must be countered – for the sake of the environment, above all, but also for the sake of fisheries.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. – (DE) The long-term economic damage caused by oil tanker accidents is immense, with incalculable consequences for the whole of our environment. The regions directly affected often have their very livelihood come under threat and are unable to deal with the pollution on their own. Assistance programmes costing billions then have to be financed, while increased insurance premiums for tankers are passed up the value chain and added to end prices. As a result, it is once again the customers worldwide who foot the bill for tanker accidents. The accelerated phasing-in of double-hull or equivalent design requirements for single-hull oil tankers is therefore something that I consider to be of great importance. An oil slick caused by an oil tanker accident is an ecological disaster and a tragedy for human and animal life. We should learn from the mistakes of the past and try to reduce the risk of oil pollution caused by accidents in European waters by phasing-in double-hulls as soon as possible. Such a double-hull design protects the cargo tanks in the event of an accident, thereby reducing the risk of pollution. I therefore voted in favour of the report.

  Ivari Padar (S&D), in writing. – (ET) As the shadow rapporteur for the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, I am glad that, in the final text of the report, we were able to reach unanimity with the European Commission and the Council of the European Union on the implementation of an impact assessment of the use of one- and two-cent euro coins. The European Union should increasingly move towards electronic means of payment, and the effective circulation of coins is a step in that direction.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) Regulation of this specific category of oil tanker at European level comes in the wake of major natural disasters caused by oil slicks from wrecked tankers, such as the Prestige in 2002. In order to learn lessons from the mistakes of the past, this regulation seeks to mitigate the risk of oil pollution of European waters by introducing double hulls. In short, the EU proposes that cargo tanks should have a second inner plate, at a sufficient distance from the outer shell. This design should protect cargo tanks from damage and thus reduce the pollution risk. Clearly, this regulation is important to Greece, a country surrounded by a sea used by a large number of tankers every year. That is why I voted in favour of the report.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The accelerated phasing-in of double-hull or equivalent design requirements for single-hull oil tankers is a very important issue. Oil slicks resulting from oil tanker accidents such as those involving the Erika in 1999 and the Prestige in 2002 are major environmental disasters with tragic repercussions for marine fauna and flora. For these reasons, I voted for this report, which proposes the accelerated phasing-in of these requirements.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The aim of this regulation is to reduce the risks of accidental oil pollution in European waters through the accelerated phasing-in of double-hull requirements. The accelerated phasing-in of double-hull or equivalent design requirements for single-hull oil tankers is very important as it will help to prevent environmental disasters such as the cases of the Erika in 1999 and the Prestige in 2002. I therefore voted in favour.

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I would like to congratulate Mr Riquet on his work. Having regard to Article 294(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the report by the Committee on Transport and Tourism, by adopting this report, Parliament has taken a position reflecting a concern for the environment and a willingness to learn from past mistakes, by seeking to reduce the risks of accidental oil pollution in European waters through accelerated phasing-in of double-hull requirements.

Furthermore, Parliament proposes increasing to two months the extension of the period in which Parliament and the Council can lodge objections to delegated acts drawn up by the Commission. This would give a total of four months to deal with the necessary procedures, which is a more realistic period in which to pursue an objection.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. The accelerated phasing-in of double-hull or equivalent design requirements for single-hull oil tankers is a very important issue. Oil slicks resulting from oil tanker accidents, such as those involving the Erika in 1999 and the Prestige in 2002, are major environmental disasters with tragic repercussions for marine fauna and flora. Reflecting a concern for the environment and a willingness to learn from past mistakes, this regulation seeks to reduce the risks of accidental oil pollution in European waters through accelerated phasing-in of double-hull requirements. In single-hull vessels, the oil in the cargo tanks is separated from the seawater only by the bottom and side plating. If the hull is damaged following a collision or grounding, there is a risk that the cargo tanks will discharge their contents into the sea and cause major pollution. An effective means of avoiding this risk is to surround the cargo tanks with a second inner plate at a sufficient distance from the outer shell. This ‘double-hull’ design protects the cargo tanks from damage and thus reduces the pollution risk.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of this document since the environmental disasters that have happened in recent years have highlighted the need for a substantial change to the current rules. The accelerated phasing-in of double-hull or equivalent design requirements for current single-hull oil tankers is extremely important for ensuring that the maritime and coastal environment is adequately protected. The risk of a disaster weighs especially heavily on closed seas such as the Mediterranean: owing to its specific geographical nature, in the event of a spill, its ecosystem would be irreversibly contaminated.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. – (IT) Oil spills in seas owing to oil tanker accidents happen too frequently. The environmental damage which lasts for decades, linked to the lack, in many ships, of a double hull which would prevent crude oil leaking out, is today unacceptable. It is therefore vital for all oil tankers which still have a single hull to be fitted with a double hull or equivalent design intended to eliminate or minimise an oil leak in the event of an accident. I therefore voted in favour of the report.

  Vilja Savisaar-Toomast (ALDE), in writing. – (ET) The accelerated phasing-in of double-hull or equivalent design requirements for single-hull oil tankers is a very important topic. Oil spills caused by accidents involving oil tankers, notably the cases involving the Erika in 1999 and the Prestige in 2002, are far-reaching environmental catastrophes that have disastrous consequences for marine fauna and flora. Two accidents involving oil tankers have already taken place this year in Europe, and although these did not cause great environmental damage, they nonetheless once again demonstrate that a relatively large number of accidents take place involving the abovementioned ships, and thus it is necessary to guarantee the safety of the environment, the ships and their crews.

By adopting this regulation, we will reduce the danger of accidental oil spills in European bodies of water through the phasing-in of double hulls. In single-hull vessels, the oil in the cargo tank is only separated from the seawater by the hull and a wall of sheet metal. The double-wall design protects cargo tanks in the event of an accident, thereby reducing the danger of pollution. Based on the above considerations, I supported the adoption of this report.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The accelerated phasing-in of double-hull or equivalent design requirements for single-hull oil tankers is a very important issue. Oil slicks resulting from oil tanker accidents are major environmental disasters with tragic repercussions for marine fauna and flora. Indeed, with this vote, we will seek to reduce the risks of pollution caused by oil tankers.

The new regulation seeks to reduce the risks of accidental oil pollution in European waters through accelerated phasing-in of double-hull requirements. In single-hull vessels, the oil in the cargo tanks is separated from the seawater only by the bottom and side plating. If the hull is damaged following a collision or grounding, there is a risk that the cargo tanks will discharge their contents into the sea and cause major pollution. An effective means of avoiding this risk is to surround the cargo tanks with a second inner plate at a sufficient distance from the outer shell.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Oil slicks due to oil tanker accidents, such as those involving the Erika in 1999 and the Prestige in 2002, result in the destruction of marine and coastal biodiversity and are justification enough for the accelerated phasing-in of design requirements for oil tankers. The aim of this regulation, recast by the Commission, is to avoid any possibility of crude oil spills through the accelerated phasing-in of double-hull design requirements for single-hull oil tankers. However, I support the rapporteur’s opinion on the delegation of powers to the Commission. The Commission’s power to adopt delegated acts should be limited, and Parliament and the Council should be kept regularly informed about future proposals. I also support the extension of the period in which Parliament and the Council can lodge objections to delegated acts to two months.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of the proposal for a regulation on the accelerated phasing-in of double-hull or equivalent design requirements for single-hull oil tankers. I think that this is a particularly important topic, given the cases involving the Erika in 1999 and the Prestige in 2002, and that the oil slicks resulting from oil tanker accidents are major environmental disasters both for marine fauna and flora and for coastal tourism. This regulation seeks to reduce the risks of accidental pollution in European waters through the accelerated phasing-in of double hulls. In single-hull vessels, the oil in the cargo tanks is separated from the seawater only by the bottom and side plating of the tanks. If this metal plate is damaged following a collision or grounding, there is a risk that the cargo tanks will discharge their contents into the sea and cause major pollution. An effective means of avoiding this risk is to surround the cargo tanks with another inner plate at a sufficient distance from the outer plate. This ‘double hull’ design protects the cargo tanks from damage, thereby reducing the pollution risk.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – The rapporteur recommends that the EP take account of the recommendations of the Consultative Working Party of the Legal Services of Parliament, the Council and the Commission. The amendments proposed concern the conditions under which power is conferred on the Commission to adopt delegated acts. The rapporteur considers that the Commission should undertake proper consultations before it adopts a delegated act. I voted in favour of this report because if Parliament delegates powers to the Commission, it is important that it is kept suitably informed and that the relevant documents are provided.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The aim of this regulation is to reduce the risks of accidental oil pollution in European waters through the accelerated phasing-in of double-hull or equivalent design requirements for single-hull oil tankers. These measures are absolutely necessary in order to avoid environmental disasters such as those that have happened in the past. We therefore voted for this report.

Recommendation: Dolores García-Hierro Caraballo (A7-0147/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report, as I agree that both parties, the EU and Mozambique, should conclude a new protocol, with Parliament’s consent. This new protocol serves as a model for relations with third countries, as it sets out conditionality clauses applied to the annual financial contribution, with particular reference to respect for the sectoral support programme and human rights, non-compliance with which may lead to its suspension.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I gave my consent to the conclusion of a new fishing agreement between the EU and Mozambique. Our countries are very present in Mozambican waters and a number of changes needed to be made. These changes aim to improve the way that fishing activities in the Mozambique fishing zone are monitored and controlled. Other measures, such as the requirement to hire Mozambican seamen, aim to increase the direct economic benefits for the country. Under the new protocol, the EU will pay EUR 980 000 to Mozambique: EUR 520 000 for access to the fishing zone and EUR 460 000 to support Mozambique’s sectoral fisheries policy and maritime policy.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report. The new protocol aims to improve the way that fishing activities are monitored and controlled and to contribute to better conservation of fisheries resources in the Mozambique fishing zone. I agree that the financial contribution and embarking seamen will have a positive impact on the country’s fisheries sector and the implementation of the sustainable fisheries programmes adopted at national level. The agreement with Mozambique is also very important to the European Union because it safeguards the continued existence of the European fleet’s fishing zone in the Indian Ocean and represents an alternative in the light of rising incidences of piracy in other zones. I agree with the European Parliament’s proposal that we need to consider the possibility of suspending the EU’s financial contribution in cases of the violation of human rights and democratic principles in Mozambique.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this resolution because the provisions of the new protocol signed with Mozambique will help improve the management of fishing activity in the region, as well as ensure the continued presence of the European fleet in the waters of the Indian Ocean. I think that the Partnership Agreement will provide the correct framework for improving sustainability and good governance by Mozambique of their fishing activities. However, I call on the Commission to monitor closely not only the way in which these provisions are implemented to ensure responsible and sensible fishing practices, but also the other specific aspects from the conditionality clauses for the annual payments, including respect for human rights.

I consider it a positive step to include in the agreement specific measures for taking on Mozambican seamen. This will bring concrete benefits to the local economy. I should also mention that the new partnership framework will enable cooperation to increase not only in the economic sector, but also in the scientific and technical sectors, allowing the fishing sector to develop for the benefit of both parties.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) On 2 January 2012, a new protocol was signed between the EU and Mozambique. This protocol authorises access for a total of 75 EU vessels. The Member States interested in these fishing opportunities are Spain, France, Portugal and the United Kingdom. The agreement with Mozambique is a strategic one, as it safeguards the continued existence of the European fleet’s fishing zone in the Indian Ocean, and may offer an excellent alternative in the light of increasing incidences of piracy in other exclusive economic zones further north. This new protocol promotes responsible and sustainable fishing and encourages the creation of cooperation based on respect for fisheries-related legislation and rules currently in force in both the EU and Mozambique. In accordance with the Council’s mandate, the protocol now includes certain conditionality clauses applied to the annual financial contribution, with particular reference to respect for the sectoral support programme and human rights, non-compliance with which may lead to its suspension. I voted for this recommendation for the aforementioned reasons.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. – (ES) I voted in favour of this agreement because it improves on the previous one, enabling 150 European boats to remain active and offering fair compensation that will foster the development of the local community, since it specifies the amounts earmarked for that purpose and contains a clause including the requirement to hire Mozambican seamen.

In technical terms, this agreement is better than the previous one and it provides greater certainty in legal terms. Moreover, it focuses on the practice of sustainable fishing methods. Of the various measures included, I am particularly interested in the introduction of an electronic logbook system for catches.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this European Parliament resolution because this new protocol promotes responsible and sustainable fishing and encourages the creation of cooperation based on respect for fisheries-related legislation and rules currently in force in both the EU and Mozambique. Furthermore, one of the protocol’s objectives is to promote economic, scientific and technical cooperation in the fisheries sector and in all related sectors in order to establish cooperation structures leading to the development of a sustainable fisheries policy and responsible use of fisheries resources in the interests of both parties. The new protocol is necessary because of significant changes and takes into account the latest changes in Mozambique’s national fisheries legislation and the outcome of the negotiations on aspects with financial implications for ship-owners. The EU fishing effort in the Mozambique EEZ must be coherent with reasonable assessments of tuna stocks based on scientific criteria, such as those included in the annual scientific reports of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC). The protocol aims to improve the way that fishing activities in the Mozambique fishing zone are monitored and controlled. It also safeguards the continued existence of the European fleet’s fishing zone in the Indian Ocean and may offer an excellent alternative in the light of rising incidences of piracy in other exclusive economic zones further north.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – I wholly oppose the unelected EU Commission negotiating fisheries agreements with small nations, allowing the EU to ‘buy’ small nations in order to exploit their fishing stocks. European waters are so badly depleted due to the common fisheries policy, many stocks are dangerously overfished. This inevitably leads to the Commission seeking foreign fertile waters in which European boats may trawl for the stocks needed to satiate large greedy consumer demand across the 27 nation bloc. It is appalling to permit the European Commission to persuade third countries, where entire communities are often dependent upon subsistence fishing, to admit EU trawlers to their waters where European boats may indiscriminately dredge stocks dry, rendering not only an environmental impact, but a socio-economic disaster for coastal communities

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this text, which will enable our vessels to fish lawfully in Mozambican waters. On the basis of a win-win philosophy, this agreement facilitates the activities of European businesses (in this case, fishing activities) while enabling the EU to make its contribution to the development of Mozambique by providing economic aid to a sector that is vital for the economy of this country. The EU also promotes human rights and its democratic values by providing for the partnership to be suspended if it finds that its principles have been violated.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) This report relates to the conclusion of a protocol to the EU-Mozambique Fisheries Partnership Agreement. The new protocol provides for a total financial contribution of EUR 2 940 000 over the entire duration (three years) and the annual financial contribution to be paid from the EU budget is therefore EUR 980 000. Fishing opportunities for the EU tuna fleet will be available to 43 purse seiners and 32 long-liners, that is to say, a total of 75 vessels.

This protocol covers a period of three years, starting from the adoption of the Council decision on the protocol’s signing and provisional application, and following expiry of the current protocol, on 31 December 2011 (essentially, therefore, from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2014).

  Diane Dodds (NI), in writing. – I welcome this agreement. The EU’s and United Kingdom’s interest in Indian Ocean fisheries is historical. The improvements identified in this protocol not only safeguard the interests of the fishing industry, but also provide another step in improving the development of Mozambique, as well as promoting sustainable fisheries. Such agreements with third countries are vital and I would encourage the Commission, as well as the other institutions involved, to agree these protocols in a timely fashion. Delays can lead to a range of anxieties. Part of the reason this protocol is so important is that it helps address the displacement of EU fishermen brought about by piracy in waters further to the north. May I take this opportunity to congratulate the lead being given by the EU Naval Force Somalia, as evidenced by its action on Tuesday last week, in helping bring about an end to this scourge.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this recommendation, as I believe that sustainable fishing practices and greater transparency of the procedures for identifying catches should be promoted, and that the infrastructure for monitoring and controlling fishing activities in the Republic of Mozambique exclusive economic zone should be improved. I believe that the joint committee should take practical steps to increase EU vessel calls at Mozambican ports, thus increasing local employment. The joint committee should also endeavour to assign a fair share of aid to support Mozambique’s fisheries and maritime policy, so as to support the development of coastal populations that make their livelihood from fisheries and the creation of small enterprises at local level.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The balanced management of fisheries resources and the needs of consumers require the EU to diversify its sources of fish, and thus enter into agreements with different partners. Mozambique has been one of those partners since 1987. Unlike other international actors that merely prey on Mozambique’s resources, the EU seeks to involve local fishing communities and contribute to their development. This social and community-oriented dimension should remain a priority for the EU, and this is the only way in which to ensure not only the renewal of fisheries resources through the adoption of best practices, but also to guarantee the support of the people for the EU’s fishing actions. Mozambique has a singular position in the Indian Ocean, and has very close historical and cultural ties with Europe, Portugal in particular, which may prove important in the development of an effective and efficient partnership in which all parties involved are accountable.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The EU and Mozambique have partnership agreements in a number of areas, including fishing. In view of the territorial waters of Mozambique and their resources, this protocol is in the interests of both parties. It is in the interests of the EU, as its citizens will be able to make use of the species found in those waters, and it is in the interests of Mozambique, which will benefit from the financial resources of the EU, which it needs in order to move forward with its much-needed reform and development programmes. This recommendation focuses on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of a new protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and the financial contribution provided for by the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Mozambique. The new protocol, which will be in force between 1 January 2012 and 31 December 2014, will allow EU vessels, namely 43 tuna seiners and 32 surface long-liners, to continue to hold fishing licences for Mozambican waters, while promoting a sustainable fisheries policy. Moreover, Mozambique will benefit from a financial contribution of EUR 2.94 million.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report approves the conclusion of the EU-Mozambique Fisheries Partnership Agreement. The agreement provides for an annual contribution of EUR 980 000, of which EUR 520 000 is for European fishing vessels to access the Mozambique fishing zone, and EUR 460 000 is to assist Mozambique’s sectoral policy. It also provides for a reference tonnage of 8 000 tonnes per year, representing a reduction in relation to the previous protocol. Access is thereby authorised for a total of 75 EU vessels: 43 tuna seiners and 32 surface long-liners. The Member States interested in these fishing opportunities are Spain, France, Portugal and the United Kingdom. The rapporteur highlights the amendments to the protocol to reflect the latest changes to Mozambique’s national fisheries legislation. In relation to the requirement that European vessels hire Mozambican seamen, it is specified that the declaration ‘provides for mandatory freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining, and the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation’, and that ‘the wages shall not be lower than those of crews on national vessels, nor the level determined by the [International Labour Organisation]’. We voted for the conclusion of the agreement, but would emphasise the need to increase support for the sector and its results.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) Following lengthy and difficult negotiations, a new protocol was signed between the European Union and the Republic of Mozambique in June 2011. It will remain in force until 31 December 2014 and involves an annual contribution of EUR 980 000 from the EU budget, of which EUR 520 000 is for access by European fishing vessels to the Mozambique fishing zone and 460 000 is to assist Mozambique’s sectoral policy. Access is authorised for a total of 75 EU vessels: 43 tuna seiners and 32 surface long-liners. The Member States interested in these fishing opportunities are Spain, France, Portugal and the United Kingdom. Fisheries relations between the European Community and the Republic of Mozambique go back a long way. The agreement with Mozambique is a strategic one, as it safeguards the continued existence of the European fleet’s fishing zone in the Indian Ocean and may offer an excellent alternative in the light of rising incidences of piracy in other exclusive economic zones further north. One of the objectives pursued by the EU and Mozambique is to promote economic, scientific and technical cooperation in the fisheries sector and in all related sectors, so as to establish cooperation structures leading to the development of a sustainable fisheries policy and responsible use of fisheries resources, in the interests of both parties.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I abstained from voting on the legislative resolution on the draft Council Decision on the conclusion of the protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and financial contribution provided for in the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Mozambique because this proposal’s presentation was delayed. In order to help provide Parliament and the Committee on Fisheries with a greater understanding of the issues, the Commission and the Council are asked to draft a report assessing the results of the application of the EU-Mozambique fisheries protocol.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The Council aims to conclude a protocol, which will last for a period of three years, to the EU-Mozambique Fisheries Partnership Agreement at the earliest possible opportunity. Under this protocol, fishing opportunities for the EU tuna fleet will be available to 75 vessels. The rapporteur, while recognising the urgency of completing this agreement, nonetheless asks the Commission and the Council to draft a report assessing the results of the application of the EU-Mozambique fisheries protocol not more than one year after its entry into force. I supported the report of my colleague, Dolores García-Hierro Caraballo in plenary.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing. – (PL) Like the European Conservatives and Reformists Group, I voted in favour of this recommendation. The agreement with Mozambique is a strategic agreement, since it provides for the continuous presence of the European fishing fleet in the Indian Ocean, which may form an excellent alternative in view of the increase in piracy cases in other exclusive economic zones located further to the north. I agree with the rapporteur that the execution of this agreement is an urgent matter. I also support the appeal to the Commission and the Council to draft a report evaluating the results from application of the fisheries protocol with Mozambique, so as to provide Parliament and the Committee on Fisheries with a greater understanding of the issues.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this proposal. On 2 June 2011, after lengthy and difficult negotiations, a new protocol was signed between the EU and Mozambique. This protocol will be valid for three years (from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2014) and involves an annual contribution of EUR 980 000 from the EU budget, of which EUR 520 000 is for access by European fishing vessels to the Mozambique fishing zone and EUR 460 000 is to assist Mozambique’s sectoral policy.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of this report. Sustainable fishing practices should be promoted by ensuring that all fishing activities under the Fisheries Partnership Agreement meet the same sustainability criteria as fishing activities in EU waters. Moreover, it is right to call on the Commission to ensure that EU vessels only catch the surplus of the fish stocks concerned that is not able to be caught by the Mozambique fishing sector.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the legislative resolution by Parliament on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of a new protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and the financial contribution provided for by the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Mozambique. The agreement states that, despite the decline in fishing quotas, the annual financial compensation paid to Mozambique should increase from EUR 250 000 to EUR 460 000 to support the fisheries sector. It provides for the licensing of fishing opportunities for 75 EU vessels from Portugal, Spain, France, Italy and the United Kingdom. The agreement also emphasises the sustainability and monitoring of fisheries, and requires owners of EU vessels to sign on local seamen.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – On 2 June 2011, after lengthy and difficult negotiations, a new protocol was signed between the EU and Mozambique. This protocol will be valid for three years (from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2014) and involves an annual contribution of EUR 980 000 from the EU budget, of which EUR 520 000 is for access by European fishing vessels to the Mozambique fishing zone and EUR 460 000 is to assist Mozambique’s sectoral policy. Since it is in the interest of both parties to conclude a new protocol, I voted in favour.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) Fishing represents a significant sector of the European economy. Consequently, the countries of Europe should have access to catch quotas in the world’s seas. For this we need agreements, such as this one with Mozambique, which guarantee and secure fisheries rights, for example, in the Indian Ocean. The new protocol concluded between the EU and Mozambique regulates catch quotas and fees in detail, enabling not only European countries to profit, but also Mozambique. Thus, for example, European vessels undertake to hire Mozambican seamen. Moreover, the fees that Europe must pay serve to promote the Mozambican economy. I voted in favour of the report because I believe that it is only through such agreements that catch quotas that benefit both parties can be maintained.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. – (DE) I welcome the significant amendments highlighted in the report to improve control and fisheries policy in the Mozambique fishing zone. The important thing for me is that the fishing rights in the Indian Ocean thereby guaranteed will have lasting positive economic effects for the country. The agreement with Mozambique is also of strategic importance, since it guarantees the continuity of the European fleet’s fishing zone in the Indian Ocean. In the light of rising incidences of piracy in other exclusive economic zones further north, this procedure could represent an excellent alternative. The new protocol promotes responsible and sustainable fishery, as well as a partnership based on respect for fisheries-related legislation and rules in force in both the EU and Mozambique. For this reason, I voted in favour of the report.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (S&D), in writing. – The European Union is a major economic agent in the region and makes significant contributions to development in the Republic of Mozambique. I support the rapporteur’s welcoming of the new protocol regulating fishing opportunities because this agreement creates a basis for sustainable fishing and supports socio-economic development in Mozambique: more jobs and building capacities. Cooperation between the EU states and Mozambique is deepening: from simple financial deals, steps are being taken towards joint actions. It is a major improvement, but these new developments are not enough. I agree with the rapporteur that cooperation between EU and Mozambique should go further, with greater than ever levels of coordination and more opportunities.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report supports the continuation of the EU-Mozambique Fisheries Partnership Agreement, enabling the EU to exploit sustainably Mozambique’s surplus fisheries resources, thereby giving expression to one of the most important aspects of the common fisheries policy, namely, its external dimension. At the same time, the report echoes the important general concerns that I have expressed about sustainable fisheries agreements with regard to the frequent reductions in catch opportunities and increased financial contributions. The Commission should give these issues due consideration.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I would stress that it is vital that the Commission present a full report on the implementation of the new protocol to Parliament and the Council within the last year of its application and before the opening of negotiations for its renewal. I would particularly highlight the significant improvements that have been made to the protocol’s technical annex, reflecting the latest changes in Mozambique’s national fisheries legislation.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – Against. This is another example of the old-fashioned fish agreements that we need to strongly modify.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted for the new protocol since the proposed amendments seek to improve the way that fishing activities in the Mozambique fishing zone are monitored and controlled, with the aim of increasing the direct economic benefits for the country. The draft promotes responsible and sustainable fishery and encourages the creation of cooperation based on respect for legislation and rules currently in force in both the EU and Mozambique, in the interests of both parties. Furthermore, this agreement does not limit the continued existence of the European fleet’s fishing zone in the Indian Ocean.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) One of the objectives pursued by the EU and Mozambique is to promote economic, scientific and technical cooperation in the fisheries sector and in all related sectors, in order to establish cooperation structures leading to the development of a sustainable fisheries policy and responsible use of fisheries resources, in the interests of both parties. Following lengthy and difficult negotiations, a new protocol was signed between the EU and Mozambique. This protocol will be valid for three years and involves an annual contribution of EUR 980 000 from the EU budget, and includes access to the Mozambique fishing zone by European fishing vessels and assistance for Mozambique’s sectoral policy. This vote will help support both the fisheries sector and the African country by improving the way that fishing activities in the Mozambique fishing zone are monitored and controlled. Let us not forget that there will be a requirement to hire Mozambican seamen, not least to increase the direct economic benefits for the country.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report recognises the urgent need to conclude a new protocol between the European Union and the Republic of Mozambique setting out fishing opportunities and the financial contribution. The delay is regrettable, however, although it was not by design. Significant improvements have been made, with a financial contribution of EUR 2.94 million, including an annual contribution of EUR 980 000 from the EU budget, for a three-year period, until 31 December 2014, allowing fishing access for a total of 75 EU vessels, comprising 43 tuna seiners and 32 surface long-liners. I am therefore voting for the report adopted today by Parliament.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) I voted for this recommendation on the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Mozambique. This text makes provision for the European Union and EU fishermen to give financial contributions when they exploit fishery resources in the Mozambique fishing zone. EU structural aid, taxes per vessel and per quantity of catches, quotas for hiring Mozambican seamen per vessel, regular inspections of the vessels and their logbooks by the competent Mozambican authorities are provided for. Everything will be put in place with the involvement of Mozambican scientists and, in theory, in compliance with human rights. In theory, if either party were to violate these clauses, the agreement would be suspended. In a country that has fallen on such hard times, the agreement concluded may come at an opportune moment in terms of training, social inclusion and financing. For once, there appear to be reciprocal contributions, which the European Union has hardly accustomed us to. Let us hope, once again, that actions will speak just as loudly as words.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – I supported this report with my vote because I recognise the urgency of completing the agreement and consider the rapporteur’s proposal a positive one. The decision on the new protocol’s signing and its application will contribute to a better balance between EU payments and real EU fishing activity in the zone.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) On 2 June 2011, following lengthy negotiations, a new protocol was signed between the EU and Mozambique which will be valid for three years. The agreement – which contains clauses relating to the annual financial contribution linked to respect for human rights – is certainly a strategic one, as it offers a sound alternative in the light of rising incidences of piracy in other fishing areas further north.

One of the objectives pursued by the EU and Mozambique is to promote economic, scientific and technical cooperation in the fisheries sector and in all related sectors, in order to establish cooperation structures leading to the development of a sustainable and responsible fisheries policy.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The EU-Mozambique Fisheries Partnership Agreement (FPA) provides for an annual contribution of EUR 980 000, of which EUR 520 000 is for access by European fishing vessels to the Mozambique fishing zone, and EUR 460 000 is to assist Mozambique’s sectoral policy. The rapporteur highlights the amendments to the protocol to reflect the latest changes to Mozambique’s national fisheries legislation. The report also stipulates that the wages of Mozambican seamen shall not be lower than those of crews on national vessels. We voted for the conclusion of the FPA.

Report: Anni Podimata (A7-0154/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this ambitious proposal as I consider it key to our emergence from the crisis. Introducing this system will make the global financial sector more stable, less based on the short term and more focused on financing the real economy. My group, the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, has tabled two important amendments. The first of these relates to the issuance principle, whereby non-EU investors will be required to pay this tax if they buy a financial instrument launched in the EU. The second relates to the ownership principle, which ensures that the instrument cannot be transferred unless the tax has been paid.

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The current economic and financial crisis has affected European Union Member States and caused a drop in the living standard of a considerable number of EU citizens. Likewise, it may be considered that a number of the features of the global markets, such as the rise in the volume of financial transactions, the inclination towards short-term and high-risk operations, along with the development of high-frequency trade, are relevant to the financial system turning into a highly volatile sector with a predisposition to regular crises.

I support the report’s adoption because of the benefits which the financial transaction tax may bring at European level: generating new sources of income amounting to roughly EUR 57 billion, along with automatically discouraging speculative transactions involving high risk, which have played a prominent role in triggering the current financial crisis. Introducing the tax, along with implementing an efficient system of supervision, may result, in the medium and long term, in realigning the system of transactions towards productive, sustainable investments for Europe’s economies.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) This week, the European Parliament was consulted by EU ministers on the creation of a financial transaction tax (FTT). As a member of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, I have long advocated the development of this project, and I welcome the fact that the European Parliament has sent a strong message to the Council, with 71% of voting members supporting the creation of an FTT. According to projections from the European Commission, this FTT could generate up to EUR 57 billion. In these times of crisis, might this not be an excellent opportunity for the financial sector to contribute to steering Europe towards recovery, to restore its reputation and to regain citizens’ confidence? Finally, contrary to what the French socialists would have us believe, the idea of an FTT was put forward by Nicolas Sarkozy at both national level (and it will apply in France from 1 August) and EU level. We are seeing the positive results of the FTT today in the European Parliament.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report. I agree that a reform of the system of own resources is necessary in order to provide the EU with a stable and sufficient source of revenue. I believe that to achieve this objective, the proposal to introduce a financial transaction tax has come at the right time. Its introduction is a response to the requirements for the financial sector to meet the costs of the ongoing crisis and would have a positive impact on the EU’s long-term economic growth.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted against this report because I do not think that a financial transaction tax would be effective, except if it were applied across the whole of the EU. Such a tax applied globally in a fair way could provide a significant source of income which would enable the financial sector to contribute fairly to the cost of the crisis. Otherwise, it would affect competitiveness and have adverse consequences which would be felt primarily by ordinary citizens.

We must adopt measures to remedy the impact of the economic recession and finance growth and sustainable development. However, I do not believe that such a financial transaction tax would achieve the desired results. I should stress that the tax should not have adverse consequences for the banking system. At the same time, I should point out that the possible risk of reallocating investments to less transparent areas ought to be examined.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) At a time when EU citizens are facing significant tax rises, along with major cuts in wages and pensions, the financial system, which is largely responsible for the current crisis, remains virtually exempt from taxation of its activities and transactions. Moreover, the severe financial difficulties that many of the Member States are experiencing prevent us from resolving future challenges such as financing growth and sustainable development. Fair taxation alternatives are therefore needed that do not punish citizens even more. According to Commission forecasts, the financial transaction tax could generate revenue of up to EUR 57 billion, enabling us to move from investment in speculative transactions to production that generates growth. When implementing this proposal, it is vital to take some precautions to prevent tax evasion, and to avoid passing the costs on to consumers and citizens. I am voting for this report, as this tax should be applied as widely as possible, and I think it benefits the EU as a whole.

  Bastiaan Belder (EFD), in writing. – (NL) A tax on financial transactions is undesirable, which is why I have tabled an amendment for the rejection of this proposal. Unfortunately, the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs did not agree. In my amendment, I referred to the analysis of the Dutch Court of Auditors. The Court estimates that the minimum cost to Dutch banks, insurers and pension funds would be EUR 4 billion, or 0.61% of GDP. That is a huge amount considering the austerity measures our countries are now facing. Consumer spending and business investment are already under great pressure. The financial transaction tax costs a lot of money and will cost us jobs and growth, too, which is exactly why the tax burden should not be allowed to increase unnecessarily. And the last thing we need is a European tax, the revenue from which would partly go to the European Union, which is ultimately a bill that our citizens and businesses would have to pick up. This is an ill-advised proposal and I will therefore vote against it. It is right that this legislative proposal can only be approved by unanimous agreement in the Council of Ministers. A number of Member States are against the tax. Let those Member States stand firm.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because, in the context of economic hardship, this Commission proposal for a financial transaction tax (FTT) is an important reactive tool to repeated calls across the European Union to require a contribution from the financial sector towards meeting the costs of the ongoing crisis. An FTT is, by definition, a feature of the single market. A European legal framework for such an FTT pursues a dual objective: one of fairness, insofar as financial transactions remain largely untaxed, and one of harmonisation, because there needs to be one single European approach towards the taxation of financial transactions, with rates that are, if not identical across the EU, then at least comparable and established on the basis of a common minimum. The FTT is also intimately linked to the objective of unleashing the full potential of the single market in order to regain growth in Europe and thus provide an opportunity to reach the goals set out by the Europe 2020 strategy. Investments in the single market are needed, and they should proceed from a European source of funding. Therefore, an FTT, the revenue of which accrues to the general budget of the European Union, contributes to raising the monies required for consistent European investments in its own economic progress. However, the FTT must raise sufficient revenue in order to fulfil its role as a political tool in overcoming the crisis and must not dissuade the operation of such investment vehicles, which the EU needs in order to ensure economic development and fair earnings for retired citizens.

  Jan Březina (PPE), in writing. – (CS) I am not opposed to the idea of a financial transaction tax per se, but I do regard the method of its implementation as harmful. I see the main problem as being that the financial transaction tax will be limited to the EU and will not have a global dimension. Capital will therefore have the option of flight and it will undoubtedly make use of this. I understand that some European politicians are unsettled by the financial ping-pong going on over their heads, but the introduction of a European tax that will be easy to run away from is no solution. Capital behaves, in short, like a timid beast, scurrying off at the slightest whiff of any tax risk. The expected EUR 55 billion revenues from the transaction tax are, in my view, chimerical. Introducing this tax would make sense only if it was a worldwide tax. If it is introduced only in the EU, it will undermine competitiveness at a time when we desperately need economic recovery.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – Most substantiations we have heard for introducing a financial transaction tax are pure myth. The only purpose of the tax is to give Brussels its own source of income, while hammering national economies – weakening their independence. It is a shrewd way of moving money, and thus power, to the centre, paving the way for a federalised super-state. The very fact that the European Union feels it can give itself tax-raising powers without recourse to any sort of democratic vote is frankly horrifying. It is very easy to sell such a tax to the public as taking money from greedy bankers. But that is a profligate lie. Banks themselves cannot be ‘taxed’. The FTT would affect wages after making raising capital more expensive. Less money means smaller pay, not for the bankers, but for everyday workers. It would affect pensions, mortgages – all financial services. The FTT would impact upon everyone, affecting overall GDP, taking money from Member States while Brussels builds its own reserves. The FTT would increase volatility, not reduce it. It would disproportionately target the UK, destroy competitiveness and do unforetold damage to the City of London – something I am sure Brussels would delight in.

  Antonio Cancian (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I decided to abstain from the vote on the report on a common system of financial transaction tax because I believe that we need to think more carefully about the consequences, both positive and negative. I am certainly convinced that it would introduce a means of making the internal market grow and become more stable, restricting distortions of competition and the risks of double taxation where national taxes are not coordinated. It would also make a significant contribution to combating financial speculation, which is the main cause of the current crisis. Thirdly, I most certainly agree that there is a need for the European Union to find a way to collect own resources so that it can function more freely.

On the other hand, we need to take into account the fact that not only third countries but even some Member States oppose the adoption of such a tax. This rejection is likely not only to compromise the effectiveness of the tax, but also to produce undesirable effects: there are many examples showing that similar taxes, if applied unilaterally, end up seriously damaging the economy of the country that has adopted them, with a very large number of transactions moving abroad. I therefore consider that, while the tax can be endorsed in principle, it ought to be implemented only by means of a wide agreement involving all the G20 Member States or, at least, all the EU Member States.

  Françoise Castex (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted for the adoption of the Podimata report on the introduction of a financial transaction tax (FTT). Since the current crisis was brought on by stock market and financial speculation, I therefore consider it logical and just that this tax is finally introduced. The latest Eurobarometer survey shows that 66% of Europeans are in favour of such a tax.

Furthermore, the FTT and the new resources to which it leads must contribute to financing growth in Europe. From this perspective, we must defend a tax base that is as broad as possible and fight against exemptions and loopholes which would favour speculators. In this regard, I regret the overcautiousness of the European right wing, which preferred to exclude pension funds, as if that financial instrument could not, like any other financial instrument, be at the service of speculation!

  Nessa Childers (S&D), in writing. – The financial sector was a major cause of the crisis and yet it has received more than EUR 4 trillion in public support in recent years, in Ireland and around Europe. To ensure that the sector starts to make a fair contribution to public finances, we should now support a low-rate financial transaction tax. As you know, we will vote on the proposal today.

In Ireland, the financial sector provides thousands of good jobs and much-needed tax revenue. It is absolutely correct that we should work for a strong and sustainable Irish financial sector. However, there is no independent evidence to back claims of possible negative effects of the proposed FTT in Ireland. In fact, the Commission claims it could save Ireland more than EUR 500 million by 2020. In response to the frequently cited concerns, please see that the new principles incorporated into the report mean the risk to activity based in Ireland is very low, whether the UK takes part or not.

  Lara Comi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The introduction of a financial transaction tax would achieve the dual aim of discouraging very short-term speculation, which often upsets the markets by generating speculative bubbles, and producing a significant amount of resources, which could contribute to reviving the real economy. In fact, the Commission’s estimates indicate that introducing a rate of 0.01% on derivatives and 0.1% on other activities would lead to revenues of EUR 58 billion. In addition, introducing this tax would bring in an element of fairness, involving the financial markets in the process of consolidating public finances, and discouraging the over-risky investment practices that led us to the current crisis. I therefore voted in favour of this report. However, I would like to stress that the European Parliament only has the power to express an opinion, because for tax issues, unanimity is required in Council. I therefore hope that the resistance of some countries can be overcome, and that this instrument for stability can be introduced, in the end. Finally, I would like to stress that the introduction of this tax at the European level might be the lever required for its adoption worldwide, which is vital in order to avoid distortion effects and capital flight from European markets.

  Emer Costello (S&D), in writing. – I supported this resolution because I want to see a global FTT introduced. An FTT would help stabilise the financial sector, make it more focused on long-term financing of the real economy and ensure that it makes a fairer contribution to society. The February Socialists & Democrats group study estimated that an FTT could increase EU GDP by 0.25%. The fact that the proceeds could be used both to fund the EU budget, thereby reducing Member States’ contributions – saving Ireland EUR 500 million in 2020 – and national budgets is very positive. The FTT should also be used to finance global goods, such as development and climate change. There are important issues for Ireland that need to be addressed but I do think the European Parliament does set out some good solutions in this regard, particularly on the issuance and ownership principles. These should now be examined in full by all sides. The question of whether any financial institution located outside an ‘FTT zone’ would be willing to pay the higher cost of evading rather than paying is an open one. I also welcome the proposal to have the Commission report back on the impact of an FTT by 2016.

  Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the proposal for a Council directive on a common system of financial transaction tax and amending Directive 2008/7/EC. This tax may generate important new revenues – according to recent estimates, up to EUR 57 billion if implemented at EU level. It can shift the burden to activities with negative externalities, such as high-frequency trade and extremely speculative financial transactions, thereby ensuring a fairer distribution of the tax load. Likewise, it can become a disincentive for extremely leveraged and harmful speculative transactions, thereby contributing, along with appropriate regulation and a supervision regime, to stabilising markets and redirecting this sector towards productive long-term investments.

  George Sabin Cutaş (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the report on the financial transaction tax because I think that this initiative is particularly important against the background of the financial crisis the European Union is going through. Introducing the tax proposed by the US economist, James Tobin, will restore stability to the financial sector and guide it towards long-term funding of the real economy, thereby reducing the incidence of speculative activities. The tax would also enable the financial sector to make a contribution to the cost of a crisis which it helped trigger and spread. I do not share the concerns which certain governments have expressed about the alleged adverse impact that the tax would have on companies’ activities. The European Union is too important a market for the financial sector to be able to afford to scale down its activities in it significantly. I would also like to emphasise that, if the sums generated by this tax were administered at European Union level, they could be used to fund European policies and public goods.

  Rachida Dati (PPE), in writing. – (FR) This tax is a tax for fairness in fiscal matters, which will be imposed on ultra-speculative activities and assist in the prevention of new crises. The more of us who implement it, the more effective it will be. This tax is also a tax for growth. From now on, like it or not, the financial sector will form part of the real economy. Many of us voted in favour of this report so that everyone, in particular the Member States, will hear this strong message.

  Cornelis de Jong (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (NL) Today, I voted in favour of the proposal for a financial transaction tax. The Belgian Socialist Party (SP) supports the introduction of such a tax. However, SP is opposed to the revenue accruing to the EU. And so, I would like to point out that the revenue from this tax should go to Member States.

  Luigi Ciriaco De Mita (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The global financial crisis, which began to show itself in 2008, is, unfortunately, far from over. Instead, in some ways, with productive sectors now weakened by the period we have gone through, it seems even more serious and now might become structural within economic systems. On the other hand, even the repeated and numerous recurrences of the original causes of the crisis demonstrate that the ‘market’ is not an abstract entity that can regulate itself efficiently, as experts in the new welfare economy would still have us believe, but that it is, instead, a system managed by a few individuals worldwide who, often unscrupulously, attack financial markets, productive systems and institutions with the hope of profiting from their weakening or even from their failure. The actions taken by each individual country are not enough to address this global crisis. What we need are decisions made at an equal level. The financial transaction tax would be useful in mitigating the devastating effects of raider activity, especially if it were adopted globally and if it did not impact on national bonds or pension funds. Meanwhile, and in the hope that this might happen, it is important that it should start, at least, with the European dimension. This report and the amendments adopted are in line with this outlook.

  Marielle de Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The European Parliament has taken a great step forward as regards financial regulation by approving the Commission’s proposal to impose a financial transaction tax. The resolution adopted by Parliament also specifies the contours of this tax so as to ensure that it is effective in practice: its scope must be as broad as possible and it must target, for example, all financial institutions outside the EU that trade securities issued by a Member State. The resolution also advocates implementing an ambitious action plan to combat tax fraud. This resolution is a positive signal sent to European citizens facing the disastrous effects of the crisis.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this text, which supports the creation of a financial transaction tax in EU Member States. This initiative, spearheaded by President Sarkozy, would curb financial speculation, which is partly responsible for the crisis we are enduring.

  Philippe de Villiers (EFD), in writing. – (FR) While the idea may be seductive and the objectives commendable, taxing financial transactions at EU level is not satisfactory.

To reconcile the financial sector and the real economy is a necessity, given that certain practices in this area are disconnected from them. To make ‘the bankers’ who were supported during the crisis pay may also appear just.

However, a possible tax on international financial transactions should not go through Community channels. For one thing, Member States should have exclusive competence over tax issues. Yet the European Union hopes to take ownership of this competence, which entails levying tax for itself while, at the same time, granting itself own resources, which would make it even more independent from the Member States. For another, the scale of the continent is not appropriate for the introduction of a tax that is intended to be dissuasive.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I welcome today’s vote. The high-risk and, sometimes, unconscious behaviour of the financial sector has been very detrimental to the global economy. Due to the bailout of the banks, taxpayers have had to bear considerable costs in saving the financial sector. Today, while Member States are in the process of taking drastic measures to put their public finances in order, not only is it high time but also perfectly legitimate that the financial sector should assume its share of responsibility.

The introduction of a financial transaction tax (FTT) will ensure that the financial sector finally makes a fair contribution towards the cost of the current crisis. We have waited for this vote for a long time. I also hope that today’s vote will help to put pressure on the Economic and Financial Affairs (Ecofin) Council, which will take the final decision next month. I would like to take this opportunity to call on the 27 EU Finance Ministers to decide in favour of the introduction of an FTT. This will be a signal in favour of the introduction of a tax of this type at global level. And to think that the James Tobin proposal is almost 40 years old!

  Ioan Enciu (S&D), in writing. – I voted in favour of the report on the proposal for a Council directive on a common system of financial transaction tax (FTT) because I believe it could represent an important tool for the European Union in tackling the economic crisis which has been heavily affecting the EU. The FTT may improve the level of security for financial activities, stop the deviations resulting from financial speculation and, at the same time, increase the financial sector’s contribution to the economic recovery of the Union, which has so far only been loaded onto people’s backs through austerity measures and excessive taxation. I also positively welcome the derogation granted by the proposal to pension funds which would see the tax waived on their transactions. Pension funds constitute, in fact, a very delicate field, differing by their very nature from the financial sector’s other activities: they deserved to have special treatment. I believe that the FTT will be able to grant the EU the necessary stability and resilience in financial activities, producing more certainty for investors, protecting the system from speculators and granting the EU new resources to be redirected to the real economy of our countries.

  Göran Färm, Anna Hedh, Olle Ludvigsson, Jens Nilsson, Marita Ulvskog and Åsa Westlund (S&D), in writing. – (SV) The financial sector pays too little tax. It has a tax advantage because it is exempt from VAT. According to the European Commission, this amounts to between 0.11% and 0.17% of GDP. The result is an uneven distribution of resources. The risk capital which should end up in other sectors is instead used by financial companies in a way which is less beneficial to society.

There are still many question marks over this tax, but it is reasonable to regard it as one of the alternatives which should be included in the ongoing debate on how the undertaxation of the financial sector can be rectified.

If a transaction tax has to be introduced, this must happen at a global level. We should not dismiss the possibility of the EU taking the lead, but in this case, any move of this kind should be seen primarily as a step on the road towards a global tax.

What we are voting on today is not an EU tax, but a framework for a transaction tax where the authority to levy the tax lies wholly with the Member States. We are opposed to moving the authority to levy taxes to an EU level.

Today’s vote has essentially been about the transaction tax itself and not about how the national revenue from it must be used. The revenue considerations are being dealt with separately in other political processes.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) We are all aware that the current economic and financial crisis, which is taking a long time to disappear, had its origins in the financial sector. This was an unregulated sector that bankrupted thousands of businesses and put millions of people out of work. Given that the crisis was started by the financial economy, it is only fair that this sector should pay for a part of the crisis, rather than leaving that to the public, as is the case at present. This report by Ms Podimata focuses on the proposal for a Council directive on a common system of financial transaction tax (FTT) and amending Directive 2008/7/EC. I voted for this proposal because it improves transparency and relieves the burden on the public by requiring a fair contribution from the financial sector. I hope that the FTT will be adopted at the next EU Council of finance ministers in July.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) In general, we support the proposal to create a financial transaction tax; we have long been advocating it. Whether as an instrument that provides a certain amount of tax justice or as a tool for combating financial speculation, it is necessary, albeit insufficient on its own. However, we do have some reservations about, and disagree with, certain specific aspects of this proposal. Although these reservations and disagreements had no bearing on how we voted, they may strongly influence our position in the later stages of this debate, for example, in relation to managing the revenue to be collected with this tax. That issue falls outside the scope of this directive, but that did not stop the majority in Parliament from including it; that is unacceptable. We consider the principle of revenue from the tax replacing part of the national contributions to the EU budget, thereby reducing the Member States’ direct contributions, completely unacceptable. This principle will result in continued penury budgets, while relieving the burden on richer countries with higher GNI, including those with bigger transactions markets, thus undermining the redistributive function of the budget and, with it, the – never realised – principle of economic and social cohesion. We also disagree with the relatively favourable treatment given to derivatives, which are more prone to speculation.

  Carlo Fidanza (PPE), in writing. – (IT) As we all know, the global financial crisis, which started in 2008, has had terrible consequences and repercussions, affecting the real economy almost immediately. The discrepancy between consumer demand and supply has had devastating effects on employment too, thus giving rise to serious problems on the labour market. Europe needs greater convergence, solidarity and responsibility to combat the crisis. Among the various measures to be taken is the reinforcement of the single market’s stability through the introduction of innovative strategies, designed to achieve growth that is not just economic, but also social. I think that fiscal consolidation through the introduction of a common system of taxation for financial transactions could have positive effects on the single market, and for that reason, I voted for Ms Podimata’s report. There could be several positive effects. However, I would argue that precisely because of the now highly globalised nature of the financial sector and its services, a further shift should be made, by promoting the introduction of a worldwide financial transaction tax: firstly, the full 27 Member States and then the G20 should demonstrate cohesion in seeking this objective.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The European Commission has proposed the establishment of a financial transaction tax at an EU level. The European Union is caught up in an economic crisis and there is a need to find effective tools to combat it. The very introduction of a financial transaction tax is one of the effective tools to overcome the crisis. The tax should be levied on all financial transactions between financial institutions, of which at least one is located in an EU Member State. It is abundantly clear that the financial sector, which has, until now, been subject to low taxation because of the exemption of the majority of most financial services from VAT, simply must contribute a much fairer share. The new system of financial transaction tax levied on financial institutions will affect the costs associated with the crisis and will prevent the collapse of the internal financial transactions market. By implementing the system, we would generate approximately EUR 57 billion a year, the revenues being divided between the EU and the Member States, and part of the proceeds would become a source of the EU’s own revenues. This would reduce the national contributions to the EU budget. The system will additionally strengthen the functioning of the single market. It will eliminate distortion of competition, it will discourage financial institutions, discourage risky and speculative financial operations and will supplement regulatory measures aimed at preventing future crises. I believe that the financial sector must contribute fairly to overcoming the crisis in Europe.

  Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), in writing. – (IT) While there are elements in the proposal with which I agree, there are other problems which should not be ignored: introducing the financial transaction tax solely Europe-wide could, first of all, adversely affect Europe’s competitiveness in this sphere; secondly, granting the European Union the power to set taxes restricts the autonomy of the Member States; finally, we should not forget, on the one hand, the changing nature of the sector, which makes it difficult to legislate in this area, and, on the other hand, the risk that the burden that is intended to fall upon the financial institutions may be borne by the citizens, who are already victims of the economic crisis. For these reasons, I thought it appropriate to abstain.

  Pat the Cope Gallagher (ALDE), in writing. – (GA) We voted against this report and against what is in it in relation to introducing a common taxation system for financial transactions. Even though there would be some advantages to introducing a tax on financial transactions in the EU – for example, the income that would be generated for the Union – it would not be a flawless system. It could be bank customers who would end up paying for it, and there could be an increase in costs for ordinary companies which are not involved in financial services but which use financial instruments.

On top of that, if such a tax were introduced and if it were not applied worldwide – or even to all Member States of the EU27 – that could have an impact on the financial services sector, in Ireland in particular, and some activities or companies could be moved abroad as a result of it and there could be a significant loss of jobs.

Until there is a plan for a universal tax on financial transactions, on a European or global level, a plan that would ensure that the cost would not be borne by the customers of public banks, such a tax could hinder the EU’s economic recovery and put a further burden on the members of the Union.

  Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE), in writing. – (HU) I voted in favour of this report because it proposes a tangible solution in today’s economic situation. This is, in fact, the first step of European crisis management that will not be implemented merely at the level of international fiscal agreements, but will also have a practical impact.

Pension funds have been excluded from the scope of the report and, by extension, of the tax, and this important fact contributes to ensuring that citizens’ savings do not fall under the same treatment and regulation as the speculative financial transactions that had triggered the financial crisis.

Furthermore, since this new European tax is unlikely to be introduced globally, or, unfortunately, even Europe-wide for the time being, the report mentions a new aspect, namely enhanced cooperation, which is indeed an appropriate tool that can help ensure that financial transactions are conducted in a far more regulated and traceable manner than before, thus eliminating the risk of the financial sector once again being allowed to become entirely detached from the real economy.

The report is correct and professional when it excludes transactions upon which no transaction tax has been levied, thus allowing for increased transparency and a reduced risk of tax evasion and tax fraud.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. – (FR) The principal virtue of this report and of the proposal for a directive is that it sends out a political signal to the financial sector, which is taxed so lightly compared with genuine productive activities and which is so unsatisfactory when it comes to doing its real job: financing the economy. Many speakers said this morning that businesses would find it more difficult to access the necessary financing.

Can this possibly be worse than today, I ask them?! Similarly, I am sceptical as to whether this signal will be heard, given the tenor of this morning’s debates and the status of the issue in the Council. However, devolving all or part of this tax, were it to see the light of day, to the EU budget is totally unacceptable, as is giving the Commission the opportunity to adopt delegated acts in this area. The possibility that this tax, however structured, will not apply to the European Union as a whole, in particular to the United Kingdom, is absurd. Above all, no one raised the main problem: the free and unfettered movement of capital at EU and global level, the source of financialisation, speculation and ‘short-termism’, which undermine the global economy. Therefore, as I am in agreement with the principle but doubtful about the methods, I abstained.

  Louis Grech (S&D), in writing. – For far too long, banks took excessive risks without any proper supervision. Financial institutions played a major role in causing the global economic crisis, but it has been ordinary citizens – as opposed to the banks’ handsomely remunerated executives – who have borne the cost. Therefore, in addition to strengthening regulatory oversight, we should ensure that the financial sector contributes its fair share to the exchequer. Although the initiative clearly has some merits, I have a number of concerns that mean that I cannot vote for this proposal as it stands. Firstly, it is not being implemented globally, or even on an EU27 basis. This could mean that financial institutions could simply move from a jurisdiction where the tax applies to one where it does not. In Malta, as in some other Member States, the financial sector contributes substantially to national GDP and employment. Implementing the FTT would be a risk at a time when we can ill afford to lose jobs or deter investment. Furthermore, although the tax will be levied on banks and financial institutions, it is important that we ensure that this does not result in extra charges for ordinary bank users or pensioners.

  Catherine Grèze (Verts/ALE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for this report recommending the introduction of a financial transaction tax (FTT) at EU level and therefore supporting the draft directive presented by the Commission last September. The FTT is an excellent instrument for raising new revenue to finance stimulus policies. It is one of the best ways of going beyond the austerity policies that are leading Europe straight into disaster, driving too many of Europe’s citizens into poverty and leading to political and democratic stalemate, the magnitude of which is still not being acknowledged by some. However, I regret that the European Parliament has granted an exemption to pension funds. It is the wrong signal, especially since these funds – which are long-term investors – are only marginally affected by the tax, which mostly penalises short-term players.

  Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Once again, the European Parliament has voted in favour of this financial transaction tax with a large majority. I welcome this vote, which sends a strong signal to the markets and to those Member States still reluctant to impose such a tax. The high-risk behaviour of the financial markets contributed extensively to the crisis we are going through. It is absolutely crucial that they participate in the collective effort being made to get Europe out of this crisis and back on the road to growth. The European Parliament has expressed its view to that effect. It is now up to the Member States to do the same.

  Mathieu Grosch (PPE), in writing. – (DE) The transaction tax is an important signal to the banks and citizens of Europe. The financial crisis was largely caused by impenetrable and excessive financial transactions. The banking sector not only needs to be better regulated and controlled; it also needs to contribute to the refinancing of public budgets, because the latter and thus, tax revenue from citizens, were used as never before to help the banks out of their precarious situation.

  Françoise Grossetête (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report because a financial transaction tax is essential for the establishment of a new political order that is fairer and more balanced. The citizens of Europe should not have to pay the price of the abuses of the financial sector. Its practices have led to our predicament and so it is only right that it should help to get us out of it.

The tax will dissuade financial institutions from taking excessive risks and, moreover, it will be a new source of income for the European Union. I think that both these elements are needed to support the real economy. It was important to set a rate low enough to safeguard harmonisation within the European Union. Furthermore, the rate will make fraud unprofitable and the sanction mechanisms provided for will make it very risky.

This first step notwithstanding, the financial sector will only really be made to face up to its responsibilities when this measure is adopted worldwide. Until there is global consensus, it is vital that the European Union sets a good example by elevating to an international level the proposal courageously put forward by Nicolas Sarkozy.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted for this text, establishing Parliament’s requests regarding the content of the future financial transaction tax. Today, it is, in fact, no longer a question of establishing whether we are for or against the tax but of determining exactly what our aspirations are regarding its content. We are asking that its base be as broad as possible and, in this regard, I regret that pension funds are exempt from the application of this tax. This tax will discourage speculation and make it possible to tackle the EU budget directly so as to increase its own resources.

  Mikael Gustafsson (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (SV) I voted in favour of the report. It is important to introduce a tax on financial transactions. The deregulated financial markets are one of the main causes of the global economic crisis. I believe that the report could have gone further, both with regard to the scope of the tax and the rate. I would also have liked to have seen it more clearly stated that the revenue must be used for aid, environmental measures and social projects in developing countries.

Furthermore, I believe it would have been good to introduce supplementary tax rates for high-frequency trading, by using automatic tax rates linked to the speed of the financial transactions. However, since the introduction of this tax nevertheless represents a step in the right direction, I have voted in favour of it.

Finally, I would like to emphasise that, in contrast to what is stated in the report, I do not believe that the tax revenue should go into the EU budget. It should be distributed among the Member States.

  Takis Hadjigeorgiou (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) Without fostering false hopes about reversing the balance in the financial sector, we can, in principle, support the taxation of financial transactions because we agree with the explanatory statement for the proposal that the financial sector was one of the main denominators of the present crisis and that it should contribute in a fair way to the cost of it. However, the essence of our position is that any revenue from a transaction tax should be used to address poverty and social inequality and should be managed by the Member States themselves. If the application of the tax will reduce the Member States’ income, by transferring resources to the EU budget, then we are opposed to it. That is why we abstained, as the European Parliament report does not clarify either how the revenue will be used or who will manage it.

  Gerald Häfner (Verts/ALE), in writing. – (DE) We have now heard a great many weighty arguments in favour of the introduction of a financial transaction tax, and more or less no substantial argument against it. The overwhelming majority of our people are also in favour of it. Parliament votes in favour, but nothing happens. I find that incomprehensible and unacceptable. We rescue the banks – with hundreds of billions of euro – and we use our citizens’ money to do so. Yet we cannot manage to get the banks and speculators to contribute even a small part of these costs via a financial transaction tax. If we do not succeed in this, then there is something wrong with our democracy. It gives the impression that big banks and players in the financial markets have greater influence over policies and our legislation than do our citizens. If this is the impression given, then we need to fundamentally rethink our system of democracy and change our democratic institutions and procedures. Democracy means government of the people, by the people, for the people. The task of democratic politics ought therefore to be to establish promptly and confidently a legal framework for banking and financial transactions so that they once again serve the people and the real economy, rather than destroying society, markets, the real economy and social cohesion in Europe at a dramatic rate and with increasingly visible fatal consequences.

  Marian Harkin (ALDE), in writing. – I voted in favour of the financial transaction tax (FTT) for a number of reasons. First of all, the financial sector is largely exempted from taxation of its activities and transactions. This, in itself, is a problem and needs to be rectified – it is a sector like any other and should contribute its share of taxation. Furthermore, the huge increase in financial transactions – many of them highly speculative and short-term in nature – clearly indicates that the trading does not serve the needs of the real economy and that its purpose is to generate massive profits for bondholders and investors. The imposition of an FTT should curb some of these high-frequency transactions, which often destabilise markets and have no productive outcomes whatsoever. Unfortunately, I missed some of the early votes on the report, but I intended to support Amendments 15, 52d and 36. This proposal is not perfect, but the residence principle, combined with the issuance principle, will close many of the loopholes. However, we still need a watertight, harmonised approach to tax avoidance.

  Brice Hortefeux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The European Parliament approved the report on the introduction of a financial transaction tax (FTT) by a large majority. This tax, to which France – and President Sarkozy in particular – has always been committed, would constitute an own resource for the EU and generate significant revenues. The opposition of the United Kingdom and other Member States is a major obstacle to its implementation. Nevertheless, the debate must continue, because the FTT is an effective tool, which would have fewer drawbacks if it were applied at the widest possible level.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour because the global financial crisis of 2008 has spread to the real economies rapidly and with significant consequences, resulting in deep recession of the global economy and having a large-scale impact on employment. The necessity for bailout schemes through public funds for the rescue of ‘too big to fail’ financial institutions has adversely affected public finances significantly and led to further economic recession at a global and European level. The debate on a financial transaction tax (FTT) stems from the desire to ensure that the financial sector contributes to covering the costs of the crisis and that it is taxed in a fair way vis-à-vis other sectors in the future. It is necessary to disincentivise excessively risky activities by financial institutions and, at the same time, to complement regulatory measures aimed at avoiding future crises and to generate additional revenue for general budgets, inter alia, as a contribution to fiscal consolidation, in order to stimulate growth and create jobs, or for specific policy purposes, such as development aid and fighting climate change. However, we must concentrate the taxation on the financial sector rather than on citizens! The FTT will only achieve its objectives if it is introduced at a global level and the Union should lead efforts to reach agreement on an FTT at global level.

  Romana Jordan (PPE), in writing. – (SL) I voted against the introduction of a tax on financial transactions because I think that, at a time of deep financial and economic crisis, it is not wise to introduce new taxes and put additional strain on the economy.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The report by my colleague, Anni Podimata, which I supported in plenary, aims to establish a common system for taxing financial transactions. It was adopted by a large majority and I welcome that.

The recent crisis gave rise to a debate in Parliament on the possible added value of a financial transaction tax (FTT). The FTT will enable part of the costs of the crisis to be charged to the financial sector, while ensuring that it is taxed fairly in relation to other sectors. It will also dissuade financial establishments from taking excessive risks and, finally, it will generate additional revenue to finance the general budget or specific policies. According to initial estimates, depending on the reaction of the markets, the FTT will generate revenue amounting to EUR 57 billion each year in the European Union.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing. – (PL) I voted with the European Conservatives and Reformists Group against the Podimati report because an EU financial transaction tax would compromise growth and the EU’s competitiveness at a global level.

  Krišjānis Kariņš (PPE), in writing. – (LV) I voted against the proposal for a Council directive on a common system of financial transaction tax as I believe this tax to be ill-considered and that it would only make the European Union’s enormous economic problems worse. The directive provides for a tax on financial transactions involving all kinds of securities, such as shares, bonds and derivatives in regulated and unregulated markets. The directive does not apply to transactions in primary (national central bank) markets. The intention is to apply the tax in accordance with the residence principle, that is, the tax would be borne by the counterparty located in the European Union, and also in accordance with the issuance principle, that is, the tax would be borne by an issuer of securities located in the EU. This gives grounds for concern that more and more transactions will take place outside the EU in order to avoid the tax. Those transactions that cannot be relocated beyond the boundaries of the EU, such as the purchase of certain company shares on stock exchanges, will become more expensive. We must not forget that right now, a part of EU countries’ economies is endangered, and we must strive to revive growth and confidence. Increasing taxes and introducing new taxes will help neither growth nor the restoration of confidence.

  Tunne Kelam (PPE), in writing. – I voted against the report on the financial transaction tax. Since the compromise amendment 52, tabled by Astrid Lulling, on the exemption of UCITS from the scope of the FTT was rejected, I found it unacceptable to vote in favour. In principle, the possible introduction of the FTT, even if approved by the Council – which looks highly improbable as several governments have voiced their opposition – is not going to address the main issues of the economic crisis or to really regulate the financial markets. At the end of the day, we lack guarantees that it will not be the citizens who have to pay more. Furthermore, no rules have been foreseen to supervise the implementation of the proposed FTT. On the other hand, financial services will have good incentives to move outside the EU. As there are no realistic prospects of introducing the FTT on the global or even on the EU scale, it will be cheaper to abstain from it now, rather than to waste considerable time and resources only to come to the conclusion that it has proved rather inefficient lip-service to justice and economic revival.

  Jürgen Klute (GUE/NGL), in writing. – This FTT plan picks up on a number of elements of the Tobin tax which has been under discussion for many years now. It is an important signal to send to citizens, markets and banks following a series of campaigns and petitions aimed at introducing an FTT at EU level. Obviously, it could have gone further. It is not sufficient to stabilise financial markets and more needs to be done, but I urge the Council to follow the citizens and do everything possible to prevent this proposal from being blocked by Member States.

  Sergej Kozlik (ALDE), in writing. – (SK) The Commission’s proposal for a common system of financial transaction tax indicates that over the past decade, there has been an enormous increase in financial transactions and a shift from long-term investments to short termism and highly speculative and risk-taking transactions, for example, high-frequency trading. This clearly demonstrates a shift in the main role of the financial sector from financing the needs of the real economy to operations which have no productive impact and can severely disrupt market prices and the functioning of national economies. In my opinion, however, the transaction tax proposal may bring in considerable resources, but, at the same time, they will pass into banking services via other channels and will fail to reduce the volume of speculative transactions. It is also unlikely that the directive will be uniformly applied across the EU. I have therefore not lent my support to the proposal at this stage.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The global crisis which began in 2008 has already required us on several occasions, and in the future will continue to require us, to take unpopular, difficult decisions in order to emerge from it and build a future characterised by growth, development and employment. Against this background, however, we cannot forget the role that finance and, in particular, speculation, has had in causing and exacerbating the crisis. It is also right to emphasise that the financial sector has not hitherto been affected by tax provisions that restrict its scope of action. With Ms Podimata’s report, however, we want to send out an unequivocal signal: the financial transaction tax, brought in with the dual rate for State securities and derivatives, aims to create tax revenue that may be used, in part, to shape the European budget and, in part, to strengthen the economies of the Member States.

  Constance Le Grip (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported the report of my colleague, Anni Podimata, on the proposal for a Council directive on a common system of financial transaction tax and amending Directive 2008/7/EC. With this text, Parliament expressed its determination to support the application of the financial transaction tax (FTT) at EU level, the ultimate objective being an international FTT. On the same day as the informal European Council summit on growth is taking place in Brussels, we, as Members of this House, wanted to send out a strong message to the Council calling for the introduction of such a tax. The introduction of the FTT could generate up to EUR 57 billion (depending on the rate and the tax base) if the tax were implemented in all the Member States. I also welcome the proposal in the report which, in the event that no agreement amongst the EU27 is found, would allow Member States willing to implement the FTT to advance by formally requesting enhanced cooperation.

  Bogusław Liberadzki (S&D), in writing. – (PL) I welcome the result of the vote on the report on a common financial transaction tax. A result of 487 votes in favour and 152 against says a lot. The Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament has, for several years, lobbied for the adoption of a tax imposed on speculators and big stock market players who ‘placed their bets’ on the current economic, financial and confidence crisis. I voted in favour, in the belief that in this way, we will obtain new sources of funding for European projects to support growth, create new jobs and rekindle trust in the European project. Parliament and the Commission have passed the test, and the Council should give serious thought to the position it has taken to date. The Danish Presidency breathed fresh life into the Council. It should be noted that the myths surrounding this tax have been allayed, and the citizens and the economy can only benefit, at no extra cost.

  Kartika Tamara Liotard (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (NL) I voted in favour of the Podimata report in the final vote. I support the idea of a tax on financial transactions as a way of making financial institutions share the costs of the economic crisis, for example, through a Tobin tax, the revenue of which would be used as a development aid and to combat climate change. The big problem with this report is that it suggests that the revenue from the tax should go to the EU; this is unacceptable. Taxation is a competence of the Member States and it should remain so. The revenue from any tax whatsoever on financial transactions should go to Member States themselves.

  Thomas Mann (PPE), in writing. – (DE) The players concerned must share effectively in the costs of the financial crisis, which amount to billions of euro, instead of continuing to make taxpayers bear the burden. Our citizens expect clear rules that will put speculators and profiteers in their place. A financial transaction tax (FTT) of 0.1% on shares and bonds, and 0.01% on derivatives, is likely to result in additional tax revenues of nearly EUR 60 billion. In the Special Committee on the Financial, Economic and Social Crisis, and now in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, we members of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) were vehemently in favour of the FTT by a large majority. It goes without saying that it should not affect pension funds or company old-age provision. It should definitely also apply in non-euro Member States – and ideally globally. In response to the concern that more financial transactions would be shifted to Asia or to tax havens, I would counter that corporate financing is also available via loans and other products; more than 90% is neither listed on a stock exchange, nor hedged using securities. It is worth considering the idea put forward by finance minister Wolfgang Schäuble, which was to introduce a ‘stamp duty plus’ as a compromise, in order to restrict high-frequency trading and to impose duty on derivatives. Despite some concerns, I feel it is essential that the FTT be introduced – as an important basis for investments that promote growth, and as a clear signal for the necessary fight against exploitation.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – The European Union and its Member States urgently need to find new sources of revenue. A common system for taxing financial transactions could provide much needed income at a time of economic austerity.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of a text on a common system of financial transaction tax, called for by the European Parliament for two years following the global financial crisis of 2008. Taxation tools are needed that can shift the taxation burden from labour and production onto sectors with significant negative externalities for the real economy. A financial transaction tax would avoid the transfer of transactions towards non EU jurisdictions, prevent tax avoidance and avoid the transfer of the cost to consumers and citizens.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. – I abstained on the final vote of the legislative resolution. I have concerns about this proposal – in particular, if this were not to apply to all 27 Member States, it would set Ireland at a disadvantage – and the government of Ireland, while sharing my concerns, is still trying to be constructive in addressing issues that have arisen.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) I welcome the fact that the proposal for a financial transaction tax, which I have supported since the creation of the Association for the Taxation of Financial Transactions for the Aid of Citizens (ATTAC) in 1998, is finally on the agenda of the European institutions. The EU is only 15 years behind!

I note that the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs approved the amendment tabled by the Members of the Left Front aimed at extending the tax proposed by the Commission to foreign exchange transactions. That is good news.

However, I regret the fact that the provisions exempting derivatives and the prohibition for Member States to introduce a new financial transaction tax are retained in the text. I and my colleagues in the Left Front have once again tabled amendments to remove them.

Nonetheless, I voted for this step forward.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I oppose on principle the establishment of an EU tax overlapping with those of the Member States. Furthermore, it will place a greater tax burden on peoples which, in many countries, have seen taxes rise because of austerity. Moreover, tax is another important instrument that governments can use for economic and financial purposes. For that reason, I spoke out against the idea of an EU tax during the campaign for the last elections, in which I was elected.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (ES) While this report contains an idea that historically belongs to the left – taxing speculative movements of capital – this EU proposal has more drawbacks than benefits. For more than a decade, we in the Izquierda Unida party have supported the Tobin tax proposal, which consisted of an international-level tax on financial transactions, the revenue from which should be spent on international cooperation and combating poverty in the developing world. Unfortunately, what the European Commission is proposing is a far cry from that. The allocation of the funds raised is left entirely open. It fails to guarantee that they will be spent on international cooperation and, what is more, the Members of the European Parliament have voted against the proposal tabled by the Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left to earmark part of the revenue for social cohesion, protecting public services and creating employment. I have always considered it vital to create a tax on flows of capital as a fundamental instrument for combating financial speculation. However, I also believe that this tax should be accompanied by other clear measures such as the removal of tax havens. Furthermore, this tax should be introduced at international level. For these reasons, I abstained from voting.

  Louis Michel and Frédérique Ries (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) We voted in favour of the Podimata report proposing the introduction of a financial transaction tax (FTT). This is, moreover, the fourth time during this legislative term that, on behalf of the Reformist Movement, we have supported the implementation of such a tax instrument. This decision, which has been nurtured since 2008, has a double objective: to correct the abuses of the financial markets and to gather in financial resources intended for common European objectives (general EU budgets and specific policy purposes, such as development aid). We do not under-estimate the difficulties associated with the implementation of this tax at EU level. Moreover, it is essential that the political decision to introduce it is preceded by precise rules on the base, rates and scope of the tax. It is clearly necessary to ensure that small investors and pensioners are not penalised by any additional tax. More generally, the introduction of an FTT gives Member States the opportunity to reduce their national contribution to the EU budget by up to 50% and to rethink a system of finance that has become obsolete. All that is needed is for an ‘avant-garde’ of Member States to assume its responsibilities and set a good example.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – This is a very ambitious proposal but it is not a key part of our strategy to exit the crisis. The introduction of the financial transaction tax will make the global financial sector less stable and more risky on financing the real economy. I voted against.

  Gay Mitchell (PPE), in writing. – The Fine Gael delegation (Jim Higgins, Sean Kelly, Mairead McGuinness and I) abstained on the final vote of the legislative resolution. We have concerns about this proposal, and the government of Ireland is still trying to be constructive in addressing issues that have arisen. In particular, if this proposal were not to apply to all 27 Member States, it would put Ireland at a disadvantage.

We will continue to monitor discussions as they progress.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) As one of the main triggers for the financial crisis, the financial sector – which has received huge public subsidies – is not bearing an appropriate share of the costs of the crisis. In the past decade, there has been an increase in short-term transactions and highly speculative transactions in particular. A particular feature of the transformation of the financial sector has been its detachment from the real economy. It is no longer concerned with providing the real economy with the financing it needs, but occupies itself instead with purely virtual financial procedures that can have a destructive effect on market prices and national economies. The financial transaction tax is intended to make dangerous, speculative, highly leveraged transactions unattractive, thereby reducing the likelihood of future crises. As the largest financial market in the world, the EU now wishes to introduce a financial transaction tax. In the long term, it can only be successful if its effect is tailored to the globalisation of the financial sector by means of international agreements. Provided the EU actually succeeds in preventing avoidance of the tax and we avoid transactions shifting to market places outside the jurisdiction of the EU, then I am in favour of the introduction of a financial transaction tax. However, this must not be abused in order to introduce an EU levy by the back door, so that the Union can avoid austerity measures. All the revenue from the financial transaction tax must go into the national budgets.

  Vital Moreira (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I naturally voted for the creation of a financial transaction tax (FTT), following the report by Ms Podimata. I have long advocated this tax, even when it was politically incorrect, as during the 2009 electoral campaign. First, it is a means of combating financial speculation, in particular, in cases of high-frequency trading, and it represents enormous added value in these times of increasing financialisation of the global economy. Second, the FTT can and must function as one of the EU’s own financial resources, thereby strengthening the firepower of the EU budget and reducing national contributions. These are currently a burden on national budgets, which are under intense pressure from fiscal consolidation programmes. In short, this is an important contribution to strengthening the financial and budgetary integration of the EU.

  Claudio Morganti (EFD), in writing. – (IT) In order to be truly effective, a financial transaction tax ought to be applied globally, since otherwise it would be possible to get round it fairly easily and it would in any case be likely to create problems for the European financial sector; we certainly do not need any such problems at the moment. The main danger would be a reduction in the liquidity of the markets, which is already low, with access to credit thus made harder. Credit is necessary for the survival and development of our enterprises, particularly small and medium-sized ones.

On the other hand, if this tax is applied properly, it could be an instrument to raise funds without always hitting the usual suspects, namely, those who already have to bear a very heavy tax burden, and who have been overwhelmed by a crisis for which others are certainly responsible. Some of those responsible are certainly the people who used finance ruthlessly, for purely speculative ends. Therefore, although in general, I support the objectives of this proposal, I still have various concerns about the method of application, and it is for that reason that I decided to abstain from the final vote on this report.

  Sławomir Witold Nitras (PPE), in writing. – (PL) The global economic and financial crisis has seriously affected the economies and public finances of the Member States. There is no doubt that the financial sector had an important part to play in causing the economic crisis; however, the costs of the rescue programmes have been borne by central budgets or, in other words, European taxpayers. There is a broad consensus in Europe and in the international arena that the financial sector should take greater responsibility, in view of the costs of overcoming the crisis and the current tax burden on this sector, which is relatively low compared to other sectors. The Commission’s proposal for a directive on a common system of financial transaction tax gives concrete form to these considerations.

The European Union is thus the first in the G20 group to put forward a constructive regulatory proposal in this area. The proposals tabled by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs are useful and introduce the additional criterion of issuance (financial transactions are subject to taxation whenever an instrument is issued by a legal person registered within the EU) when identifying which financial transactions are subject to taxation, as well as excluding pension funds from the scope of this taxation (which means that the cost of long-term saving does not increase). However, I oppose the exclusion of investment funds from taxation. In my opinion, this proposal distorts the idea of a financial transaction tax, since it excludes a large group of financial institutions from taxation and thus reduces the effectiveness of the regulation.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. – (DE) It has taken a long time to get to the point where the speculators are to make a solidarity contribution to pay for the consequences of the crisis. It was precisely such risky business, detached from the real economy, which led us into the heart of the economic and financial crisis. The financial transaction tax should now put a brake on such short-term speculation, which has no added value of any kind for the real economy. Quite rightly, a broad majority of EU citizens are speaking out in favour of a financial transaction tax. In order to be efficient, the tax should be applied as widely as possible, and this applies both to the nature of the transaction – currency speculators must also be included – and to the number of Member States. I hope that a broad majority will vote in favour, and that Parliament will hold its own against the various financial lobbies and financial markets. I therefore voted in favour of the introduction of the financial transaction tax.

  Wojciech Michał Olejniczak (S&D), in writing. – (PL) The economic crisis which broke out in autumn 2008 began in the financial institutions. One of the most important lessons which we should learn from this crisis is the need for immediate regulation of financial markets. Unfortunately, no such lesson has been learned. Institutions involved in speculation are still threatening the security of individual Member States, the euro area and the European Union as a whole. However, I very much welcome the European Commission’s initiative to introduce a financial transaction tax.

After many years of calls for such a tax by the anti-globalisation movement and then the Party of European Socialists, it has now been recognised by an institution which was not previously known for its openness to similar solutions. The financial transaction tax should fulfil two main functions. First, it should help to curb financial speculation. Second, it should be an important source of income for the EU budget. These funds should then be invested to stimulate growth, inter alia, by creating new jobs. This involves a new model to combat the economic crisis, and it is highly desirable that the EU should adopt this model. Four years after the crisis began, it is difficult to have any illusions as to the effectiveness of cuts and austerity. With this in mind, I have decided to support the report on a common system of financial transaction tax.

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE), in writing. – (ET) I consider the introduction of a common European financial transaction tax to be extremely important in the search for additional funds to revive the economy and guarantee the sustainability of the European Union. The introduction of this tax is completely fair and necessary when we consider that the financial sector, which was one of the main causes of the financial crisis, has obtained significant state support in order to overcome the impact of the crisis, but has not contributed sufficiently to this itself. As a liberal, I believe it is important that equal rules should apply to all in a free market economy. The present tax exemption for financial transactions is not fair when we consider that we need to pay for various other services.

In order to overcome the financial crisis, the European Union needs extensive financing in order to implement and finance the agreed economic programmes concretely, and the introduction of such a tax is one fair way of achieving that. The fear that introducing such a tax would frighten the banking sector away from Europe is unjustified, as is proven by the experiences of a number of different countries, notably Brazil, one of the largest countries in the world, where banks have remained loyal to their customers.

Although I support the creation of a common system of financial transaction tax, I did not support the adoption of the report in question, since our group’s Amendment 42, which specifies that a single system would be in effect at least in the entire euro area and in Member States that wish to join it, did not receive sufficient backing.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because I welcome the European Commission’s proposal to introduce a financial transaction tax (FTT). For several years, the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats has been calling on the European Commission and the EU Member States to curb the profits of financial speculation. The economic crisis has demonstrated even more clearly that this tax is necessary and has finally prompted the European Commission to make a legislative proposal. An FTT will reduce the risk of speculation and will make the financial sector more stable. Investors will consider long-term investments rather than the pursuit of short-term benefits that only last a day. The predicted annual revenue of EUR 100 billion will enable countries hit by the crisis to invest in job creation, innovations and will stimulate the progress of the green economy. Of course, it would be logical to introduce such a tax at global or at least EU level. The unwillingness of several countries to regulate speculative manoeuvres should not hold all EU Member States hostage. However, if we are unable to reach a common agreement, individual EU Member States or groups of them, as proposed in the report, could themselves decide to introduce FTT operations in their own countries.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) According to Commission forecasts, the financial transaction tax could generate revenue of up to EUR 57 billion, allowing us to move from investment in speculative transactions to production that generates growth. I voted for the report on this tax alternative that does not further penalise the public. It is to be applied in all 27 Member States, thus benefiting the EU as a whole, with the aim of acting as a fairer form of taxation.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) At a time when EU citizens are facing significant tax rises, along with major cuts to wages and pensions, the financial system, which is, in part, responsible for the current crisis, remains largely exempt from taxation of its activities and transactions. Moreover, the severe financial difficulties that many of the Member States are experiencing prevent us from resolving future challenges such as financing growth and sustainable development. Fair taxation alternatives are therefore needed that do not punish citizens even more. According to Commission forecasts, the financial transaction tax could generate revenue of up to EUR 57 billion, allowing us to move from investment in speculative transactions to production that generates growth. However, when implementing this proposal, it is vital to take some precautions in order not to disproportionately undermine the European financial system, to prevent tax evasion, and to avoid passing the costs on to consumers and citizens. I voted for this report because I believe that the creation of this tax is justified.

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Today, we adopted Ms Podimata’s report in plenary here in Strasbourg. Parliament has been calling for a financial transaction tax (FTT) for nearly two years, and the Commission put forward a legislative proposal in 2011. According to Eurobarometer, 66% of Europeans are in favour of an FTT. The FTT is an integral part of the strategy for overcoming the crisis. It will lead to a fairer distribution of the burden of the crisis and will not cause relocation outside the EU, since the cost of doing so is greater than paying the tax.

In addition, Parliament is proposing to add the ‘issuance principle’ to the Commission proposal to oblige financial institutions located outside the FTT zone to also pay the tax, if they traded securities originally issued within the zone. The ‘residence principle’ already proposed in the Commission’s text should be kept, so as to also cover financial products issued outside the FTT zone but traded by at least one institution established within the zone. An ambitious FTT system will enable us to have a tool for reducing speculation and ensuring that the financial sector goes back to playing its original role in the service of small and medium-sized enterprises and other firms.

  Jean Roatta (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The European Commission has put the proposal for a financial transaction tax (FTT) at the centre of the debate, particularly in response to the serious consequences of the financial crisis. Ms Podimata’s report proposes to make the financial sector bear a share of the costs of the crisis, to dissuade financial establishments from taking excessive risks, to supplement regulatory measures aimed at preventing future crises and, finally, to generate additional revenue to finance the EU’s general budgets through the enrichment of the residence principle and the removal of pension funds or institutions for occupational retirement provision from the list of financial institutions to which the FTT would be applicable. The report puts forward strong arguments in favour of the application of the FTT at EU level. I am therefore in favour of this proposal. However, the report does not address the management of the revenue from the FTT and opts to have it managed by the multiannual financial framework programme. The FTT would make a significant contribution to the EU’s own resources, thereby broadening the framework for financing specific policies, projects and public goods.

  Robert Rochefort (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Since the start of the economic and financial crisis affecting Europe, the idea of the introduction of a financial transaction tax (FTT) has been gaining ground. Whilst the latest Eurobarometer survey shows that 66% of Europeans support the idea, and Parliament has been requesting an FTT for almost two years, the Commission put forward a legislative proposal in this connection at the end of 2011. The European Parliament, which was consulted on this proposal, never questioned the amount of the tax – set at 0.1% for shares and bonds and 0.01% for derivatives – or the schedule (the tax coming into force before the end of December 2014). On the other hand, the text calls for the tax to be better designed to ensure that more operators are subject to it and that tax avoidance is a low-return venture. Furthermore, the text leaves open the question of the allocation of the financial resources generated by the FTT, leaving open the possibility for the development of the least developed countries to be financed, at least with part of the revenue from this tax. I consider these points to be fundamental, which is why I supported this resolution. The ball is now firmly in the court of the Council.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – (FR) In favour. It is good news that the European Parliament extended the scope of the tax to broaden the tax base and also to prevent the possibility of circumvention. Indeed, unlike the initial proposal put forward by the European Commission, currency transactions will be covered by the tax.

In addition, the residence principle was supplemented by the issuance principle and the principle of legal non-recognition. More specifically, what this means is that products issued in a country where the tax applies will be taxed irrespective of where they were traded. What is more, derivative contracts that are not taxed will not benefit from legal recognition.

However, the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance regrets that Parliament granted an exemption to pension funds. This exemption sends the wrong signal, especially since pension funds – which are long-term investors – are affected only marginally by the tax, which mostly penalises short-term players.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted for this provision because I believe that introducing a common system of tax on transactions will make it possible for the financial sector, too, to make a concrete contribution to the costs of the crisis. The economies of the Member States are paralysed and incapable of combating the social and economic challenges: moving the fiscal burden away from work and productive investment is now a priority. For that reason, the tax on financial transactions can contribute by generating new estimated revenue of up to EUR 57 billion, with the positive effects of redistributing the fiscal burden and stabilising the markets.

  Amalia Sartori (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The global economic crisis remains a concern for the European institutions and EU citizens. The creation of a financial transaction tax (FTT) has some significant aspects for the EU’s budget. I voted for the report by Ms Podimata because it stresses once again the constant attention being paid by the European Union to the effects of the crisis. In addition, its implementation will make it possible to generate more fiscal revenue for the European Union’s budget: approximately EUR 57 billion (two thirds of the total revenue of the FTT). It should be emphasised that the FTT needs to be applied globally, not merely at European Union level; otherwise, there would be a risk that financial entities would migrate to markets outside the EU, thus weakening the European market.

  Andreas Schwab (PPE), in writing. – (DE) Ms Podimata’s report offers an opportunity – among other things – for us to finally succeed in stemming the tide of so-called high-frequency trading on stock markets. It now depends on the Council of Ministers taking a constructive approach to Parliament’s report and pushing ahead with the introduction of the financial transaction tax.

However, the national supervisory authorities for the stock markets must also ensure that they are already doing everything they can to reduce high-frequency trading.

  Edward Scicluna (S&D), in writing. – Following the global financial crisis, there was overall agreement that a way had to be found for the financial sector to pay its share of the cost of a crisis which it caused. However, I cannot support Parliament’s report or the Commission proposal as the right instrument to achieve this. Among several problems with Parliament’s report is the uneven negative economic impact of a financial transaction tax (FTT) on the EU Member States, especially those like Malta which have a significant financial sector employing a sizeable share of the labour force. Any FTT should be applied at a global level or, at the very least, should include other key global players. The proposal does not have unanimous support either in the EU27 or in the eurozone-17.

A handful of countries, including my own, oppose the FTT proposal made by the Commission, since if it were to apply only to the EU, it would leave us at a global competitive disadvantage. It is a moot point whether a tax on financial activities – which the IMF supports – would work better than the Commission’s proposal, but I think that the FTT proposal is a missed opportunity. We risk being saddled with a tax which could be economically damaging.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted for the proposal for a directive to introduce a financial transaction tax in Europe. This is because, within the framework of the proposals for the EU’s new own resources, the European executive wishes to achieve an improved capacity to generate own fiscal revenue. The Commission intends two thirds of the total revenue from the financial transaction tax to be allocated to the EU budget. The Commission’s proposal has a triple goal which I thought should be endorsed: generating new tax revenue from the financial sector; combating the speculation based on high-frequency financial exchanges (millions of financial orders in a few seconds, managed by suppliers or owners which do not have liquidity, but just manage the orders); and improving the internal market, by avoiding distortions in competition and the risks of double taxation arising from the uncoordinated application of national taxes. I think that the proposal, launched by this Parliament, is necessary in order to prevent the recurrence of a crisis such as the one in 2008. For these reasons, I voted for the report, fully supporting the aims of the Commission’s proposal.

  Monika Smolková (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The financial crisis hangs over the EU like the sword of Damocles. We register all of its aspects, we can name the causes, and we see the consequences every day. For years, we have behaved as if we have had little courage and determination to make a firm decision so that the financial crisis did not also become a social crisis. The fact that twenty-five million people are now unemployed puts the social dimension on a knife-edge. People have high expectations that finally, after so many promises of growth and employment, the resources will be in place to meet those expectations. Redevelopment of the financial sector has taken away a substantial amount of public funds, which are then lacking in education, health and in social systems. I supported the directive because it is high time to send a signal to our citizens that we are interested in generating resources that affect employment and growth. A tax on financial transactions and the expected income of EUR 57 billion would undoubtedly create a good starting point for growth in the euro area, allowing businesses to access capital and entrepreneurs to access loans.

  Søren Bo Søndergaard (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (DA) I voted in favour of the proposal to introduce a tax on financial transactions, partly because I feel it is important to put a stop to speculative investments, and partly because I believe it is right to have the banks repay some of the huge subsidies that taxpayers have paid in the form of bank rescue packages. My vote in favour is in no way to be taken as meaning that I support the idea of the revenue from the financial transaction tax being added directly to the EU budget. I consider it crucially important that the EU’s income is democratically approved year by year by the national parliaments. I also feel it is important that the proceeds of the financial transaction tax accrue to the individual countries, so that they can decide freely how to use the money – to combat poverty in developing countries, for example.

  Michèle Striffler (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on a common system of financial transaction tax because I think that the EU must set a good example in this area. From now on, international finance must be better regulated and controlled. In that regard, the introduction of a financial transaction tax (FTT) is part of the vital effort to regulate financial flows. Furthermore, I take the view that part of the revenue generated by the FTT within the European Union should be used as own resources of the EU budget. Similarly, a certain percentage of the amount collected through this tax should be invested in financing EU development cooperation policy and the policy to combat climate change in developing countries.

  Alf Svensson (PPE), in writing. – (SV) During the vote in the European Parliament today on a common system for a financial transaction tax, I chose to vote against the report. It is very surprising that a majority of the Members of the European Parliament supports the financial transaction tax (FTT), which is championed in the report.

The views of the groups and the Members have changed dramatically over the last year. The idea that an FTT would bring in money which would, to a large extent, resolve all our economic problems has become entrenched and seems almost to be a parody. It is important to remember that Sweden tried out a Tobin tax and it proved to be damaging, because the transactions moved outside Sweden. Obviously, it is also important to emphasise that the cost of the FTT would be paid by ordinary consumers and that economic growth would be inhibited.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The global financial crisis spread rapidly to countries’ real economies, in some cases with profound consequences for their social, economic and even political systems. State intervention in certain financial institutions, as a last resort, has entailed the use of large sums from public funds. For this reason, and owing to the implementation of serious austerity measures that are affecting the daily lives of EU citizens, I agree that the financial sector should contribute to the costs of this crisis. The main objectives of applying a financial transaction tax are as follows: to make the financial sector pay the cost of the crisis like other sectors; to disincentivise excessively risky speculative activities and reorient the sector towards investment that will bear fruit in the long term; to complement regulatory measures aimed at avoiding future crises; and, finally, to generate additional revenue for the EU’s own resources or associated policies and public goods, in particular, development aid and combating climate change. However, in order for this to have a knock-on effect, it must be implemented in as many countries as possible. The EU should therefore take the lead in applying this tax in the Member States in order to create a progressive overall dynamic.

  Alexandra Thein (ALDE), in writing. – (DE) I spoke against the report because two amendments tabled by the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe did not receive a majority in plenary. Firstly, the ALDE Group wanted to ensure that alternative concepts for the taxation of financial transactions were also considered, and secondly, we reject the idea of embarking on such an important project merely on the basis of enhanced cooperation – in other words, in an extreme case with just nine Member States.

  Marianne Thyssen (PPE), in writing. – (NL) This House has today given a positive opinion on the proposal for a financial transaction tax, which is something I am absolutely delighted with. After all, this is the kind of tax that my party has supported for a long time. Obviously, we must realise that we only have advisory powers and that it is the Council that decides unanimously. We gather, unfortunately, that the debates in the Council are not as harmonious as we might like them to be. This shows, once again, that the unanimity rule complicates decision making in the EU and so it remains difficult to look for tax instruments that help the single market and the EU as a whole move forward or those that improve the quality of transactions in the financial markets. Still, I remain hopeful that the Council will assume responsibility for both this FTT dossier and the one relating to CCCTB (the proposal for a common consolidated corporate tax base), for which I had the honour of being rapporteur. Preferably, I would like to see support from the heads of all 27 Member States, because only then will both fiscal instruments have their full effect but, if necessary, through enhanced cooperation if there is absolutely no other alternative.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the legislative resolution on the proposal for a directive on a common system of financial transaction tax (FTT) and amending Directive 2008/7/EC. In order to prevent distortions that may be caused by measures adopted unilaterally by Member States, bearing in mind the extremely high mobility of most of the relevant financial transactions, and to ensure the proper functioning of the internal market, it is important that the basic features of the FTT applied in Member States are harmonised and that this directive is implemented at EU level.

This directive does not address the management of revenue from the FTT. I think that part of the revenue from the FTT could be managed at EU level, either as a part of EU own resources or directly linked to specific EU policies and public goods. The use of part of the revenue from the FTT as EU own resources would reduce national contributions to the EU budget and would therefore release funds from the national budgets for other uses.

I voted against Amendment 15, which exempts from the application of the directive investment managers of pension funds or institutions for providing occupational pensions, as well as entities set up for the purpose of making investments for such funds or institutions.

  Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE), in writing. – I have voted in favour of the FTT as I think it is an important tool to raise revenues that eventually could become an own resource for the EU budget, diminishing its dependency on transfers from Member States. I think the rate is low enough in order not to create a real disruption on financial markets. Moreover, pension funds will be excluded, so the savings of our elderly will not be subject to the tax. I also think that government bonds should be excluded from the FTT, and I hope that the trialogue with the Commission and the Council will reach a favourable conclusion in this regard.

  Kyriacos Triantaphyllides (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) Without fostering false hopes about reversing the balance in the financial sector, we can, in principle, support the taxation of financial transactions because we agree with the explanatory statement for the proposal that the financial sector was one of the main denominators of the present crisis and that it should contribute in a fair way to the cost of it. However, the essence of our position is that any revenue from a transaction tax should be used to address poverty and social inequality and should be managed by the Member States themselves. If the application of the tax will reduce the Member States’ income, by transferring resources to the EU budget, then we are opposed to it. That is why we abstained, as the European Parliament report does not clarify either how the revenue will be used or who will manage it.

  Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. – I have always fully supported a Robin Hood tax as I believe banks and the financial sector should pay their fair share of taxes. At the moment, the financial sector in the UK enjoys a VAT exemption in the UK of circa GBP 18 billion per annum. I believe that a well designed FTT could generate vital new funds to fight poverty and unemployment at home and abroad, as well as confronting the challenge of climate change. However, the Podimata report calls for revenues raised from the FTT to be used for EU own resources. Prioritising own resources for the EU budget does not represent the aims of the Robin Hood tax and, for this reason, I chose to abstain on the final vote. Of course, I will continue to support and campaign for an FTT and to engage constructively in the debate.

  Dominique Vlasto (PPE), in writing. – (FR) It is clear to me that the financial sector, which generates huge profits each year, must help stimulate the economy. The introduction of a financial transaction tax is all the more justifiable since the 2007 crisis started in this sector. That is why I voted in favour of this resolution. I also think that applying the tax to the derivatives market is a good option, given the value of this market, which is several thousand billion euro, and its role in precipitating the Greek crisis. To be effective and exemplary, this measure must initially be applied at European level before we can convince our international partners. Our British friends must understand that such a tax could also benefit them without, however, destroying the competitiveness of the City of London. It should be noted that this tax, which is painless for the financial sector, will generate EUR 57 billion, help to consolidate our national budgets and create specific resources, which could serve the real economy. In short, this is a common sense measure, which is consistent with what the financial markets advocate as a way out of the crisis.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – This directive provides for the introduction of a financial transaction tax. The aims are to generate substantial revenue and to create a disincentive to highly leveraged and harmful speculative transactions. The tax covers all transactions by EU-resident financial institutions. The tax rates will be around 0.1% for shares and bonds and 0.01% for derivatives. The Commission’s proposal includes no direct references to the management of the revenues.

  Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD), in writing. – (PL) There can be no doubt that the new tax should be introduced. This must be a tax which does not affect the industrial sector or employers. The financial transaction tax makes this possible. However, I believe it must be rational. It should therefore apply only in the euro area countries or in all countries without exception, including Great Britain and Sweden. This would help us to avoid attempts to relocate financial businesses to countries where the financial transaction tax is not levied. Funds raised through this tax should support cohesion policy. Only then can we be certain that the tax will act as a driver of economic growth.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This tax, which we have long advocated, is vital for combating financial speculation. However, it will certainly have little effect unless accompanied by other key measures, such as an end to tax havens and to speculative financial products, in particular, derivatives. We have some concerns about this report and the Commission’s proposal for a directive. First, the lowest level of taxation is applied to derivatives and other structured products, which are subject to a higher level of speculation. Second, we are completely against the possibility that revenue from this tax will be used to replace national contributions to the EU budget, as this will not strengthen it, but will merely result in relieving the budgets of countries with major national contributions, which are the very countries that benefit most from the internal market and the liberalisation of the markets. Moreover, we believe that it would be fairer if the bulk of the revenue came from the Member States with which these products are primarily associated, irrespective of where the institutions concerned are domiciled for tax purposes. This is a fair measure, but unless it goes hand in hand with the required changes to the EU’s economic policies, it will have little or no effect.

Report: Marielle de Sarnez (A7-0141/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report, since I consider it essential to balance trade relations between two of the largest trading blocs in the world: the EU and China. The Chinese authorities have affirmed the need for growth based on increased living standards and the corresponding increase in domestic consumption, which may represent great economic opportunities for the EU. However, we cannot ignore the fact that the main reason for this imbalance is that European business cannot currently invest in China under the same conditions that Chinese investors enjoy in Europe. Moreover, it is worth noting that trade barriers still hinder access to Chinese markets, that there is a lack of equality in relation to public procurement, that there is a lack of intellectual property protection which deters European investors specialising in new technologies, and that the Chinese authorities impose restrictions on the country’s raw materials. In view of this, I will support greater economic cooperation between the EU and China only on condition that European businesses can operate under the same conditions in the Chinese market that Chinese investors enjoy in Europe. Otherwise, we will only exacerbate existing imbalances between these two economic blocs.

  Pino Arlacchi (S&D), in writing. – I abstained in the vote on this text because China is the most important challenge for EU trade policy and I believe that the commercial relations with this country should be evaluated from a much larger perspective. We must consider that China is not only the world’s second largest economy and the biggest exporter in the global economy, but also an increasingly important political power. In addition, China has, in recent decades, achieved important social progress and such an improvement in the quality of life for a huge country in such a short period of time is unique in history. In fact, the economic growth in China has lifted half a billion people out of poverty since 1990. I agree on many points stressed by this report but, at the same time, there is a lack of strategic consideration. By the middle of the century, China will become the world’s most powerful economy and for this reason, we need to build a partnership based on mutual respect. In addition, it is important to consider the potential benefits for developing countries from deeper economic relations with China and that the growth in trade between all the EU Member States and China represents a crucial opportunity for growth.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I deplore the difficulties encountered by European businesses that want to export to or invest in China, particularly in the banking, insurance and telecommunications sectors, while China is expanding its investment in Europe. The European Union must fight against unfair competition from China and restore the balance of trade. We sought the establishment of an agency to monitor China’s investment in Europe, in European businesses and in the purchase of sovereign debt. We need a partnership based on reciprocity of rules as well as balance and transparency of bilateral trade relations. The report encourages China to open its markets more to European businesses, particularly its public procurement markets, and to accede to the multilateral WTO Government Procurement Agreement (GPA). Finally, we recall that customs cooperation between the European Union and China is crucial in the fight against piracy and counterfeiting.

  Zoltán Bagó (PPE), in writing. – (HU) China is currently one of the major economic powers in the world, and the second largest trade partner of the EU. I agree with the rapporteur that China’s economic development and its accession to the WTO entail not only benefits but also the responsibility to play a positive role in the global economic order.

I voted in favour of this report, which establishes the existence of an imbalance between the two regions and of the trade advantages China has obtained by various means. At the same time, China must not forget that a lack of economic growth in Europe also entails problems for the Chinese economy. The report therefore recommends continued mutuality in trade.

China still fails to comply in full with WTO rules; the WTO should therefore not grant the country market economy status before 2016 if it does not meet all criteria. Due to Chinese intervention, European enterprises are unable to access the country’s national market; furthermore, Chinese regulations lack clarity and transparency.

Foreign investors are unable to participate in Chinese public procurements on an equal footing with their Chinese competitors, which is in contrast with the treatment applied to foreigners in European public procurement. The protection of intellectual property rights in China still gives reason for concern, and the country should therefore take action to combat counterfeiting and piracy.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report. The principle of reciprocity must be applied to the EU’s common trade policy with China in order to restore fair competition and pursue partnership. I welcome calls for the Commission to cooperate with the Chinese Government in order to eliminate obstacles so that the Chinese economy fulfils the criteria of a market economy as defined by the WTO. The Chinese Government must find means of overcoming the barriers faced by foreign companies trying to enter its markets, and of guaranteeing fair competition, mutual market access and clear market regulations, especially on foreign direct investment and on the protection of intellectual property rights.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The world’s geopolitical and economic balance is, as everybody knows, changing. These dramatic upheavals inevitably generate imbalances and require adjustments, the natural stage for which is, of course, Europe.

China is a partner for the future if, and only if, the notion of reciprocity can be put into practice. This report unequivocally demonstrates a salutary awareness. With that in mind, I would like to commend the work carried out by my colleague, Ms de Sarnez. It is now up to the Commission, which has the core competences in negotiations of trade agreements, to take note of the precise requirements of the European Parliament.

  Sergio Berlato (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Driven for the last 30 years by annual growth in the region of 10% and oriented primarily towards exports, the Chinese economy will become the world’s most powerful economy by the middle of the century. The European Union, the largest trading power and the main destination for Chinese exports, has been affected by a deepening trade deficit, which increased from EUR 49 000 million in 2000 to EUR 168 900 million in 2010, coinciding with sluggish growth. A clear imbalance is thus apparent, which needs to be remedied.

Although China has, to some extent, lowered the trade barriers hampering access to its markets, there are still many obstacles: European firms cannot invest in China on the same terms as the Chinese can invest in Europe. Furthermore, the fact that intellectual property is poorly protected in China is increasingly deterring European investors. Out of all the goods infringing intellectual property rights seized by European customs officers in 2010, 85% came from the Chinese continent. In my view, a new framework for EU-China relations is essential. Europe’s approach should be to build partnerships based on the principles of reciprocity and fair competition, which are elements that help to calm trade tensions and promote shared growth.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. – (ES) I voted in favour of this initiative because the import-export balance between the EU and China over the last 30 years has been in China’s favour, on account of the difficulty European companies have in penetrating the Chinese market and the seizure of more than 103 million items of goods on the EU’s external borders on suspicion of infringing intellectual property rights, China being the country of origin in 85% of cases.

For all these reasons, I believe there is an urgent need to apply the principle of reciprocity to trade policy with developed and emerging countries in order to have fair competition and guarantee greater equality as regards all the commitments made to anti-dumping, anti-subsidy and safeguard measures when illegal trade practices are used.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this European Parliament report because the issue of cooperation between the EU and China is very relevant, particularly since China joined the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and later became the world’s leading exporter of goods and the world’s second largest economic power. The increased development of its economy and its accession to the WTO entail not only substantial benefits but also a greater responsibility for China to play a full and positive role in the global economic order, in particular, in the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank Group. It is important to underline that the EU has replaced Japan as China’s largest source of imports. Growing Chinese imports have been crucial for the recent economic performance of export-oriented EU Member States like Germany. Bilateral trade relations have developed considerably since the EU-China cooperation agreement. The divergent social, economic, and democratic models in China and in the EU, as well as their respective demographics and natural resources, play a large role in the trade imbalances between the two regions. It is therefore very important to bring the provisions of the EU-China cooperation agreement into line with the current economic situation. There must be a new phase in EU-China trading relations, based on a partnership of equals, the principles of reciprocity and fair competition, the implementation of which ensures common development. This could provide new investment opportunities for European businesses and enhance cooperation.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) With the markets growing at a recession rate, China has become the outlet market for many European exporters. In 2010, they exported to China goods and services to the tune of approximately EUR 113.1 billion. Europe’s main exports are machinery and transport equipment (more than 60% of EU exports according to 2010 data), chemicals and raw materials.

At the same time, imports from China feature consumer goods, including clothing, office and telecommunications equipment. I think that European companies must enjoy access to the Chinese market under the same terms as access is provided to the European market for Chinese companies. To establish good cooperation, protectionist measures preventing European companies having access to the Chinese market should be abolished, including the following: the licensing system, direct aid and, last but not least, public procurement barriers.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Immediately after the ninth EU-China Summit held in 2006, which, according to some experts, was the zenith so far in bilateral relations, there have been various tensions in the relationship between the EU and the People’s Republic, revolving around the unresolved questions very precisely identified by the report. I therefore voted in favour of the report. While, in the sphere of bilateral relations, it is inevitable that countries should define themselves in relation to the other, this is all the more true of China, whose internal tensions are intertwined with foreign and security policy, trade policy, energy policy and monetary policy.

The most attentive observers stress that certain positions adopted by China are often the result of a heated clash between internal positions. Today, the yuan exchange rate, the policy on rare earths and the resurgence of State ownership, with restrictions on the free enterprise zones, are topics for hot debate between differing viewpoints. Therefore, we should remember that a clear and fixed position on Europe’s part could also help to achieve, fairly, a satisfactory solution of the unresolved issues within the Chinese institutions and, at the same time, be more beneficial to us.

  Jan Březina (PPE), in writing. – (CS) I would like to draw attention to the fact that intellectual property rights are not sufficiently protected in China, and European enterprises – particularly small and medium-sized enterprises – lack the resources to combat infringements of intellectual property rights effectively. In this context, I welcome the Commission’s decision to propose a revision of the directive on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, and I would like to call on the Commission to ensure better protection of intellectual property rights in all multilateral organisations of which China is a member, such as the World Trade Organisation, World Health Organisation and World Intellectual Property Organisation. In the EU, we must intensify customs cooperation with third countries, and particularly with China, in confiscating counterfeit goods and simplifying customs procedures. The Commission and Member States should work more closely with third countries on the issue of copyright and licensing.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – I abstained from this vote as while China, having acceded to the WTO in 2001, should respect WTO rules by liberalising trade and opening its markets; and while, so far, its efforts in this regard have not been satisfactory by any means; while the Chinese economy does not fulfil the criteria of a market economy as defined by the WTO; and while China continues to operate not in full compliance to international standards, I do not believe the EU, as a supranational body, should possess such responsibilities as to author trade pacts with third countries that subsume independent BITs of Member States, thus speaking on behalf of all 27 national economies on the global stage. Necessary economic austerity drives the need for increased competition. The European Union is in the midst of an economic crisis and is crippled by anaemic growth rates; it needs inward investment and expansive trade. This requires less centralised pontification from Brussels-based bureaucrats and instead idiomatic, nationalised bilateral trade flows.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I am glad that this report has been adopted because it proposes solutions to put an end to the imbalances in the trade and economic relations between the European Union and China. I share the rapporteur’s assessment of the difficulties European operators have in investing in China and penetrating its market. I think it is important that China, in the first instance, respects WTO rules and that it continues its efforts to lower trade barriers. To put European and Chinese operators on an equal footing through the principle of reciprocity is a major step forward in deepening our relations with China.

  Françoise Castex (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted for the adoption of this report, which calls for the establishment of more balanced and fairer trade relations between the European Union and China, because I take the view that globalisation must not be based on unfair competition. The aim of this text is to urge China, the second-biggest trading partner of the European Union, to respect not only the principle of reciprocity in terms of trade, but also the principles of balance and compliance with social and environmental standards.

Furthermore, it is necessary to rebalance access to China’s internal market to bring it into line with that of the EU, which is much more open and transparent. That is why the EU must establish a genuine strategy to promote ‘fair trade’ and to protect its industries and some of its sectors from social and environmental dumping, which is practised by some of its partners, most notably China.

  Luigi Ciriaco De Mita (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The globalisation of the economy has led to the need to step up economic cooperation between the EU and other areas of the world. This aim needs to be pursued not only through various fundamental principles that make trade balances sustainable, although these are, of course important, but, above all, through support for the EU’s production systems, to make them more competitive on the world stage. It is therefore necessary for both the principle of legal and economic/financial reciprocity and the anti-dumping principle to always be an integral part of economic agreements, with particular reference to the fiscal and social security dimensions, so that a correct approach may be taken based on the comparative and competitive advantages of enterprises and production systems. In addition, it is necessary for the principle of reciprocity to permeate access to Chinese public procurement. Finally, the EU ought to take a more farsighted and attentive approach to investments in developing countries, made also by competing countries, such as China, in order to better evaluate the impact of these interventions in political, economic, social and environmental terms. I believe that the report we have adopted seeks to achieve these objectives.

  Marielle de Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Existing relations between the European Union and China are unbalanced. It is now necessary for the European Union and China to develop a new partnership based on reciprocal rules, balanced trade and transparent trade relations. This is the simple message of my own-initiative report, which was adopted by a large majority. It encourages China to open up its markets more widely to European businesses and to accede to the multilateral Agreement on Public Procurement. The report also advocates tempering the Chinese system of joint ventures and strategic technology transfers. It proposes stepping up EU-China customs cooperation to combat counterfeiting. Finally, it recommends that the EU should make more effective use of the trade defence instruments available to it, if need be, in particular, to defend intellectual property rights. Moreover, all that would be in vain if the EU refused to implement a concerted production and reindustrialisation policy as well as a research and innovation policy commensurate with the new global challenges. It is also necessary for Europe to speak with one voice with regard to China, because the diverging bilateral relations of the Member States with this country have all too often weakened the EU position.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported the adoption of this report, which denounces unfair competition on the part of China with regard to our businesses. We can, in fact, no longer tolerate the world’s second largest economic power closing its internal markets and benefiting excessively from the opening of our own market by supporting its companies, with total disregard for the international rules laid down by the WTO, of which China has been a member since 2001. Europe must therefore maintain constant yet firm bilateral and multilateral dialogue with the Chinese authorities so that reciprocity and transparency can finally be placed at the heart of our trade relations.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I welcome the vote on the European Parliament resolution calling on the Commission to take measures to counter ‘unfair competition’ from Chinese companies, be it in China or in the EU. Together with my fellow Members, I would like to draw attention, in this resolution, to the difficulties EU businesses face in accessing the Chinese market and the invasion of the EU by goods produced under conditions that do not comply with EU rules. For the EU to remain globally competitive, it is essential to restore fair trade relations between our continent and the rest of the world. The same rules must apply to everyone. The resolution also calls on the Commission to develop, if possible in 2012, a European instrument to ensure reciprocity as regards openness in public procurement markets.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D), in writing. – I voted in favour of the report concerning the trade relations between the European Union and China because I truly believe that, given the rising role of China in international trade relations, measures are urgently needed in order to guarantee an equal legal ground and mutual respect for international trading rules. China joined the WTO in 2001 and is the world’s leading exporter of goods. However, China keeps on operating not in full compliance to international standards. Therefore, given its role and its significant global impact, such practices create serious imbalances in the economic system, and for this reason have to be taken into consideration and dealt with carefully. This report, by calling on the Commission to negotiate an ambitious and balanced EU-China investment agreement, able to create a better environment for EU investors in China, and to improve the transparency regarding governance of Chinese companies which invest within the EU, will represent an important starting point for an improved and more trustful trade relation with China, which most certainly is a crucial partner for the European Union and its Member States.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report as it adopts a balanced approach in relation to China. China is currently a source of concern due to its violation of intellectual property rights, corruption, breaches of World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules on subsidies, and discrimination against foreign operators. I therefore believe that it is important to look carefully at the granting of market economy status in 2016, whereupon it will be vital for the EU to carry out regular assessments in the form of annual reports, in order to determine whether China is complying with the obligations set out in the protocol on its accession to the WTO.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Although the title of this resolution has a question mark, I believe that it is now clear that there is a real trade imbalance between the EU and China and that, despite the domestic changes that the latter has been making, it is still far from being a market economy. There are also obvious differences in access to the respective markets of the EU and China by external investors, as well as in workers’ rights and levels of social and environmental responsibility and accountability, which have led to industries formerly based in Europe relocating there. Since it is clearly at a disadvantage, the EU should seek to ensure greater reciprocity in its trade relationship with China. China has the opportunity to give a clear signal of openness and to demonstrate how far it is willing to consult with the EU and other international actors on developing a freer and fairer economic system.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) For several years, China was said to be ‘a sleeping giant’. This ‘giant’ has now woken up and dominates global trade. Its economic growth and, consequently, its GDP are the largest in the world. Although it is in the interests of both parties, EU-China trade is proving rather unbalanced, with the scales tilting in China’s favour. While there is great potential for European exports to China, the reality is that the cost of factors of production, not least labour, means that there is no comparison between the two. Moreover, we cannot consider China a market economy. It does not respect workers’ rights or copyright, and it has no concern for the environment. For these reasons, China’s accession to the World Trade Organisation has been delayed. Although I am not advocating shutting Chinese products out of the European market, I believe that our next partnership agreement should demand reciprocity and respect for the EU’s principles and values. I voted for this report by Ms de Sarnez and I hope that there will be reciprocity in mutual access to markets.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report proposes increased EU investment in the Chinese market, which it states is blocked because China does not fulfil ‘the criteria of a market economy as defined by the [World Trade Organisation (WTO)]’. Practically the whole report is critical of China’s ‘protectionist’ trade policies. It urges China to open its markets and allow trade liberalisation, subject to WTO rules. Among other things, it criticises Chinese export subsidies, but refrains from doing the same when it comes to the EU. As we said during the debate, this is a vision and path that we unequivocally reject. Obviously, we therefore voted against this report. We cannot gloss over the serious consequences of free trade, neither can we gloss over the fact that the EU’s common trade policy has been an extremely important instrument for the Member States, in particular, those with the weakest economies, in helping them defend their trade interests. The offensive interests of the strongest economies and big business have now been given prominence, making it impossible for the weakest economies to safeguard their interests and weakening their specific productive sectors. With China, like any other country, trade relations should be guided by criteria of complementarity, not by the competitiveness that free trade inspires.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The European Union is the top destination for Chinese exports, and it is China that is the EU’s second largest partner. However, bilateral trade has been unbalanced in recent years. I consider it essential to adjust the bilateral trade relations between the EU and China to the current economic situation. The trade imbalance between these two regions is unacceptable. The shift of production of numerous types of consumer goods to China has resulted in job losses, drastic price reductions, and therefore relatively low inflation. After China joined the WTO in 2011, it was supposed to comply with the rules relating to the liberalisation of its trade and the opening of its markets, but the results have been less than satisfactory. The Chinese Government’s interventionist industrial policies, a system of rules that is ambiguous in its application, the inadequate protection of intellectual property, and other non-tariff and technical barriers are hindering the efforts of European companies to access the Chinese market. It is more than necessary to restore fair competition and ensure a level playing field for all. I firmly believe that it is necessary to negotiate a new, balanced trade agreement that will provide a more favourable environment for European investors and guarantee transparency in the governance of Chinese companies that invest within the EU. It is important to improve coordination between the individual Member States and, at the same time, our bilateral relations with China must not weaken the EU’s position with respect to that country.

  Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I believe this report is a high-quality text which highlights just how aware everyone is of the many problems involved in trade relations between the European Union and China. I voted for the report since I share many of the concerns expressed in it, particularly those relating to counterfeiting, raw materials, the elimination of jobs in Europe as a result of shifts of production and the social costs of the imbalance between the European Union and China, and because I believe that a principle of reciprocity ought to be adhered to, especially in very sensitive areas such as public procurement and the provision of services.

  Elisabetta Gardini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Trade between China and the European Union has reached significant levels in recent years: the EU has become the top destination for Chinese exports, whereas China is the EU’s second largest trading partner. At the same time, there is a considerable imbalance in this trading relationship, in favour of China: in 2010, the trade deficit amounted to EUR 168.8 billion (compared to EUR 49 billion in 2000) and foreign investment by the EU in China amounted to EUR 4.9 billion, while foreign investment by China in the EU in the same year amounted to EUR 0.9 billion. We should not forget the difficulties encountered by European enterprises in trying to access the Chinese market, mainly due to the lack of transparency in national rules and the protectionist policy of the Chinese Government. This policy leads to large-scale dumping caused by the enormous subsidies provided by the Chinese Government to national enterprises. The report that has been adopted on the one hand analyses the reasons for the imbalance and, on the other, puts forward a set of proposals to improve the current situation, from the application of the principle of reciprocity to the public procurement market (so as to ensure that the Chinese procurement market is opened up to a greater degree) to the protection of intellectual property rights.

  Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (S&D), in writing. – (PL) During this time of crisis that Europe is experiencing, we must strive to achieve balanced trade relations with an economic power such as China, where economic growth has been in the order of 10% over the past 30 years, mainly due to exports, of which the EU is the main recipient. The opening up of trade has definitely been more beneficial to China, whose share in global trade reached EUR 395 billion in 2010, while foreign investment by the EU in China in the same year amounted to only EUR 4.9 billion. In striving to align trade relations with China, the EU must defend the model of a social market economy, require reciprocity and protect the interests of Europeans, as well as promoting concepts of development, democracy and human rights in relation to our partner.

We should fight for greater competitiveness and access for EU enterprises to the Chinese market on equal terms and clear conditions. This is difficult today because of the government’s interventionist industrial policy, insufficient protection of intellectual property rights (IPR) and ambiguous standards. We must therefore promote and help to implement EU best practices and put pressure on China to comply with universal standards of trade, in particular, in the field of IPR. In a situation where 85% of counterfeit goods detained at EU borders come from China, it is hard to talk about competitiveness and respect for laws. This state of affairs must change if we are to be considered equal trade partners. I agree with the rapporteur that we need a new balanced approach in trade relations between the EU and China, capable of meeting the challenges of today’s market and contributing to the economic growth of both parties.

  Brice Hortefeux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) In reaction to an issue which has poisoned EU-China relations for some months, on Wednesday, 23 May, Parliament adopted the report by Marielle de Sarnez, which pinpoints the main causes of the trade imbalances between the two partners and proposes applying the principle of partnership, which is missing in these trade relations, more systematically. Instruments exist to guarantee greater transparency, most notably the 1985 cooperation agreement, the terms of which could be updated and made more binding. However, the effectiveness of the EU response in the face of China’s trade offensives should, above all, translate into closer coordination between the Member States, which would enhance the credibility of the EU’s trading policy with China. In this connection, reports that the Commission may be about to initiate infringement proceedings against the Chinese equipment manufacturers Huawei and ZTE and the reprisals that may ensue should be closely monitored.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution on trade imbalances between the EU and China. The Commission must apply the principle of reciprocity to the EU’s common trade policy with developed and emerging countries such as China in order to restore fair competition and to ensure a more level playing field. The Chinese economy does not fulfil the criteria of a market economy as defined by the WTO and the Commission is therefore encouraged to cooperate with the Chinese Government in order to eliminate all remaining obstacles by 2016, when market economy status is supposed to be granted to China by the WTO. This status should only be accorded prior to this date if China has fulfilled all criteria.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Recalling that the European Union is the top destination for Chinese exports, the Members of the European Parliament regret the clear trade imbalance in favour of China since 1997. In order to correct this significant imbalance between the EU and China, Parliament is reflecting on how to rebalance trade between the parties.

The principal objectives are to improve access to markets (in particular, through the principle of reciprocity), to ensure compliance by Chinese imports with European standards for food and non-food products, to reinforce the EU to cope with global competition and, finally, to defend the interests of European industry. I supported the report by Marielle de Sarnez in plenary.

  Syed Kamall (ECR), in writing. – When it comes to trade agreements, it is unfortunate that corporate social responsibility, human rights and environmental issues are sometimes used as a smokescreen by parties essentially uninterested in promoting free and open trade. Breaking down barriers to commerce is often the best way of building a road out of poverty and towards wealth for millions of entrepreneurs, small-business owners and the communities in which they live, all around the world. It also helps hard pressed families in our constituencies to have access to more affordable goods.

Of course, we should not ignore serious human rights issues, but expecting a global player like China simply to transpose the European Union’s social model onto itself is short sighted and could be counterproductive. The European Union is in the midst of an economic crisis and is crippled by anaemic growth rates; it needs all the inward investment and trade that it can get. Small businesses, which often have small turnovers but which are the engine rooms of most economies, need less pontificating from out-of-touch bureaucrats and more solutions that will help to develop bilateral global trade flows, and will bring them, and society as a whole, the prosperity they need and deserve.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing. – (PL) Trade relations between the EU and Chine should be based on an equal partnership. Unfortunately, European enterprises cannot currently invest in China on terms similar to those upon which Chinese investments in Europe are regulated. There are also other trade barriers such as the granting of subsidies and export credits in certain sectors, national certification requirements and regulatory opacity. According to data from 2011, 43% of persons running European businesses in China felt that measures taken by Beijing discriminated against them, while the same figure in 2010 was 33%. For these reasons, I voted in favour of the report.

  Sergej Kozlík (ALDE), in writing. – (SK) Over the last 30 years, the Chinese economy has achieved an annual growth rate of almost 10%. By the middle of the century, China will become the world’s most powerful economy. The EU’s trade deficit with China has increased from EUR 49 billion in 2000 to EUR 169 billion in 2010. Currency dumping of the yuan has enabled China to amass USD 3 200 billion in foreign exchange reserves, and it is not clear what the penetration of China is into the EU in the area of investment and the purchase of government bonds. China has recently declared that it needs its trading partners to grow so that it can support its own economic development. This can be a basis for the further development of trade relations between the EU and China. The cooperation agreement of 1985 should be updated, but a new investment agreement should also be drafted that would open up EU access to Chinese public procurement under the same conditions as in the EU. I fully agree with these principles.

  Constance Le Grip (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the own-initiative report by my fellow Member, Marielle de Sarnez, on the trade imbalance between the European Union and China. Through this report, we, the European Parliament, pinpoint the main causes of this imbalance as well as the major barriers to trade between the European Union and China. Whether it be the limited access of European businesses to Chinese public procurement markets, technology transfers or the undervaluation of the yuan, we believe that European economic operators are placed at a disadvantage relative to their Chinese competitors. China’s accession to the WTO in 2001 forced it to make a certain amount of effort, which is currently not always obvious. Considering the difficulties faced by European economic operators in China, we hope that a new framework for EU-China trade relations will be established integrating the central notion of reciprocal trade.

  Bogusław Liberadzki (S&D), in writing. – (PL) I voted in favour of the important and well-drafted report on ‘EU and China: unbalanced trade?’. This is a report which is extraordinarily important to the development of trade between China and the European Union. The EU rightly expresses its concern that trade should be fair, sustainable and profitable. We are aware of Chinese advantages and EU advantages and we want them to be realised in fair competition, having regard to the political, economic and social effects of Chinese investments throughout the world, particularly in developing countries. The opening of Chinese markets, compliance with the rules of the World Trade Organisation, access to raw materials and technology transfers are all important problems which deserve to be raised.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Based on the data supplied by the rapporteur, the unarguable conclusion is that there is a trade imbalance between China and the EU. The main question which we need to focus on is: ‘Is China obviously practising unfair competition against the EU?’ The social and economic growth which this country has enjoyed in recent years is linked to business, especially exports to Member States. In view of this rate of growth, it is paramount for Europe to maintain an open dialogue with China and raise the issue again of the restrictions preventing entry to the Chinese market because the need to cooperate is vitally important to both partners, and China must not ignore this truth. One problem whose scope has not decreased relates to all the counterfeit goods which arrive in the EU. The quality of these products is inferior as they are fakes of well-known brands and consumers can be easily misled. To ensure that citizens are not misled, I believe that we must encourage consumers to buy products made within the Member States, thereby reassuring consumers that the regulations for manufacturing them are observed and encouraging reindustrialisation and research policies in the EU.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report, but for me its core message had less to do with China and more to do with recognition that it is essential for the EU to implement a concerted reindustrialisation policy and a research and innovation policy commensurate with the new global challenges.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report entitled ‘EU and China: unbalanced trade?’ setting out Parliament’s position on trade relations with China. They must be fair, and European enterprises must have access to the Chinese market under the same conditions under which Chinese enterprises have access to the European market. The text therefore calls on the Member States to ensure, using appropriate monitoring mechanisms, that foreign enterprises operating in the EU respect all legislation in force in the single market, including social and environmental standards.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The strong growth in trade between all the European Union Member States and China represents a crucial development instrument for both the EU and China. It is therefore a matter of urgency for the EU to improve its effectiveness when it comes to trading with China through better institutional organisation as well as by finding a coherent position towards China among the Member States. I voted in favour.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) I note with satisfaction that this report calls for the precise identification of the holders of the sovereign debt of Member States, that it calls for an evaluation of foreign businesses investing in the European Union, and that it repeats its call for the adoption of the regulation on origin marking (‘made-in’) of products imported into the EU.

For the rest, this report is a statement incriminating China and an ode to liberalism. The opening of the public procurement markets is considered a virtue. Protectionism is soundly rejected. The WTO and the G20 are presented as legitimate and benevolent fora. Partnerships between Chinese universities and EU companies are recommended, and reciprocity, which is at the heart of the text, is understood.

These are arguments and proposals that I reject. I voted against this text.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I welcome Parliament’s adoption of this recommendation. The EU is the foremost destination for Chinese imports, which increased 39.5% between 2009 and 2010, making China the EU’s second largest trading partner. The increasing development of China’s economy and its accession to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) bring with them greater responsibility to play a full and positive role in the global economy. China joined the WTO in 2001 and should respect this organisation’s rules by liberalising trade and opening up its markets. However, it has not yet made adequate efforts in this direction. China does not fulfil the criteria of a market economy as defined by the WTO. The Commission should apply the principle of reciprocity to the EU common commercial policy with developing and emerging countries, of which China is one, in order to restore fair competition. EU-China relations will flourish on the basis of partnership and mutual benefit, not stiff competition.

  Louis Michel (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Trade between EU Member States and China is a crucial development instrument for both the EU and China. However, there is a clear trade imbalance in favour of China. That is why it is imperative to establish a new partnership based on reciprocal rules, balanced trade and transparent trade relations. It is, above all, a question of encouraging China to open up its markets more widely to European businesses and to accede to the multilateral Agreement on Public Procurement. The protection of consumers and human rights, as well as compliance with WTO rules and respect for intellectual property, are conditions of fair competition with the EU. We must not fight against Chinese exports, but we must fight for a balanced partnership with China which will bring back growth in Europe and contribute to the progress of democratic freedoms in China.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE), in writing. – (SK) The trade deficit of the EU, which is the main destination for Chinese exports, has more than tripled in the last decade. It is therefore appropriate to think about the competitive advantages and difficulties of the European Union and its Member States; this would be a natural basis for the creation of a coherent strategy with regard to the new global power and the closely related creation of a more ambitious EU industrial and trade policy. Moreover, the growth of the Chinese economy and the successful strategies of Chinese companies overseas should become a reason to stimulate innovative solutions in the EU so that it can maintain its position as a leader in a globalised world. I am concerned by the inadequate protection of intellectual property rights in China, which is harming the European economy and, in particular, small and medium-sized enterprises. The controversial ACT will not contribute to a solution in this regard, since China did not even participate in the negotiations. The reasons are perhaps indicated by statistics from 2010, when the EU confiscated at its external borders around 103 million products, totalling EUR 1.11 billion in value, that were suspected of breaching intellectual property rights, of which 85% came from China. I firmly believe that the bilateral relations between the EU and China will, in the future, have to be based on strict adherence to the principle of reciprocity, which, in economic relations, means adherence to the rules of competition and fair access to public procurement.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The report emphasises the need to adopt a balanced approach towards China and calls on the Commission and the Member States to build up better cooperation with China in all areas of interest. I agree that it is necessary to take into account dumping prices, human rights violations and aggressive external positions.

  Tiziano Motti (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted for the resolution because I believe that in a global economy, China needs Europe just as much as Europe needs China. Today, we have voted for a text which sets out to protect the interests of European industry and craft industries and aims to establish a new trade agreement based on reciprocal rules and transparency in trade relations. While the EU is still the largest trading partner and the main destination for Chinese exports, the growth in the trade deficit means that it is necessary to rebalance the relationship. Between 2000 and 2010, the EU’s trade deficit with Asia rose from EUR 49 billion to EUR 169 billion. According to the text adopted, however, China has increased unfair practices and obstacles to restrict access by foreign firms to its market. These include unfair trade strategies, customs fees, a lowering of the yuan’s exchange rate and the absence of intellectual property law. In view of these restrictions, and in order to limit conduct of this kind, Brussels ought to urge Beijing to make use of the procedure for settling business disputes proposed by the World Trade Organisation (WTO). The EU should also promote cooperation with developing countries in order to step up the fight against counterfeiting.

  Katarína Neveďalová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The rhetoric that has been coming out of Beijing in recent years clearly indicates that China is truly worried about the negative economic developments in Europe, which are most visible in the debt crisis. The Chinese economy is primarily focused on exports, and it is the European Union that is the largest trading power and top destination for Chinese exports. China is the EU’s second largest trading partner, immediately after the United States of America. It logically follows that China needs economic growth in its trading partners in order to support its own economic development. Unfortunately, European companies still cannot invest in China under the same conditions as those that apply to Chinese investments in Europe. Despite China’s progress in reducing trade barriers to facilitate access to the Chinese market, many obstacles remain, as evidenced by a report from the EU Chamber of Commerce in China. The report shows that fully 43% of directors of European companies in China believe that the measures adopted by the Chinese Government discriminate against them. Europe and China need each other. In this spirit, a new phase of trade relations between the EU and China must be launched, which will be based on a partnership of equals and will be characterised by mutual benefits and joint development. This is the principle of reciprocity, which Europeans have long been demanding.

  Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The level of trade between the EU and China is impressive at EUR 1 billion per day. The EU is China’s main trading partner and China is the EU’s main provider of manufactured products. In these circumstances, as President Barroso also stated, the EU-China partnership is one of the most important in the world. The report voted on today is relevant to the problems in trade relations between both partners. I voted for this report. However, I regret that it does not emphasise the problems related to the trade in agricultural products and does not take into account the special situation of European farmers who are obliged to comply with the highest quality standards in the world.

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE), in writing. – (ET) It is time for economic relations between the European Union and China to move forward from words to actions. For this reason, I supported this report, which reminds the leaders of the People’s Republic of China of their promise to work together to create a partnership of equals based on mutual respect, friendship and trust. I therefore consider it extremely important that China end discrimination against European companies, such as the prohibition against participating in public procurement, and guarantee our companies the same conditions as those that regulate investment in Europe. It would also be in China’s own best interests if European companies were to contribute to the country’s modernisation through the introduction of new technologies, and a Europe with higher economic growth would, in turn, consume more Chinese products. All parties would benefit from a liberal and fair free market economy.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) China has declared publicly that it aims to become the largest power on the planet by the end of the century. Meanwhile, faced with the crisis, the economies of the EU Member States are shrinking and facing new challenges in world trade. Under such circumstances, the EU and China should establish a new kind of partnership, based on the principles of transparency, justice, reciprocity and balance. I voted in favour of this report because it calls for the combating of Chinese counterfeit goods to be promoted, for EU markets to be better defended against such goods, and for intellectual property rights to be better protected in China. All goods from China should comply with EC requirements, particularly social and environmental ones. I agree that EU and Chinese companies should enjoy the same opportunities for business expansion, both in EU Member States and in China. It is therefore important for China to accede to international trade agreements such as the WTO’s Government Procurement Agreement.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) Economic growth in China depends directly on the economic prospects and potential of its partners. This means that its trade policy must respect the productive base in Europe and corresponding European policies. Consequently, the balance of trade between China and the EU is, in essence, an important prerequisite if the Chinese economy is to proceed smoothly and if growth is to return to the European economy. Europe has been seeking reciprocity in trade between the two sides for a long time. In this report, which I supported, the EU calls on China to become more open to imports, for the benefit of all concerned. The report also finds that the EU urgently needs to apply a concerted reindustrialisation policy, a point that Greece needs to take on board, and to encourage purchases of European products. It is not simply a question of defending a social market economy model; it is a question of defending the European perception of growth, democracy and human rights.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) EU-China trade relations have changed considerably over the last 30 years and China has developed a growing influence on the international stage. I voted for this report, as I believe that it is necessary for the EU and China to update the terms of their 1985 cooperation agreement. Although China cannot yet be considered a market economy, more binding rules on imports and exports should nevertheless be incorporated into the agreement.

  Alojz Peterle (PPE), in writing. – (SL) I support this report because it calls for cooperation between the European Union and China strictly on the basis of EU values and principles. I find the emphasis on reciprocity as the basis for a new partnership important, as I do the emphasis on fair play in relation to market access and international competition.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report, as I believe that strengthening trade relations between the EU and China, and rectifying certain imbalances, are of the utmost importance. In particular, I should like to stress that I agree with the concerns raised in relation to the fact that foreign companies find it difficult to access Chinese public procurement, and that there is no reciprocity in this area.

  Jean Roatta (PPE), in writing. – (FR) It was in 1985 that the European Union and China signed the first bilateral cooperation agreement. However, after almost 30 years of partnership, there is still a significant imbalance in trade relations between the EU and China. The list of these disharmonies shows worrying signs: access to Chinese public procurement is limited for foreign enterprises, protection of intellectual property is weak, there are systematic restrictions on the exportation of Chinese rare earths to European industries and, finally, the undervaluation and non-convertibility of the yuan pose a serious problem. Reciprocity, the cornerstone of the agreement, seems no longer, or insufficiently, present in trade relations. European enterprises are currently unable to invest in China under conditions similar to those governing Chinese investors in Europe. My vote in favour of the report by Ms de Sarnez lends support to the proposals made to rebalance EU-Chinese relations. It is also important to provide compliant protection tools and measures to update the terms of this agreement between the EU and China. Finally, we need to address the lack of transparency and reciprocal competition, which sours Sino-European relations today.

  Robert Rochefort (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The trade deficit between the EU and China has more than tripled in 10 years. European enterprises are suffering, in particular, from the undervaluation of the yuan, interventionist Chinese industrial policies, inadequate protection of intellectual property, an ambiguous Chinese regulatory system, and a lack of reciprocity concerning access to markets. In the face of the crisis we are going through, establishing fairer relations with China is a major challenge for our enterprises. I therefore support the report by Marielle de Sarnez without reservation. The text has three essential elements. Firstly, it calls on the Commission rapidly to develop a European instrument to ensure reciprocity as regards openness in public procurement markets. This would appear to me to be fundamental. Secondly, it calls for the setting up of a body entrusted with the ex ante evaluation of foreign strategic investment in order to obtain a clear picture of businesses operating and investing in the territory of the EU. This is an idea that I fully support. Finally, the rapporteur stresses that we will only succeed in meeting this challenge if we implement a concerted production and reindustrialisation policy and a research and innovation policy commensurate with the new global challenges. I am also convinced of this and am committed to meeting this challenge.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – Abstention. We wanted stronger stress on human rights. Observance of human and social rights is essential in cooperation between the EU and China. It was necessary to underline the importance of compliance with, and a rapid implementation of, all rules of the ILO, including the right to freely form independent trade unions; to support the pursuit of decent pay and working conditions; and to call for mutual respect for labour legislation, especially the prevention of illegal forms of labour such as child labour and prison labour.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted for the new agreement because it affirms the need to take a balanced trade approach towards China, aiming to create partnerships founded on honesty and reciprocity. This could revitalise fair Chinese competition, including through the establishment of a body to monitor Chinese investments in European enterprises. The ultimate aim is the best possible coordination, covering not only trade issues but also matters such as development, democracy and human rights, adhering to the European vision of social and democratic progress.

  Matteo Salvini (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I voted for the report and I congratulate the rapporteur on her excellent work. The problems that China creates for our production system are well known: for many years now, my political movement, Lega Nord, has been expressing its concern over the relocation of our enterprises to Asia, the social dumping that adversely affects our workers, and the risks associated with the arrival on our territory of products that are dangerous and do not comply with our rules. For these reasons, it is right that the European Commission should make a serious, concrete commitment to demanding reciprocity and setting in motion a genuine strategy to protect our production system and revitalise a genuine industrial policy.

  Amalia Sartori (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The report by Ms Sarnez is very important and topical at this time of global economic crisis. I voted for the report by my fellow Member because it sets out effectively and precisely an overview of the most sensitive and significant issues in relations between the European Union and China. Aspects such as reciprocity, the protection of intellectual property rights, transparent rules, the resolution of the trade imbalance and the formulation of rules to create a system of competition that is fair, honest and founded on a level playing field are all issues of great importance for European industry as a whole. In view of the very important part now played by the Chinese market for our enterprises, this report is a clear signal to the European institutions, with the intention that these issues should be tackled as swiftly as possible so that European enterprises may enter the Chinese market and thus take advantage of the many investment possibilities it offers.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) In my view, this report is very interesting because of the trade relations between European enterprises and the Asian country. Following the country’s increasing development and its accession to the World Trade Organisation (WTO), alongside the significant benefits, China’s new trade responsibilities involve greater obligations in playing an active, positive role in the world economic system, including within the context of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank Group. European companies are very aware of the complexity and opaque nature of the Chinese system of regulation and legislation.

Ten years after China’s accession to the WTO, this factor raises various questions regarding European companies’ ability to access the market and, in the long term, the very attractiveness of the Chinese market, which is simultaneously perceived as strategic and difficult to penetrate. The adoption of the report this morning sends a strong signal to the other European institutions to tackle the difficulties still being encountered by European enterprises in entering the Chinese market. In many ways, that market constitutes a valuable source of investment and development opportunities. The application of the principle of reciprocity to EU-China trade relations, in order to allow fair competition on international markets, remains an important issue. It confirms progress in Europeans’ confidence in the Asian giant.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This own-initiative report sets out the causes of trade imbalances and the main obstacles to trade, stressing that reciprocity by the Chinese authorities is the solution to overcoming the problems that European companies face in accessing the Chinese market. Several problems hinder European investment in China, including: entry barriers and protectionism; limited access to public procurement due to complex bureaucracy, a lack of transparency and competition, and rules that run counter to international legislation; intellectual property rights violations; protectionist measures in European involvement in technology companies; restrictions on the export of rare raw materials; and the overvaluation of the renminbi, allowing China to increase its investment in Europe and buy advanced technologies and European sovereign debt. In order for there to be a real partnership, the principle of reciprocity needs to be accepted and implemented by both parties. These conditions of access and the implementation of international standards should be included in the strengthening of the 1985 cooperation agreement. Moreover, I consider greater coordination between the Member States vital, so that bilateral agreements do not weaken the position that the EU needs to take in order to tackle these problems.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the European Parliament resolution on EU-China trade relations because I think that a balanced agreement is needed on trade relations between the EU and China. I deplore the inadequate protection of intellectual property rights (IPR) in China and the lack of specific resources provided to European businesses, particularly SMEs, to counter IPR infringements effectively. I call on the Commission and Member States to defend IPR more robustly in all multilateral organisations where China is a member (WTO, World Health Organisation and the World Intellectual Property Organisation). I also urge the Commission and Member States to step up customs cooperation between the EU and China on the seizure of counterfeit goods, and to simplify customs procedures. We ask the Commission and Member States to cooperate more closely with third countries on copyright issues and licensing. I urge the Commission to negotiate an ambitious and balanced EU-China agreement that seeks to create a better environment for European investors in China, and to guarantee transparency regarding the governance of Chinese companies which invest in the EU, while increasing the level of reciprocal capital flows.

  Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE), in writing. – At first, China was a competitor against European companies because the low cost of production there made its goods more affordable, and therefore many jobs were eliminated in the European Union. Later, however, there came a new opportunity for European companies that are now settled in China. It is true that there are still many areas for ongoing improvement, such as the development of industrial cooperation in the green economy, addressing China’s lower social, environmental and human rights standards, and increasing the flexibility of the yuan, in order not to create artificial trade advantages for China.

China and the EU both know that we need each other in our economic relations, and we both know that we can derive mutual benefit from that situation. It makes no sense to be in constant competition. For all these reasons, I will vote in favour of this report.

  Vladimir Urutchev (PPE), in writing. – (BG) I voted for this report because the EU’s trade relations with China are actually experiencing serious difficulties and it is China which is swallowing up all the benefits at the moment. Every possible barrier is being put up against the European companies seeking an opportunity to enter the Chinese market, and extremely complex Chinese regulations and almost a total lack of transparency are making it impossible for European companies to participate in public procurement in China. China’s failure to respect intellectual property rights is extremely discouraging for European investors, and there are no signs of any positive development in this area. On the contrary, the types and numbers of counterfeit goods are rising in world trade, most of which originate from China. Dumping, including through devaluing the yuan and subsidising production with the aim of deriving trade benefits, is a practice widely used by China to seize global markets and edge out other participants. Our trade deficit with China has trebled in the last 10 years and is continuing to grow. This is clearly a source of concern, and serious measures need to be adopted both at European level and by individual Member States. China is the second largest economy in the world. China is an important economic and resource-rich partner for us, which is why every opportunity needs to be sought for partnership instead of confrontation.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – This INI has the purpose to bring out the need of a commercial EU-China balance. With the 12th Chinese five-year plan (2011-2015), the central idea of which is that China’s growth is balanced out by an increase in domestic consumption and by sustainable development that could open up new opportunities for the European economy. It defines the trade barriers that cause the current unbalanced trade, as could be: limited access to Chinese public procurement, the currency issue or trade barriers to market access.

  Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD), in writing. – (PL) The European Union is China’s biggest trading partner. Unfortunately, this situation is not reciprocal. The trade balance is still negative, which has an adverse impact on our economy and increases unemployment, and we should take action to protect our market and to balance the trade deficit. China must sign a declaration on environmental protection and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and it must accept the introduction of anti-dumping duties on products from the Middle Kingdom, such as cement, building materials and footwear. In times of crisis, we must protect our market more diligently.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report is critical of the protectionist trade policies of China, and attempts to pressurise China to open up its markets and allow the liberalisation of trade, subject to World Trade Organisation rules. We voted against this report due to the disastrous and pernicious consequences of free trade, which have left countries with weaker economies unable to defend their trade interests and productive sectors. We advocate an external trade policy based not on competitiveness, but on complementarity and cooperation.

Report: David Martin (A7-0352/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report as I believe that, in order to ensure a wide range of effective remedies, a pre-litigation remedy within Parliament should be made available to natural or legal persons other than institutions and bodies of the EU and the Member States, whereby such persons may contest decisions that have been taken or which are at the application stage. I would also highlight the need to respect the separation of powers, in order to prevent abuses of power. The legislature, the executive and the judiciary should be separate from one another.

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I support the proposal for a regulation on the detailed provisions governing the exercise of the European Parliament’s right of inquiry. This new legal framework is intended to improve the operation and effectiveness of commissions of inquiry by providing them with the necessary means to carry out the task of examining alleged contraventions of EU law and cases of maladministration. I voted in favour of this resolution.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report. I agree that the work of the committees of inquiry should be strengthened and therefore agree with the adoption of the new regulation. When a specific task is conferred on an institution or body, the powers that are indispensable in order to carry out that task must be conferred on that body. In order to ensure that a committee’s conclusions are reasonable, it should have the right to summon any person, if necessary, including officials and other servants of the Union’s institutions or of Member States. I agree with the rapporteur that if a witness refuses to be examined or gives false testimony, he or she must be subject to sanctions. Committees of inquiry must have the necessary means for the EP to be able to exercise serious and efficient political control in line with the expectations of European citizens.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The right of inquiry is an important element of Parliament’s supervisory powers. The Treaty of Lisbon modified the institutional balance of the EU and strengthened the political stature of Parliament. Article 14 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union expressly stipulates that Parliament exercises political control. This report, for which I voted, argues that committees of inquiry must have the necessary means to carry out their tasks of examining alleged contraventions of EU law or maladministration. This is in line with the case-law of the Court of Justice. Moreover, all conclusions of an inquiry should be based solely on elements which have evidential value. To this end, a committee of inquiry should be able to carry out, within the limits of its mandate, any investigation considered necessary in order to fulfil its task. On the same basis, it should be able to summon before it any person whose evidence or expertise is deemed necessary to better investigate the case in question. Finally, it is noted that duly summoned witnesses will be obliged willingly, fully and truthfully to answer the questions put to them by members of the committee. On the same note, non-compliance with these obligations should entail appropriate penalties.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this European Parliament report because the right of inquiry is an important feature of the Parliament’s supervisory powers. This right is exercised in different ways by democratic parliaments throughout the world. A comparison of the different types of committees of inquiry existing within different Member States shows fairly significant differences regarding their set-up mechanisms, functioning and powers. Given the renewed institutional balance and differences across the European Union created by the Treaty of Lisbon and on the basis of the experience gained from the work of the European Parliament’s committees of inquiry, Decision 95/167/EC, Euratom, ECSC, which laid down the detailed provisions governing the exercise of the European Parliament’s right of inquiry, should be repealed and replaced by a new regulation. The aim of setting up a committee of inquiry is to put before the whole of Parliament a remedy for an illegal or unfair situation. The European Parliament’s functions in relation to political control are reinforced and extended, therefore, in accordance with both national parliamentary practice and the requirements under the Treaty on European Union, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community. The European Parliament’s committees of inquiry should be reinforced and should be granted specific, genuine and clearly delimited powers which are more in line with its political stature and competences, while respecting the principle of proportionality as set out in the Treaty on European Union.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. – (IT) If the aim was to bring the exercise of the right of inquiry in line with the structure of the Treaty of Lisbon, without impinging on the other control bodies, whether national or not, the text can be viewed as a good summary and, as such, I support it. It was necessary to take steps to promote activity by Parliament in this field that would not prove superfluous but which, at the same time, could be seen as incisive in terms of political control of contraventions or maladministration of EU law. This need is strengthened by the emergence of figures such as the Ombudsman and the powers now granted to other bodies.

Within the framework of a multiplicity of such bodies – and also in view of the level of divergence in the Member States’ legal systems – experience has shown that the instruments available to Parliament, provided for by Decision 95/167/EC, Euratom, ECSC (deriving from the Treaty of Maastricht), are inadequate. The modest work done by the committees of inquiry reveals, as well as caution on the part of Members and Parliament, which we do not doubt, an essentially impotent framework. We should not forget that Parliament is probably the only instrument (in this case, for scrutinising the administration of EU law) that is completely under the control of European citizens and is, of necessity, responsible for its actions and easy to recall.

  Jan Březina (PPE), in writing. – (CS) The right of inquiry is an important feature of the European Parliament’s supervisory powers. Parliament is not, however, a court. It has no power in itself to impose penalties on individuals. Under the Lisbon Treaty, however, Parliament has the right to investigate contraventions or maladministration in the implementation of EU law. The aim of setting up a committee of inquiry is to provide a remedy for an illegal or unfair situation. Inquiries should therefore lead to outcomes that provide the most appropriate solution. The final power of decision ― regardless of the powers conferred on the committees of inquiry to perform their duties ― ultimately belongs to Parliament. The conclusions of the committees of inquiry could thus be submitted in the form of a final report to Parliament. It would then be up to Parliament to take up one or more of the recommendations contained in the final report, such as deciding to publish the report, putting forward a legislative initiative, referring the matter to the competent Union or national authorities, referring the matter to the Ombudsman or taking any other appropriate action, according to the specific circumstances.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – This should be an exclusive domestic competence of Member State governments only, enabling national Parliaments to summon relevant witnesses to examine alleged breaches of EU law. Drawing up sanctions for any who refuse to cooperate with investigation, organising committees to scrutinise evidence and documentation from both EU and national bodies in order to enforce the proper application of EU law, and giving committees of inquiry the legal power to subpoena witnesses, including Member State officials, is chilling in its megalomaniacal scope for a supranational organisation created and established by vote solely as a free trade bloc. While the EP already has a power to conduct an inquiry, it is rarely exercised. This proposal significantly augments Parliament’s power, theoretically even enabling it to call upon nation state Ministers, including the Prime Minister or President, to be summoned as witnesses. In wording, it even renders the Monarchy culpable to Parliamentary scrutiny. By what perceived right does the European Union believe it should honour itself with such ominous, technocratic powers and by what democratic vehicle could it possibly seek to establish them?

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this proposal for a regulation as I believe that inquiry committees must have the necessary means to carry out their tasks of examining alleged breaches of EU law or maladministration; that all the conclusions of an inquiry should be based solely on elements which have evidential value; that the committees may carry out any type of investigation, provided that the rules are clearly established in advance; and that they may request documents, hear officials and other servants of the EU and Member States, summon witnesses and request an expert’s report.

  Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of this proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament on the detailed provisions governing the exercise of the European Parliament’s right of inquiry and repealing Decision 95/167/EC, Euratom, ECSC of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission. The Treaty of Lisbon created conditions for a renewed, stronger institutional balance within the European Union, allowing its institutions to function more efficiently, openly and democratically. In this context, the European Parliament’s functions in terms of political control were reinforced and extended. Therefore, in accordance with both national parliamentary practice and the requirements under the Treaty on European Union, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, the European Parliament’s committees of inquiry should be reinforced and be granted specific, genuine and clearly delimited powers which are more in line with its political stature and competences, while respecting the principle of proportionality as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. The powers of the committees of inquiry, which are exceptional instruments of political control, should not impact on the responsibilities of other institutions.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) This text increases the powers of committees of inquiry which may be set up by Parliament to shed light on the errors committed by institutions and/or individuals with regard to certain subjects of importance to the European Union. I therefore supported this proposal, which gives elected representatives of EU citizens the necessary means to exercise effective democratic control, which is crucial for the proper functioning and progress of European integration.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report on the exercise of the right of inquiry. The proposed improvements relate to a legal setting that is appropriate enough to ensure that the political control exercised by Parliament is honest, efficient and in line with the European public’s expectations of democratic accountability and good governance.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Treaty of Lisbon granted Parliament greater powers. In the wake of this extension of its powers, Parliament now has the opportunity to adopt a regulation that seeks to establish the proceedings of committees of inquiry, strengthening their potential scope for action and the means at their disposal to carry out their tasks in a dignified, rigorous and effective way, as already happens in other parliaments. This type of committee must always be mindful of the respondents’ right of appeal. On this subject, I recall some rather unedifying incidents which have occurred in the hearings of candidates for the position of Commissioner, in which they were subjected to inappropriate behaviour by certain Members, who put the statements made to abusive use. I therefore hope the desired extension of the scope of these committees will go hand in hand with the responsible use of this instrument, which we hope will be fair and useful.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report seeks to establish conditions for strengthening the exercise of Parliament’s right of inquiry. The Treaty of Lisbon enhanced Parliament’s powers and reduced the competences of the sovereign national institutions. Parliament’s enhanced right of inquiry neither strengthens its legitimacy nor ensures the integrity with which it should be associated. The investigation of ‘alleged contraventions or maladministration in the implementation of Community law’ by Parliament, an institution whose numbers reveal the extent to which it is dominated by the major powers, is doomed from the outset to serve the interests of those same powers. We cannot support strengthening Parliament’s power of ‘investigation’, in other words, of interference, forcing sovereign states to submit documents, summoning witnesses, and hearing officials and other EU and Member State civil servants. Citizens and Member States are obliged to grant Parliament access to documents that it deems ‘pertinent’, while Parliament is able to decide on appropriate sanctions to be applied by the Member States. Although the report is in favour of the separation of the political and judicial powers, there is obvious confusion and that does not make Parliament more democratic.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The right of inquiry is an important feature of Parliament’s supervisory powers. This right is exercised in many different ways by democratic parliaments throughout the world. In the majority of the EU Member States, the setting up of committees of inquiry is envisaged and regulated by the constitution, by law or by decree. Currently, the Treaty of Lisbon has modified the institutional balance of the EU and strengthened the political stature of Parliament. Article 14 TEU expressly stipulates that Parliament exercises political control. The Treaty also changed the procedure for determining the provisions governing the exercise of the right of inquiry. Whereas, in the past, it was a shared decision between the three main European institutions, the Treaty of Lisbon explicitly gives the right of initiative to the European Parliament. Nevertheless, it still has to obtain formal consent from the Council and from the Commission. As the European Parliament is not a court, it has no power in itself to impose penalties on individual citizens. Nevertheless, when all the Member States adopted the Treaty of Lisbon, they also agreed to give it the right to investigate contraventions and maladministration in the implementation of Union law. I believe that this should bind them to oblige their own administrative systems to give assistance to any possible EP committees of inquiry. I also consider it to be correct that the final power of decision, regardless of the powers conferred on the committees of inquiry to perform their duties, ultimately rests with Parliament.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I supported this report because I think that, just as the Treaty of Lisbon extended the colegislative powers of the European Parliament, we need to strengthen its resources to investigate alleged contraventions or maladministration in the implementation of EU law effectively.

While we would have liked to be even more ambitious, this text is the result of a compromise with a Council and a European Commission fearful of seeing Parliament transform its powers of a political nature into powers of a judicial nature, which certainly was not the intention.

However, this is an important step towards taking us beyond the 1995 decision, which has so far enabled the European Parliament to set up three committees of inquiry. These new powers will therefore lie, in particular, in a committee of inquiry being able to carry out any type of investigation and to obtain assistance from national authorities, if need be, so as to ensure that its conclusions are based exclusively on factual evidence. The introduction of the rule requiring Member States to sanction non-compliance with this regulation is also a step in the right direction.

  Marian Harkin (ALDE), in writing. – I voted in favour of this report as the current rules relating to inquiry committees in the European Parliament are not in line with best practice as followed in national parliaments throughout the EU. Like the rapporteur, I believe that committees of inquiry must have the ability to summon all relevant witnesses in order to smoothly and efficiently examine alleged breaches of EU law. Citizens expect the European Parliament to be able to deal effectively with such matters. Likewise, sanctions must be put in place for those who refuse to cooperate with such investigations. Furthermore, these committees should have access to all relevant documents, from both EU and national bodies.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this European Parliament proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament on the detailed provisions governing the exercise of the European Parliament’s right of inquiry and repealing Decision 95/167/EC, Euratom, ECSC of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission because this regulation lays down detailed provisions governing the exercise of the European Parliament’s right, in the course of its duties, to investigate alleged contraventions or maladministration in the implementation of Union law. The Treaty of Lisbon created conditions for a renewed and enhanced institutional balance within the Union, allowing its institutions to function more efficiently, openly and democratically. In this context, the European Parliament’s functions in relation to political control were reinforced and extended. Therefore, in accordance with both national parliamentary practice and the requirements under the Treaty on European Union, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community (hereinafter ‘the Treaties’), the European Parliament’s committees of inquiry should be reinforced and should be granted specific, genuine and clearly delimited powers which are more in line with its political stature and competences, while respecting the principle of proportionality as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. The powers of the committees of inquiry, which are exceptional instruments of political control, should be without prejudice to the responsibilities of other institutions. It should be noted that the doctrine of the separation of powers should be respected, according to which, in order to prevent power from being abused, the legislature (parliament), the executive (government) and the judiciary (the law courts) should be separate from one another.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported the report by my fellow Member, David Martin, on the exercise of the European Parliament’s right of inquiry. The Treaty of Lisbon gave the European Parliament the power to determine the rules governing the exercise of this right of inquiry. This report advocates the setting up of a committee of inquiry to carry out any type of investigation and to have access to all documents during its investigation. Finally, the rapporteur gives this committee the power to summon persons directly as witnesses.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing. – (PL) I fully agree with my group that national parliaments are the proper arenas for many of the powers provided for in this report. The powers mentioned in the report are not necessary at the European level, in particular, with regard to summoning witnesses and imposing penalties on those who refuse to cooperate. In my opinion, powers to conduct inspections on the ground, demand documents, interview officials and other employees of the EU and its Member States, call witnesses and request expert reports are too far-reaching.

  Sergej Kozlík (ALDE), in writing. – (SK) Parliament’s right to set up temporary committees of inquiry to investigate ‘alleged contraventions or maladministration in the implementation of Community law’ was elevated to primary law by the Maastricht Treaty. Since the adoption of the interinstitutional agreement on this matter in 1995, however, Parliament has set up only three committees of inquiry. It was found that the powers of those committees were limited and had to be reformed. Committees of inquiry must have sufficient funds, must have access to all necessary documents and information, and must be able to summon all necessary persons. Failure to meet the obligations by persons and institutions should lead to the appropriate sanctions. An investigation should result in a proposed remedy and a report for Parliament. I agree with these principles and support them.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The European Parliament’s right of inquiry was established by the Treaty of Maastricht and strengthened and defined in more detail through the recent entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. Europe wishes to be described as strong in political and administrative terms, and this legal instrument constitutes leverage of the greatest importance in reinforcing this. Determining the European Parliament’s right of inquiry, particularly in exceptional cases or when there is a clear need to set up temporary committees to analyse and propose effective solutions for specific problems, is vital so that action can be taken with a greater level of cooperation and effectiveness between all the Member States and across Europe.

  Isabella Lövin and Carl Schlyter (Verts/ALE), in writing. – (SV) As we do not want to give the European Parliament’s committees of inquiry a mandatory right to call people other than EU officials, and as neither paragraph 15 nor Amendment 18 constitute a satisfactory alternative, we abstained in the vote on Amendment 18.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Based on the firm belief that this proposal for a regulation respects the doctrine of separation of powers in a state, I support the reform of the European Parliament’s right of inquiry. We need these changes to be made to the regulation because experience has shown us that, although Parliament can set up commissions of inquiry, they may come up against numerous restrictions during an investigation. The greater clout of these committees does not pose a risk to the institutions or persons being investigated, with the procedural code itself also being clarified by the rapporteur. Although Parliament has the power to impose sanctions, we must make clear that its main aim is to investigate any kind of situation which would turn out to be detrimental to the EU or to the citizens in this community. An overview of any irregularities which may appear will give us the opportunity to improve the current regulation, with the desire of progressing towards the EU judicial systems improving their operation.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – Naturally, I voted for my report. I believe that new rules on committees of inquiry which improve Parliament’s right to call witnesses, access documents and carry out investigations would enhance our ability to exercise our control function and ensure the proper application of EU law.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the Martin report on the detailed provisions governing the exercise of the European Parliament’s right of inquiry, which proposes a definition of the provisions governing the European Parliament’s right of inquiry. Parliament acquired this right with the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon and subject to the consent of the Council. Under Article 226, the European Parliament may, at the request of one quarter of its component members, set up a temporary committee of inquiry to investigate alleged contraventions or maladministration in the implementation of Community law. In order to clarify this provision, the text covers the subject matter and general rules on the establishment of a committee of inquiry as well as the investigation.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) It is absolutely essential that a committee of inquiry be able to rely on factual evidence gathered in the course of its investigation. For this purpose, a committee of inquiry should be able to carry out, within the limits of its mandate, any investigation which it considers necessary in order to fulfil its task, in particular, to conduct on-the-spot investigations, to request documents, to summon witnesses, to hear officials and other servants of the Union or of Member States, and to request experts’ reports. I voted in favour.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The institutional balance of the EU was modified and improved by the adoption of the Treaty of Lisbon. This proposal for a regulation on the detailed provisions governing the exercise of Parliament’s right of inquiry and repealing Decision 95/167/EC, Euratom, ECSC of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, confirmed that the right of inquiry is an important feature of Parliament’s supervisory powers, granting specific, genuine and clearly delimited powers to Parliament’s committees of inquiry.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – I agree that the right of inquiry of committees should be extended in order to make them do their job more efficiently – to have access to all information, to invite witnesses, etc.

  Vital Moreira (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the proposal to amend Parliament’s right of inquiry, drafted by Mr Martin, as it strengthens Parliament’s supervisory powers over the governance and administration of the EU. The timely update of this parliamentary instrument follows the Treaty of Lisbon, which granted this representative assembly for European citizens all the powers appropriate to a genuine parliament, in particular, with regard to its powers of oversight and political scrutiny. This should make an important contribution to building a parliamentary democracy for the EU.

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE), in writing. – (ET) I supported the proposal for a regulation to regulate the exercise of the European Parliament’s right of inquiry since the Treaty of Lisbon has changed the role of the European Parliament, and with it the right to carry out political oversight. Whereas the decision regarding the procedure for the right of inquiry was previously the joint task of the European Parliament, the Commission and the Council, now Parliament implements this through its regulation. Substantive differences in the new regulation include, for instance, the Commission’s right to request that the parliaments of Member States cooperate with them, the right to perform all manner of investigations (on-site investigation, the demanding of documents, etc.), and the new regulation also designates those who are required to compensate costs. The formation of European Parliament investigative committees and the use of the funds designated in the new regulation to provide compensation for illegal or unjust situations or to investigate alleged violations or incidents of maladministration will help fulfil Parliament’s powers of oversight (it is important to note that Parliament does, however, lack the right to enforce punishment in this area), which will also guarantee that the European Union institutions function more democratically.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) The Treaty of Lisbon provides for the European Parliament’s right to establish committees of inquiry. It is a right of the European Parliament guaranteeing greater democracy throughout the European Union and helping the EP exercise strict parliamentary control. I welcome this report because it highlights the importance of the limits of the powers of the EP’s committees of inquiry. The EU Court of Justice (ECJ) also investigates infringements by EU institutions, and it is therefore important that the areas of competence of the EP and the ECJ should not conflict with one another. I agree with the rapporteur that the EP must have the right to summon any EU servants, from the lowest-ranking to the President of the Commission, to have access to all documents, as well as the right to provide for penalties for servants found guilty. The EP must also be informed about how the decisions of the committees of inquiry are being implemented. I agree with the MEPs who stressed that the EP could also summon servants from EU Member States to a hearing under the same conditions as employees of the EU’s institutions.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report, which revises the way Parliament’s right of inquiry is exercised. I would highlight the provision laying down that committees of inquiry should fully respect the rights of those they call on to testify, in accordance with the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The right of inquiry is a very important aspect of Parliament’s supervisory powers. As the Treaty of Lisbon has strengthened Parliament’s political supervisory powers, it is likewise appropriate to enhance its respective committees of inquiry, giving them the necessary means to carry out their tasks of fully examining alleged contraventions of EU law or maladministration. The regulation proposed here concerns the exercise of Parliament’s right of inquiry, establishing a set of rules intended to help improve the functioning and effectiveness of future committees of inquiry. I therefore voted in favour.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – I am voting in favour of the report, and in favour of the postponement of the legislative resolution.

Our group has supported the strengthening of Parliament’s right of inquiry because committees of inquiry are an important tool for parliamentary democracy. The report as voted in committee was very ambitious, given the traditional reticence in the Council, but it was drafted in accordance with a progressive EP Legal Service opinion on the matter. The Commission and the Council, which both need to give their consent, had serious concerns about the EP proposal as adopted in committee. The rapporteur, after exploratory contacts with the Danish Presidency and more recently with the Commission, reviewed Parliament’s demands so as to avoid a straightforward ‘no’ from the Council and to provide for a mandate that will serve as a basis for opening formal negotiations with both institutions.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of this proposal for reform because, in comparison with the former decision, it provides a clearer and more logical system with regard to the arrangements for the European Parliament’s right of inquiry. The committee of inquiry ought to be able to carry out any investigation and summon any person whose evidence or skills are deemed necessary with a view to drawing its conclusions solely on the basis of elements which have evidential value. This would allow the European Parliament to exercise serious and effective scrutiny without disappointing European citizens’ expectations in terms of responsibility and good governance.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The right of inquiry is an important feature of Parliament’s supervisory powers. The European Parliament’s right to set up temporary committees of inquiry to investigate alleged contraventions or maladministration in the implementation of Community law was elevated to primary law by the Maastricht Treaty. However, the Treaty did not provide information on specific powers granted to the European Parliament’s committees of inquiry, instead leaving the definition of any detailed provision to a future interinstitutional agreement. Thus, the time has arrived – partly through this vote – to lay down and regulate the issue, particularly in the light of the Treaty of Lisbon, which modified the institutional balance of the EU and strengthened the political stature of Parliament.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The right of inquiry is a very important element of a parliament’s supervisory powers. This right is exercised in very different ways by democratic parliaments all over the world. Parliament has exercised this right with great caution, but the Treaty of Lisbon has now explicitly given Parliament the right of initiative. Since the procedure has changed, Parliament is not tabling amendments to the old decision, but is proposing a new regulation instead. Committees will therefore be able to carry out any type of investigation, such as by conducting on-the-spot investigations, requesting documents, holding hearings for officials and other EU or Member State civil servants, summoning witnesses and requesting an expert report. They should have access to all documents and to any information which may facilitate their work. I voted for this report in plenary for these reasons.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the proposal for a regulation on the detailed provisions governing the exercise of the European Parliament’s right of inquiry. The Treaty of Lisbon created conditions for a renewed, stronger institutional balance within the European Union, allowing its institutions to function more efficiently, openly and democratically. In this context, the European Parliament’s functions in terms of political control were reinforced and extended. In accordance with both national parliamentary practice and the requirements under the Treaties (TEU, TFEU and EURATOM), the European Parliament’s committees of inquiry should be reinforced and be granted specific, genuine and clearly delimited powers which are more in line with its political stature and competences, while respecting the principle of proportionality. The regulation sets out detailed procedures for exercising the European Parliament’s right to have an inquiry, as part of its tasks, without having an impact on the powers granted by the Treaties to the other institutions or bodies, alleged contraventions of EU law or cases of maladministration in applying EU law by an EU institution or body, by a public administrative body in a Member State or by any person empowered by the EU to implement EU legislation.

  Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE), in writing. – I think it is an important step for our Parliament to have the possibility to engage on public investigations of relevant issues for our citizens. Strengthening the rules in this way will enhance transparency and the role of the European Parliament in a real separation of powers inside the EU.

  Rafał Trzaskowski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) The European Parliament’s position is a sensible start to negotiations with the Council on the implementation of investigative powers granted to Parliament under the Treaty of Lisbon.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – This report defines the detailed provisions governing the exercise by the European Parliament, in the context of the fulfilment of its tasks, of the right to investigate alleged contraventions or maladministration in the implementation of Union law. Therefore, I voted in favour of it. Its adoption will offer a clearer and more logical structure compared to the one provided by the old decision.

  Glenis Willmott (S&D), in writing. – As the only democratically elected institution representing citizens at European Union level, it is vital that the European Parliament is fully able to scrutinise the administration of the EU and its laws and hold public institutions to account. That is why Labour MEPs have voted for this report, drafted by my Labour colleague, David Martin, which has considerable cross-party support. In the wake of the 2007 Equitable Life inquiry, which was restricted by a lack of necessary legal powers, the proposed regulation aims to bring the powers of the European Parliament to a level with those of national Parliaments when conducting special investigations into alleged maladministration. It does not seek to extend the Parliament’s powers of inquiry beyond those typical for national Parliaments.

  Anna Záborská (PPE), in writing. – (SK) Until the Treaty of Lisbon strengthened the powers of this Parliament, the committees of inquiry were about as much use as a bicycle is to a fish. It may be an excellent invention, but it only works under certain conditions. Two are absolutely fundamental – the ability to use the pedals, and the art of maintaining balance. The Treaty of Lisbon has met the first condition. It gave Parliament greater powers in the use of committees of inquiry as an instrument of democratic control. The submitted draft regulation governs the working of the committees on the basis of these powers. The second condition is the maintenance of balance. Political and institutional. I consider the submitted text to be balanced, even if it may become apparent in practice that certain of its provisions will have to be amended. At present, however, it is important that we put it into practice as soon as possible.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The exercise of Parliament’s right of inquiry is an instrument that robs national institutions of their sovereignty, instead strengthening Parliament’s power. As we are aware, the majority of Members of this House are from the major powers, calling into question the integrity of this instrument. It is the interests of the major powers that will be best served here. We completely disagree with the strengthening of the powers of ‘investigation’, which amount to nothing more than interference in the affairs of other countries, added to the fact that citizens and Member States are obliged to grant Parliament access to documents that it deems to be ‘pertinent’, while Parliament is able to apply sanctions.

(The sitting was suspended at 13.35 and resumed at 15.00)

IN THE CHAIR: GEORGIOS PAPASTAMKOS
Vice-President