Verbatim report of proceedings

Wednesday, 13 June 2012 - Strasbourg

1. Opening of the sitting

IN THE CHAIR: MARTIN SCHULZ
President

(The sitting opened at 09.05)

2. Composition of Parliament: see Minutes

3. Guinea-Bissau (motions for resolutions tabled): see Minutes

4. Sudan and South Sudan (motions for resolutions tabled): see Minutes

5. EU trade agreement with Colombia and Peru (motion for a resolution tabled): see Minutes

6. Preparation for the European Council meeting (28-29 June 2012) - Multiannual financial framework and own resources (debate)

  President. – The next item is the joint debate on:

– the statements by the Council and the Commission on preparation for the European Council meeting (28-29 June 2012) (2011/2920(RSP)), and

– the statements by the Council and the Commission on the multiannual financial framework and own resources (2012/2678(RSP)).

  Nicolai Wammen, President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, the European Council meeting on 28 and 29 June is due to take important decisions on measures to help stimulate economic growth and employment. This is a key element of our overall strategy to ensure that Europe emerges from the current situation with increased growth and a stronger economic basis. To put it very simply, Europe needs growth and Europe needs jobs.

The informal meeting of Heads of State on 23 May, as well as the informal General Affairs Council meeting on 10 and 11 June, paved the way for the preparation of a comprehensive package of measures as part of the growth initiative for Europe. I would like to point to some of the various elements that can be included in this package.

On economic policy, job creation is a priority for all of us. Growth is not enough in itself. It must lead to new jobs and we need to do more. The Council welcomes the Commission’s employment package, which certainly contains many interesting ideas, not least to promote youth employment and labour mobility. Let me also give a couple of concrete examples of how some of the proposals already on the table can boost employment. First, adoption of the energy efficiency directive can create up to 400 000 new jobs. Second, new trade agreements with third countries may create about two million new jobs, and a reform of the single market will create even more millions of jobs. As you know, there are roughly the same number of unemployed people across Europe as we have small and medium-sized enterprises. If we could only create one more job in each of these SMEs, we would have taken a giant step towards addressing the unemployment issue.

The Danish Presidency has been committed to making progress on all legislative files which have the potential to deliver growth and employment. On a number of dossiers, we have advanced well and I would like to take this opportunity to thank Parliament for a very constructive partnership with the Presidency on this agenda. This applies, for instance, to the case of roaming regulation and standardisation, where the Council has been able to reach agreement with the European Parliament. We are also on track on issues such as venture capital and social entrepreneurship.

The June European Council will also conclude the European Semester through the endorsement of country-specific recommendations set out by the Commission in its proposal of 30 May. Our objective is to guide Member States in their structural reforms, employment policies and national budgets with the overall aim of ensuring that fiscal consolidation and growth go hand in hand. I would like to thank Parliament for the way in which it has offered strong support for the growth and employment agenda, as its motions for resolutions confirm.

We also need to step up efforts to boost the financing of the economy. I am very pleased that the Council and Parliament were able to agree on the project bond pilot phase which will start this summer. The Commission has also proposed a EUR 10 billion increase in paid-in capital to the EIB as part of a new EU growth initiative. Furthermore, efforts should be made regarding better targeting of Structural Funds to foster growth and convergence. The Commission will report on this issue later this month.

Another key element to our growth agenda is external economic policy. The European Council will discuss how the Union can better use a trade and investment relationship with key partners as an engine for growth.

The second major item on the June European Council agenda is the multiannual financial framework (MFF). As you know, the MFF package is a top priority for us and, from the very beginning of our Presidency, we have been aiming to make as much progress as possible on this dossier. We based our work on the mandate given to us by the December 2011 European Council, and that is to press ahead with the work aimed at developing a basis for the final stage of negotiations to be discussed at the June European Council. We have taken this mandate very seriously.

While the aim of the Presidency has not been to reach a final compromise on this package, all our efforts are directed towards preparing the ground for a first serious and substantial discussion in June and delivering a fully integrated negotiating box containing all the elements for the final agreement, which should help lead to the adoption of the MFF at the end of this year. The MFF dossier constitutes a great opportunity to make the EU budget respond better to today’s and tomorrow’s challenges and needs. It is also essential that the next MFF is fully geared towards growth and job-enhancing policies.

In putting the box together, we have listened carefully to delegations in Council meetings. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Parliament’s representatives who have taken part in our work. We have excellent cooperation with the representatives of Parliament, and before every meeting at which the MFF has been on the agenda, we have met with Parliament’s representatives, we have told Ministers what Parliament’s views are and we have also met afterwards. It is also important to stress – and I want to make this very clear – that we must, of course, all follow the legislative procedures laid down in the Treaty, including with regard to codecision. It is also important to say that there is no final deal before there is agreement between the Council and Parliament.

In order to ensure further progress in the MFF negotiations, thereby fulfilling the mandate given by the European Council in December, the Presidency has put forward a proposal regarding the structure of the budget, including the placement of instruments that the Commission has proposed to place outside the MFF. It is very important for me to say today that this proposal on the structure of the MFF only relates to the placement of instruments. It does not in any way prejudge the size of the budget or decision-making procedures for those instruments, nor does it prejudge the expenditure level for the headings in which some of those instruments are included. Therefore, the Presidency’s proposal does not entail a reduction in the budget or in the degree of flexibility in the Commission’s proposal. The point of departure for the Presidency is that the proposed amounts for these instruments are transferred, with the instruments, into the relevant headings.

Just two days ago, we had a very fruitful discussion on this proposal for a balanced package and structure at the informal General Affairs Council meeting in Horsens in Denmark. I was particularly pleased that Members of the European Parliament were present and gave us very useful input in this regard. I noted the emphasis that the European Parliament put on ensuring a transparent budget where as many expenditure items as possible are subject to the Community method.

As a final note, I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the good cooperation between Parliament and the Council on this dossier.

  José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. – Mr President, you have invited me to prepare the next European Council with you, and to discuss the economic situation and the multiannual financial framework (MFF). I welcome this choice of topics. The MFF is indeed a crucial part of our response to the challenges we face, as it is a tool for investing in jobs and growth, while reinforcing stability.

We are now in a defining moment for European integration and for the European Union. We are seeing that even when governments are taking the right steps towards reform, they can be negatively impacted by events beyond their control, or by the lack of a decisive and comprehensive long-term response. We must recognise that we have a systemic problem and we need to articulate the vision of where we need to go, and also a very concrete path for how to get there. I am not sure whether the urgency of this is fully understood in all the capitals.

The Commission has always maintained that a combination of immediate measures with medium and long-term steps is part of the comprehensive response we need to overcome the crisis. This was precisely the multi-track approach we developed further in our communication of 30 May.

The European Union has proven time and again that it is capable of taking immediate measures when necessary. Just last week, the euro area Member States, the Commission and the ECB decided unanimously to support Spain in its effort to recapitalise its banking sector. This has again proven wrong those critics who say that we do not tackle our problems. On the contrary, our ability to react quickly shows our determination to tackle them head on.

However, we also need the perspective of the medium and long term. In the medium term, we must continue to implement what has been agreed, from the programme for Greece – and let me state here again that I believe Greece should stay in the euro area, assuming that it respects its commitments – to our proposals to address the more systemic issues, from setting up financial backstops, proposing initiatives for growth and reforming the financial sector to building a real economic union for the future, namely, through the steps that we have been taking on economic governance – the ‘six-pack’, which this Parliament has already approved, and the ‘two-pack’ that I hope we will also endorse today. We have been making progress on all of these areas, but I believe that more should be done.

For the longer term, I will urge the European Council to take concrete commitments towards a fully developed economic and monetary union and a process that maps out the steps to take to get there. More than ever, we need a strong ambition for Europe – ambition for the structural reforms that we need now, and ambition for the deeper economic and monetary union that we need to build in the medium and longer term.

The European Council will focus on growth. I will urge it to endorse a decisive commitment towards sustainable and jobs-rich growth. This growth can only come from a combination of sound public finances, deep structural reforms and targeted investment. At national level, at the end of the second European Semester, I am encouraged that Member States have clearly taken last year’s country-specific recommendations seriously, at least more seriously than in the previous year. Great efforts have been made to implement last year’s recommendations. But more needs to be done.

To supplement national action on jobs and growth, the European level should also be playing its part, and indeed it is playing its part. On unemployment, the biggest social challenge we face, the Commission has taken a number of measures, including refocusing Structural Funds, our youth employment initiative and adopting a major employment package, which I presented to you here in April.

Implementation on the ground is very much in the hands of the Member States, and I will continue to urge them at the European Council to take the social emergency situation very seriously. In some of our countries, we have worrying developments in terms of the rise of poverty and social exclusion.

On growth, the European Council should agree a growth initiative, building on the ideas we have put forward and which were well received at the informal European Council of 23 May. This includes a number of elements.

First, the reprogramming of Structural Funds, focusing them on growth and competitiveness.

Second, boosting investment at European level through increasing the lending capacity of the European Investment Bank, and project bonds – ideas I set out to this House for the first time in my State of the Union address in September last year. Now – it was about time! – they are building momentum. Two weeks ago, we agreed on our project bonds proposal to unlock up to EUR 4.6 billion in a pilot phase and I expect a clear decision on the EIB at the next European Council.

Third, we need to realise the full potential of the single market. I would like to see swift approval in the Council and the European Parliament for the measures of the Single Market Act 1, and the Commission will, moreover, present a Single Market Act II in the autumn. As you know, just last week, we presented a communication on the governance of the single market and how to reinforce it, as well as an analysis of the implementation of the Services Directive.

I believe that if the Heads of State or Government agree to these strategic orientations set out in this growth initiative, we should go further in cementing this approach. Many of the decisions that we need in order to deliver results must be taken by the European Parliament and the Council together. That is why, today, I want to propose that we conclude an interinstitutional agreement on the growth initiative. Given the urgency of the situation, it is important to prioritise key decisions. An interinstitutional agreement would set a fast timetable and get things moving. It would also be a strong message about our partnership – the partnership between Parliament, the Council and the Commission. It would also be a strong message about our determination for growth in the European Union. Moreover, it would ensure the required democratic legitimacy and involvement of the European Parliament, without whom we cannot advance and without which the Commission does not want to advance. On these issues that are so necessary and relevant to our citizens, it is indeed unthinkable that this directly-elected body that is an expression of European democracy could be sidelined.

(Applause)

On the matter of growth, it is highly appropriate that you singled out the European Union’s future budget to debate today. Quick adoption of the MFF would send an immediate signal that Europe is ready to invest in its future, that we are really serious about growth. It would send a strong message on our commitment to stability and responsibility, given the clear link we have proposed between the MFF and the European Semester of budgetary coordination. In other words, adoption of the MFF is a key stepping stone towards the deepening of economic and monetary union, and towards sustainable growth in Europe as a whole. However, the path ahead will not be easy. With reduced spending power at home, some Member States view the MFF as an extravagance to be minimised, and a potential source of savings to repatriate. This is a great mistake. Our budget is a budget for investment and for growth and I believe that we all agree that in current times, we need to combine stability and growth.

We need to dispel the myth that the EU budget is a budget for ‘Brussels’, for the EU structures or institutions. No – the EU budget is money for our regions, our cities, our rural areas. It is money for our citizens, our students, our workers, our entrepreneurs, our scientists, our farmers, our innovators. It is money for the unemployed and those who are afraid of being unemployed. It is money for the future of Europe and for all those who want to have a future in Europe.

We have a strategy for growth – Europe 2020 – and indeed we are preparing new initiatives for growth. The important issue now is to link the MFF and the programmes under the future budget with our overall growth strategy. If we agree that for growth, targeted public investment is necessary to complement structural reforms, then this needs to be reflected in our budget.

In many of our Member States, EU funds are the biggest and most stable source of public investment. Just as an example, since 2009, cohesion policy has been equivalent to 97% of total public investment in Hungary, 78% in Lithuania, and over 50% in Poland. What would the situation in these countries be without the contribution of the European budget? It has provided stability in times of crisis, but also flexibility in times of need.

These figures show that the European Union budget has a major impact for growth. At the same time, the MFF is in line with sound public finances. At around 1% of EU GDP and less than 2.5% of all public spending in the European Union, the EU budget is focused on priorities, and indeed its impact on deficit positions of Member States is minor. A cut of the Commission’s proposal by ‘at least EUR 100 billion’ over the seven-year period, as some Member States are proposing, would have an effect of 0.084% of the EU GDP on public finances and deficits. This is an amount that certainly does not make or break sound public finances in Europe!

Thus, the proposed financial framework for 2014-2020 is an essential piece of a medium- to long-term European growth and competitiveness agenda. The new rules governing EU spending will ensure that smart fiscal consolidation, investment funding and structural fund reforms will go together. The proposed new own resources, including the financial transaction tax, will improve transparency and provide new opportunities for fiscal consolidation and growth. This is the best recipe for growth in Europe.

Can our project be improved? Certainly, and we are very open to listen to proposals. That being said, I am also concerned with some ideas that threaten to unbalance what we have proposed. Take the idea to squeeze all the ‘off-budget items’ into the budget, from ITER to GMES. I fear that this will ultimately lead to further pressure on our margin for growth-oriented investments. I fear that this will endanger the other programmes in the different headings, from competitiveness to cohesion. I can assure you: for all items outside the MFF, the European Parliament will keep its full institutional prerogatives through the normal annual budget procedure. I hope that Parliament’s resolution on the MFF will take this into account.

We are now approaching the phase when the big strategic questions will be considered. While figures matter, we first need a serious look at design, modernisation and simplification, as well as the added value of the budget. In this, the Commission shares plenty of common ground with Parliament, which will adopt a resolution tomorrow. We will continue to press for Parliament’s early involvement in the negotiations, as the outcome will have major implications for the Union’s ability to generate growth, to demonstrate solidarity and to deliver on its common Europe 2020 objectives. I know that these will not be easy negotiations, but we are defending – and will continue to defend – our proposals very robustly.

At the core of this European Council will also be a discussion on the building blocks for the future of economic and monetary union. As you know, the European Council asked its President, in close cooperation with the President of the Commission, the President of the European Central Bank and the President of the Euro Group, to prepare a report that should propose a way forward. This report will be the start, not the end, of a process – a process that will be vital for anchoring our current efforts to ensure stability and growth in the longer term and a process in which the European Parliament should be involved from the early stages.

Let me be clear: Member States must pursue the deep structural reforms that are indispensable for Europe’s competitiveness and growth immediately. The longer term vision should not be seen as a substitute for those reforms, and national leaders must leave no doubt about this. But without confidence in the irreversibility of economic and monetary union, our prospects are limited. Therefore, we need a clear and credible commitment to a vision for the deepening of the union, combined with a process which maps out the main steps towards this goal. The process should generate a progressive dynamic. It would start with steps that could and should be taken immediately, leading to medium and longer term steps which might require treaty changes. Greater solidarity and greater responsibility must go hand in hand. Each step towards further solidarity would be accompanied by a corresponding step towards greater responsibility, and vice-versa.

Such a commitment will send a clear signal that the Member States and the EU institutions consider economic and monetary union and the euro as indispensable assets for Europe’s future. The main building blocks include moving towards a banking union and a fiscal union. The timing and nature of the process will vary for each building block. Some elements will require a higher degree of political integration with, in parallel, measures to ensure increased accountability and democratic legitimacy. To this end, the whole process must have the Community method as its guiding principle to ensure ever greater coherence, both on principles and on methods and instruments.

Here, a fundamental point needs to be made. The Commission believes that it is essential to pursue this process as far as possible with all Member States. We advocate further integration within the euro area. It is now evident that this is indispensable for the sustainability of our common currency, and we are happy to see that also outside the euro area, in Europe and outside Europe, there is now a consensus that we need further integration in the euro area. But under no circumstances must this be seen as an alternative to the integrity of the single market, or indeed the integrity of the Union as a whole. It must be seen as a mutually reinforcing process. Our economic relations bind us all: euro area members and non-euro members alike, our futures are linked.

This is why the treaties are clear – and I have to say this because the Commission is the Guardian of the Treaties – there is only one Union; there is only one European Parliament; there is only one European Commission. This is so because fragmentation is not an option. Financial stability and economic prosperity through economic and monetary union, and within it through the euro as common currency, are common goals – for those who are already in the common currency as much as for those who are preparing to join it.

We must recognise that some countries do have opt-outs. These opt-outs must be taken into appropriate account in the future architecture. But they remain the exception, not the rule. Those who wish to advance must be able to do so. But enhanced cooperation or properly circumscribed derogations can allow for this without creating a risk to the integrity of the European Union.

Let me now briefly sketch out the main building blocks. Financial integration is one area where major progress could quickly be made, even without treaty changes. Thus, the creation of a banking union appears as a natural priority. I see two major steps. First, we should accelerate the adoption of proposals already on the table. That means adopting the Commission’s proposal for a single rulebook – the capital requirements rules – and beyond that, the proposals we have made concerning deposit guarantees and bank resolution, including provisions to introduce solidarity via obligatory mutual lending between national funds.

Second, by autumn, the Commission could be ready to come forward with key proposals to introduce more integrated banking supervision and common deposit guarantee and resolution funds.

The full benefits from deepening the economic and monetary union and from creating the banking union can, however, only be reaped with the development of the fiscal union. Here, the immediate step is building on the effective coordination of fiscal and economic policies through the European Semester, including through the swift adoption of the ‘two-pack’ proposals.

Going beyond that, three further steps can be identified. First, we should further refine our financial backstops – the EFSM, the EFSF and its successor, the ESM – to strengthen our potential to intervene in support of financial stability.

Second, we need a serious discussion about the joint issuance and mutualisation of national debt in the form of stability bonds. This includes agreement on their preconditions, namely, much more joint decision making in all economic and budgetary matters. We will not achieve stability bonds without a greater degree of integration. In its Green Paper of November 2011, the Commission made public its ideas on how the euro area can move technically towards joint issuance of debt. A road map and a timetable will need to be worked out that also takes into account the need to build the necessary political and democratic momentum.

Third, other options for a deeper fiscal integration also need to be explored. Fiscal union is much more than just stability bonds. For instance, it also means more coordination in taxation policy and a much stronger European approach to budgetary matters, both at national and EU level. I have already discussed the EU budget in the context of the MFF. In the longer term, stronger solidarity mechanisms could play an even more important role.

I have already referred to the need to link the development of fiscal union with the development of political union. A deeper economic and monetary union requires deeper accountability and legitimacy. Making the technical proposals is, ironically, the easier part. But if the technical proposals are made without proper support throughout the European Union, we risk a backlash. Decisions of historic dimension need to be prepared, and the citizens need to be involved in the debate. We must work together to ensure this and we can only ensure it if the Community method remains at the heart of our move forward. I am convinced that this House, directly elected by the citizens, must and will play a crucial role in this respect: the European Parliament is the basis of European democracy.

This is one of the reasons why I deeply deplore the recent orientation taken in Council on our Schengen proposals and the European Parliament’s involvement in the relevant legislation.

(Applause)

This is the wrong signal to send at the wrong time on a core area of European construction in terms of freedom of movement. We need more, not less, parliamentary democracy in our union.

(Applause)

Allow me to finish by saying a very brief word on the G20 meeting next week. The EU representatives will be able to report on how Europe is meeting its difficulties with determination. We are not complacent about our difficulties, we will be open about them, but, at the same time, I hope that we will be proud to say what we are determined to achieve. For instance, the proposal we put forward last week on a common framework for banking crisis management and resolution makes Europe the first jurisdiction in the world to be delivering on all the G20 commitments to strengthen the regulation and supervision of the banking sector.

We can expect others in the world to point the finger at the European Union and the euro area as the source of all the world’s problems, including their own. It is always easier to talk about the problems of others in order to distract attention away from one’s own problems. But in the end, we all have challenges. Ultimately, these are common challenges. We need to address them together, also on the global scale.

Europe’s contribution must be far-reaching reforms. We need reforms in Europe. Europe’s contribution must also be a big step for an ever closer, ever stronger Union of stability and growth. I believe we have the right case to make and I thank you for your attention.

(Applause)

  Joseph Daul, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (FR) Mr President, Mr Wammen, Mr Barroso, ladies and gentlemen, it is time that the Member States tackled the real problems and had the courage to answer the real questions. It is time for the European Council to finally adopt tough measures on 28 and 29 June, rather than settle for fall-back mechanisms that are immediately overtaken by events.

For the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), these real questions in actual fact boil down to one: are we ready to make the necessary political leap to make the European Union and the euro area work? This is a question that could not be asked two years ago.

Are we both clear-headed and politically courageous enough to defend and organise shared political sovereignty, or are we going to allow our laws, our policies, our societal choices to be dictated by the financial markets and banks, as we have been doing for two years now, lurching from one crisis Council to the next?

(Applause)

We must assume our responsibilities once and for all. What we want is a European Union with a social and fiscal model, and we need to show this. This is a difficult time and, in times of crisis, we move forwards and not backwards.

We have to face reality and stop deluding ourselves. The reality is that no country in Europe can tackle global challenges, whether economic, social, demographic, military or political, single-handedly. We see this every day. Each Member State says, ‘I do not need Europe, I do not need Europe,’ and, the next day, it asks for help.

Members of the Council, the reality is that, over the last 60 years, we have achieved peace and prosperity and that this has been possible thanks to a method, the Community method. I believe deeply in this method, just as I am convinced that Europe is the solution and not the problem.

So, ladies and gentlemen, on 28 and 29 June, notwithstanding such important issues as economic governance, the credibility of the euro, and financial perspectives, the PPE Group will, first and foremost, call on the Member States to make a choice, a major choice that will determine the rest: do you want to ensure a future for Europeans and to focus on what is really important, which is to ensure strong political integration through the Community method?

Or do you prefer to keep on pretending that you have economic sovereignty only to find, the day after each summit, the day after each meeting of Finance Ministers, that the decisions taken are inadequate and untimely and that we are heading for disaster? Do you prefer, as you did on 7 June in relation to Schengen, to withdraw to your borders and fall back on your intergovernmental arrangements?

If you go for the first option, Parliament will be happy to work with you to find lasting solutions to the problems of our fellow citizens. However, if the Council stubbornly refuses to agree on the main issues, we will not see the light at the end of the tunnel in the short term.

Those are my requests to the Council. I would also like to request that the President of Parliament be finally given the opportunity to debate with the Heads of State or Government all the subjects that will affect the future of Europeans. The President of the Commission has his place in the Council, as does the President of the Central Bank. Is the democratically elected President not as worthy as the President of the Central Bank?

(Applause)

The person who represents 500 million Europeans, presides over the only institution elected by universal suffrage, and who leads the institution that legislates with the Council is asked to leave the Chamber after he has given his presentation. What democracy, what transparency can we demonstrate to the outside world? European integration cannot be achieved without the democratic legitimacy embodied by the European Parliament.

Mr Barroso, I will end by saying – and I know that you repeat things time and again, as we do, in this Chamber – that we need to continue to make recommendations. We need to continue to table new proposals on social and fiscal union and we must not be afraid to publicise them. Go ahead – Parliament is with you. We are the driving force behind the proposals, and the Council needs us in the difficult crisis situation in which it finds itself. It needs to find solutions and we need to put them on the table, even more so than we have done so far. You can count on us.

I would also like you to go further and publish, every three months, an up-to-date table of the economic and social measures on the internal market taken by each of our governments, both on the right and on the left. Europeans need to know which Member States are making an effort to get their public finances back in shape and to promote growth and jobs and are not just talking about doing so.

All these proposals need to be continued. We are going to haul Europe out of the crisis. Ladies and gentlemen, what the PPE Group wants is honesty with regard to our fellow citizens and, above all, a great deal of political courage.

(Applause)

  Daniel Cohn-Bendit (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, I would just like to say that, if ever a person has been liberated by an election, then Mr Daul has been liberated by the defeat of President Sarkozy.

  Joseph Daul (PPE). – (FR) I think I have always had the courage to say what I think and I have had it all my life. It is the only thing I inherited from my father, who told me, ‘Take care never to be taken hostage,’ and whenever I was taken hostage, it never lasted more than two days, I assure you, Mr Cohn-Bendit.

  Hannes Swoboda, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (DE) Mr President, I hope that everyone who applauded Mr Daul today will provide evidence when it comes to the ‘two-pack’ that what Mr Daul said is also the opinion of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), for example, and that we really will find the solutions that we need to overcome the crisis. Mr Daul, we will see this afternoon how serious that applause was. Nonetheless, we applaud you for what you said.

(Applause)

Mr Barroso, you have offered us an interinstitutional agreement. My group is prepared to go along with that. There is no point in having an agreement, however, unless it has substance. If it amounts to nothing more than us saying that we now need completion of the internal market and austerity, and all that will bring growth – which remains the majority opinion to date, even among governments – then there is no point in such an agreement. Moreover, there is only a point to the agreement if we actually pass real measures at the time of the upcoming summit. After all, am I supposed to say to the many millions of young unemployed people that, although they do not have a job, we can give them an interinstitutional agreement? They will hardly be enthralled by that.

I do not want to mock what you have said; I take it seriously. I simply want to draw attention to what it is that we really need. We need swift decisions, and swift decisions in the coming days. We have a debt problem, the debts are growing and not reducing because our Heads of Government still have not grasped what this is all about and do not have the courage to tackle what you have proposed and what we have proposed in order to solve the debt problem together.

All of a sudden, there is talk of a banking union. If you recall, ladies and gentlemen, we proposed that two years ago. The Commission was moving in that direction, and the government officials and the finance ministers said ‘No, no, no, that is going much too far’ and ‘European supervision of the banks must be reduced – we need more national regulation’. It has taken the Heads of Government two years to think it over. At present, the Heads of Government need two years to arrive at the right ideas. The same is true of other things that you mentioned, Mr Barroso. That is the situation at the moment.

We recently had a large conference involving young people from all over Europe which was not linked to any political party. There were a great many young people there who had done something, rather than just complaining that nothing was happening. They had established small businesses, created start-ups. However, what they were asking was where there was currently any demand, where they could sell their products, who was now ensuring that there is growth, who was investing in infrastructure.

That is why I am saying that, yes, we can talk very earnestly about an agreement, but now is the time for action. Once again, I can only quote from The Economist. You will see it and recognise it. The ship is in deep water and the question is – a question I can only agree with:

Please can we start the engine now, Ms Merkel? Yes, we have to start the engine now and not in one or two years, when it is too late.

(DE) Let me now also say something about the budget, which, after all, is an element of the growth strategy. At the moment, a lot of people are saying, ‘We want the growth, but we do not want the budget – or we want a reduced budget’. What kind of nonsense is that? It is precisely in the many elements of the budget that we find aspects of a growth strategy – much more so than in national budgets.

I would like to quote somebody who is not a socialist, but rather a fellow Member of your party, Mr Lewandowski, and that is Poland’s finance minister, who said to me in conversation that everyone is talking about how we must invest more in research and development and not so much in infrastructure and the Cohesion Fund, but we also need resources for growth; we also need ways to invest in all the regions that are still in a very poor economic position.

(Applause)

That is why it makes no sense to simply cut this budget; instead, we have to use it more efficiently and sensibly. However, if we talk about being more competitive, if we say that we have to do something to make us competitive globally as well, then we cannot cut the budget – which is a small budget in any case, but which is an element of this strategy, and it is an element that we absolutely cannot do without. That is why we have to go down this road together.

I warmly welcome the fact that you attended the Friends of Cohesion summit in Bucharest, Mr Barroso – even if you came in for some criticism. The statement could have been somewhat more strongly worded, for, on one side, there are those who want to do nothing but cut and cut and cut again and, on the other, just words. However, a good initiative has been established, because we cannot just listen to those who constantly say that we have to cut resources – we also have to listen to those who are using these resources.

Moreover, a distinction is being made between net contributors and net beneficiaries, as if one were the good guys and the other the poor people receiving alms. The net beneficiaries are not being given alms; they are receiving a good share so that they can expand their economies. I am from Austria, a net contributor country, and I know very well that my country is also profiting a great deal from the fact that Hungary, Romania, Poland and many other countries are receiving EU funding. Let us therefore do away with this division into good net contributors and bad net beneficiaries.

(Applause)

Finally, Mr President, with just a few exceptions, we were unanimous yesterday in telling the Council that the way decisions were made on Schengen is not acceptable. I hope we can retain this unanimity when it comes to the budget, that we will send a clear message to the Council, and also to all those who blindly want to make cuts everywhere, that this is not acceptable. If we cannot reach agreement – I appreciate what you said, Mr Wammen – then we will just have to go to the 2013 budget and update it. We can live with that. I hope the Council can live with it too.

(Applause)

  Guy Verhofstadt, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (FR) Mr President, I think that Joseph Daul pinched my text, because I do not have much more to say now after his speech. No, really, for the first time, I have almost nothing to add ...

(Exclamation from Mr Daul: ‘The groups are going to merge’.)

I do not know if they should merge. Rather, we are going to take the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) back from you. That seems like a good idea.

Let us be clear, the Council has just agreed on a bail-out of EUR 100 billion for the Spanish banks, and what is the consequence? Let us face it, because it is alarming: it is that the markets do not believe us. On Monday, yesterday, the spreads had gone up dramatically to more than 500 basic points, even nearly 600 basic points for Spain; nearly 500 basic points also for Italy. We have to ask what is happening. Are they mad or are we mad? Are we seeing things properly?

Well, I think we all know the answer in this House – maybe not the ECR and maybe not UKIP, but I think that everybody else can see that unless we find a structural and a global solution to the crisis, we will simply continue fire-fighting as we are doing now. Because that is what we are doing, fire-fighting, and fighting one fire after the other. Greece first, then Ireland, then Portugal, then Spain, and tomorrow, you may be sure, Italy. Not setting up a systemic answer, a structural solution to the crisis and not building a real firewall that can resist.

What do we need? We know what we need. Three things: a banking union with a deposit guarantee scheme, with a single supervisor – what this Parliament already asked for two years ago and was refused by the Council. This deposit guarantee scheme is a proposal on the table and yet the Council is not even able to agree on a common position on that proposal.

The second thing we know also: a fiscal union including a redemption fund – the one we will vote on today in the ‘two-pack’, so there is no need for an initiative from the Council or the Commission about that. They simply need to respond to the legislative proposal of the Parliament in the coming days and weeks.

Finally, we know what we really need, which is a political union with a real economic government. So my plea to you, Mr Barroso, is to say that speeches here, speeches in the Council and recommendations from the Commission are all very well, but what we need now are legislative proposals from your side put directly on the table of the Council and Parliament on a banking union, on a fiscal union and on a political union.

There is no need to wait for an agreement between France and Germany and Italy and Spain. You have the right of initiative; you can make things happen and move forward. Put your proposals on the table on a redemption fund, and put your proposals on the table for a real banking union. Do it now, in the next weeks, because I am not sure that on 28 and 29 June, our leaders in the Council will agree on a banking union and can agree on a redemption fund.

Finally, on the multiannual financial framework (MFF) and own resources, I regret one thing, which is that neither the Council nor the Commission have said one word, one phrase, on something that is the most crucial element of this multiannual financial framework which is, finally, to come back to the initial idea of the founding fathers and to make a direct link between the citizens and the European Union. There is no real democracy in Europe if you only have a parliament with no say in the resources of its institutions. In every parliament, in every country, in every democratic country in the world, the parliament has a direct say on the resources of the country, on the resources of the state. So that is what we need most now in these discussions and in this debate, and I can tell you that there will be no consent from our group to the multiannual financial framework if there are no own resources in this multiannual financial framework.

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

  Roger Helmer (EFD), Blue-card question. –Mr Verhofstadt, you say that we must not keep muddling through, that we need a systemic, comprehensive, universal solution to the problems which we face. I agree. You are absolutely right. But surely it is time to recognise that the euro has failed, that the European Union has failed and that the solution is to start to dismantle both. Why is it you call for more Europe, when you are surrounded by the ruin of Europe. Why are you trying to reinforce failure?

  Guy Verhofstadt (ALDE), Blue-card answer. – I am more of the opinion of David Cameron. Two or three days ago he said something like: ‘Oh, the eurozone needs to solve its problems. We need a real union and real union of the eurozone. We need an economic union in the eurozone; we need a fiscal union in the eurozone; we need a political union in the eurozone!’ That is what David Cameron said. He is now the best of federalists – outside the eurozone, naturally! He stays outside, but he has a message to give us.

What is Barack Obama saying? ‘Oh, the Europeans have to solve their problems. They have to create a union’. The problem is not Europe in this crisis, the problem is that there is not enough Europe – that is the real problem of the crisis today.

(Applause)

We shall only overcome that problem if we finally regain the courage to use the words and the message of Monnet and of Schuman, who worked for a real federal Europe. ‘Federal Europe’ is not a buzzword, Federal Europe is the solution.

(Applause)

  Daniel Cohn-Bendit, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in this debate, in which everyone is talking about a political Europe and European sovereignty, I want to examine the definition of sovereignty. There will only be political sovereignty if Europe has financial sovereignty. Otherwise, it will not work. I would like to give you a brief, very practical, illustration based on the problem we are now facing. Mr Verhofstadt is right: we will only achieve financial sovereignty if Europe manages to obtain its own resources.

What does that mean? It simply means that, today, the Member States, including the French Government, are saying, ‘We can no longer increase the national contribution’. Fine! Let us accept the situation! It is up to them to decide.

However, if, as the Commission has proposed, as we have discussed, we have a financial transaction tax, a European carbon tax, a mobile phone tax, these three possibilities – and I could give you others – would bring in an extra EUR 40 to 50 billion for the European budget.

From this point on, the discussion becomes completely absurd. Now, we are told, ‘All right, if you have own resources, we will give all these resources back to the Member States’. The Commission’s much-vaunted proposal on the financial transaction tax posits a ‘two thirds/one third’ distribution. In other words, a third will be given directly to Member States, and the remaining two thirds to be allocated to the European Union will be deducted from national contributions.

Consequently, 100% is given back to the Member States. There is no own resource. It is a resource diverted to the Member States and not a resource for the European Union. This will not enable us to move forward. Furthermore, the Council then tells us, ‘And you are going to further reduce the European budget’.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is not an abstract debate. It is the very basis of the so-called political sovereignty of Europe. If we accept that own resources are resources for the Member States and not resources for the European budget, where do we go from here? We do not have to accept this sort of horse-trading. We do not have to say yes.

The only possibility for Europe to be able to invest in order to create jobs and to sustain the cohesion funds is through increasing the European budget. Let us accept that national contributions are unable to finance it. However, own resources are the way to increase the European budget precisely to sustain the deficits of the economies of the Member States. It is not for the European Parliament that we want own resources; it is for the citizens of Europe.

That is why I believe that the fight we are going to get into now, which will be a fight over the question ‘Do we accept that the budget should stay at its current level?’, would be a mistake. The truth is that, if there is no real increase in the European budget which will ensure that own resources become resources for the budget and not simply a return of resources to the Member States, if we do not have this power, this capacity, then, despite all the talk of European sovereignty and the need for more Europe, we will not succeed in delivering the necessary policies.

It is our legitimacy, it is our credibility as Europeans that we are defending. That is why, when it comes to financial perspectives, we must say to the Council and to the Member States, ‘Do not assume that, this time, Parliament is going to lie down. You will see that you will not have any financial perspectives if you do not move consistently. Otherwise, stay at home! You are spending too much money with your summits and that is pointless’.

  Martin Callanan, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, Europe is facing yet another in its long line of crises, only this time, in my view, it is fast becoming a crisis of the legitimacy of the EU itself.

Many of us warned that a monetary union with a light touch, which was envisaged in the Maastricht Treaty, could not work and, for a single currency to succeed, significant centralisation of power would be required – a centralisation which, for many of us, was totally unacceptable. That is where the EU finds itself today. It is bringing more centralisation upon itself in what is an increasingly desperate attempt to get ahead of the crisis, which so far it has completely failed to do.

When the markets are unimpressed, when the Spanish banks are lent EUR 100 billion, then there is a clear signal that the failure is continuing. This latest Spanish bailout lasted barely 24 hours before it was, as Mr Verhofstadt said, being questioned on the markets. If I can use a somewhat crude analogy, it is a little bit like wetting your pants at the North Pole. At first it feels warm and comforting, but very quickly you realise just how much trouble you are in fact in.

Let me make two points. First, it would be unacceptable that the measures it is proposed we take should fall upon those who proposed originally to steer clear of this risky venture and, second, those countries who signed up to join a single currency with one set of governing rules should not now be obliged to join a single currency with a completely different set of governing rules. So those countries that are not yet in the euro should be released from their obligation to join.

Over the last 20 years, the EU has become ever more out of touch with public opinion, and that has shown in many recent elections and referendums. The people of Europe are becoming increasingly worried about centralisation, and about the remoteness of those who are gaining more power in the EU by the day. In no area is this seen more starkly than the management of the EU budget. The Commission talks about synergies, about investments, about added value, and the public just sees waste, mismanagement and fraud.

An even bigger budget is being requested. The public just wonders why it is that for 17 years in succession, the budget has been implemented with significantly high levels of illegal or irregular payments. People here are complaining that the concept of value for money is somehow getting in the way of European solidarity. The public just wonders how on earth one can justify wanting even more money when the money already being spent is spent so badly.

To win back public legitimacy and regain trust, the EU needs to take reform seriously, it needs to respond to the needs of the people and not impose ideas upon them. Make no mistake, when we are facing so many different crises on so many fronts, we are very fast running out of time.

(Applause from the ECR Group)

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

  President. – Before I invite the first speaker to take the floor, I have a very pleasant announcement to make. Today is Mr Lewandowski’s birthday. I would like to wish him many happy returns of the day.

(Applause)

Mr Lewandowski, it is hard to imagine a more enjoyable present for your birthday than this debate!

  Graham Watson (ALDE), Blue-card question. – Mr President, Mr Callanan is among those who urge the European Union to get its act together. But does he not accept that if the European Union is going to be a success as a monetary union – without the UK, as seems to be the case – then it will need to do things which will have an impact on the United Kingdom. Therefore, it is illogical to call for the European Union to sort out the problems which it faces and yet to say that it may do nothing that will in any way impinge upon the single market.

Does Mr Callanan not accept that if the European Union is to do this, it will need an adequate budget to do so?

  Martin Callanan (ECR), Blue-card answer. – I accept that, for a single currency to work, there has to be a whole series of different measures. There have to be significant fiscal transfers from the richer states to the poorer states.

It is fine for me to say that as somebody who is quite happily outside the single currency. If I were a German taxpayer, I might have one or two concerns about it.

As for this issue of the budget – that somehow a euro spent at European level somehow magically appears from this magical money tree without any impact on national budgets – I just say one thing. It is surely illogical for the Commission – for Mr Lewandowski and Mr Barroso – to be saying to Member States: ‘you have to impose austerity, you have to reduce your budget, you have to get your fiscal balances under control – oh, but by the way, we want more of your cash taken to a European level to spend on your behalf because we know how to spend it better than you do’.

Member States are not sitting there with large piles of cash. They are all running fiscal deficits. What the Commission is saying to them is: ‘We want you to add to your fiscal deficit in order to give us more money because somehow our spending lots of money at a European level will solve the crisis’. Frankly, only a Liberal Democrat could believe that would be the solution to the crisis.

(Applause)

  Nigel Farage, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Mr President, another one bites the dust. Country No 4, Spain, gets bailed out, and we all of course know that it will not be the last.

However, I wondered over the weekend whether perhaps I was missing something, because the Spanish Prime Minister, Mr Rajoy, said that this bailout shows what a success the eurozone has been. I thought, well, having listened to him over the previous couple of weeks telling us there would not be a bailout, I have the feeling, after all his twists and turns, that he is just about the most incompetent leader in the whole of Europe – and that is saying something because there is pretty stiff competition! Indeed, every single prediction of yours, Mr Barroso, has been wrong, and dear old Herman Van Rompuy, well, he has done a runner has he not? The last time he was here, he told us we had turned the corner and that the euro crisis was over; he has not bothered to come back and see us since.

I remember being here 10 years ago and listening to the launch of the Lisbon Agenda. We were told that with the euro, by 2010, we would have full employment and, indeed, that Europe would be the competitive and dynamic powerhouse of the world. By any objective criteria, the euro has failed and, in fact, there is a looming impending disaster.

This deal makes things worse, not better. EUR 100 billion is being put up for the Spanish banking system and 20% of that money has to come from Italy. Under the deal, the Italians have to lend to the Spanish banks at 3%, but to get that money they have to borrow on the markets at 7%. It is genius, is it not! It really is brilliant.

So what we are doing with this package is actually driving countries like Italy towards needing to be bailed out themselves. In addition to that, we have put a further 10% on Spanish national debt and I will tell you – and any banking analyst will tell you – that EUR 100 billion will not solve the Spanish problem; it would need to be more like EUR 400 billion.

With Greece teetering on the edge of euro withdrawal, the real elephant in the room is that once Greece leaves, the European Central Bank is bust. It is gone. It has EUR 444 billion worth of exposure to the bailed-out countries and to rectify that there will need to be a cash call on Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Greece and Italy! You could not make it up, could you? It is total and utter failure. This ship – the Euro Titanic – has now hit the iceberg and, sadly, there simply are not enough lifeboats.

  Gabriele Zimmer, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (DE) Mr President, Mr Wammen, Mr Barroso, ladies and gentlemen, I do not agree with the prophesies of doom that have just been made. However, I would like to make it clear that a fiscal union based on the ‘two-pack’ is, in my opinion, tantamount to declaring the old European idea bankrupt. Once again, Parliament is having to catch up with events. That is my concern.

At the end of June, a summit will be held and we are preparing for it. It will go ahead, the family photos will be taken and people will behave as if everything will go on as before with a few minor changes. However, we are already right in the middle of the changes. We are still hearing the old fairy stories about the good old EU. It seems, and this is one point which I would like to highlight in particular, that the initiatives are contradictory. One amounts to the introduction of supranational structural policies and the other consists of the increasing renationalisation of policies during the course of the crisis. These are two sides of the same coin, in other words, a fiscal and banking union to allow the EU to continue as a neoliberal project on a new level. This is accompanied on both sides by massive cuts in social services, drastic reductions in public spending and more stringent sanction mechanisms. Part of the logic of this way of thinking is that the parliaments and, in particular, the European Parliament should be marginalised.

Therefore, I strongly support the protests against the separation and renationalisation of elements of the Schengen Agreement. For this reason, I am very much in favour of Parliament making a clear statement about the multiannual financial framework and not allowing itself to be pushed aside. The Community method must not be replaced by the Union method. This must not happen. The institutions rely on one another and if one institution tries to reduce the power of the others, the result will be the collapse of the idea of the European Union. I would like to make this clear in the light of the multiannual financial framework.

It is also important for us to talk about the fact that the original EU subsidy policy has now been reinterpreted. Funds which were intended to reduce the discrepancies between the Member States and the regions are now being used to create a multispeed EU – it is no longer possible to talk only about two speeds – and to increase the competition to attract new businesses between the regions within the European Union. The weak must remain weak and the funding will go to areas where global competitive strengths can be increased and market orientation is needed. This is why the macro-economic conditionalities are being introduced and why subsidies for the regions are being abolished if the Member States fail to meet the criteria of the Stability and Growth Pact. It is both absurd and cruel for you to penalise the people who live in these regions on several levels. You know exactly what I am talking about in this context.

Instead, we need sustainable growth which focuses on strengthening the public sector and on public responsibility. This is why I believe that you have the wrong priorities and the wrong conditions. This makes discussion about a different Europe more difficult. Why are you blackmailing the Greek voters? Why are you criticising all the serious initiatives and alternatives that come not only from those on the left but also from academics in several European countries. They are saying that we need to open up a window which will allow us to gain some time and to link the two serious concerns of the Greek people together. They want to stay in the euro area and they want conditions that will allow them to survive and to live normal lives. We in Parliament must commit ourselves to achieving this.

  Lucas Hartong (NI). – (NL) Mr President, today we are debating the EU multiannual budget after 2013. The EU wants to spend more money, but that money simply is not there. The EU wants its own revenues – read taxes. In case you have missed it: we are in the midst of a crisis with severe consequences for our citizens.

So let us be absolutely clear: the Dutch Party for Freedom (PPV) is against the EU’s own resources and, along with other Member States, is demanding a drastic reduction in the EU’s multiannual budget of at least EUR 100 billion. If we follow this reasoning, we come to the conclusion that democracy is not guaranteed here, but in Member States, where it belongs. Fortunately, each of the Member States has a veto when deciding whether or not to approve the multiannual budget.

If it were up to the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament and the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, then all of them would continue to enjoy a nice snooze while the importance of Dutch sovereignty is frittered away. However, we do still believe in the nation state that decides if any, and how much, money will be spent outside the national borders.

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

  László Surján (PPE), Blue-card question. – I should like to ask Mr Hartong whether he has read the Lisbon Treaty, under which own resources are not a wish, but an obligation.

  Lucas Hartong (NI), Blue-card answer. – (NL) Mr Surján, thank you for your question. The answer is quite straightforward. The Dutch population previously rejected the Treaty of Lisbon with a large majority. We did not want it then, we do not want it now, nor do we accept it. Unfortunately, the fact of the matter is that Europe is going over the heads of Dutch citizens in making decisions and we do not want that any longer.

  President. – Mr Hartong, unfortunately I have to inform you that the Dutch people rejected the constitution. They ratified the Treaty of Lisbon. Perhaps you should check this again.

  Herbert Reul (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, about a year ago, Parliament decided by a large majority to adopt the ‘six-pack’. We were forging ahead with a strong sense of cooperation. We agreed that, in order to solve the problems, we needed to put in place active, realistic austerity measures. We are now in the process of adopting the ‘two-pack’ and the cooperation is suddenly no longer working. The compromise in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs has failed because some of the groups have stopped collaborating. All of a sudden, we are hearing people here saying things like ‘We simply need to spend more money and our problems will be solved’, but everybody knows that this is nonsense. Where will the money actually come from? There are limits to what can be expected of other groups of Europe’s citizens, in terms of how much they will be prepared to spend. On the other hand, is what Mr Cohn-Bendit just said true? In that case, we must raise taxes and ask the citizens to pay up once again. This is just the same old response, the same old story that has never worked.

No, we must take the difficult route, which means saving and making sure that the money we have – and we do still have money in Europe – is spent intelligently and in the right places. Is the money that we have being used where it is needed and is it having the impact that we promised ourselves? Where are the reports on what is happening, the checks and the consideration of whether we are doing the right thing? Qualification measures, spending money correctly, putting incentives in place, creating trust and taking a long-term approach are what is required.

Ladies and gentlemen, we cannot buy growth. That is simply ridiculous. We have to work for growth. We need to create the right conditions for growth so that people can bring it about and we need to make sure that we stay on the right track.

  Ivailo Kalfin (S&D). – Mr President, it makes absolutely no sense to talk about growth if we do not create the instruments for growth. The European Union budget is one of the strongest instruments for providing growth in Europe.

This is not like the national budgets. This is not just another tax burden for the citizens. The EU budget is not just another item of expenditure in national budgets. It is small but it is efficient. It creates economies of scale, it creates economies of scope and it can direct investments at European level at very targeted goals.

The EU budget is currently 44 times less than national budgets in Europe. It costs every European citizen a coffee per day. That is the cost of Europe to European citizens. At the same time, it has decreased over the last 20 years by 20% in relative terms, whereas national budgets have increased in recent years. In 2011, 23 out of 27 countries increased their national budgets. In 2012, 24 out of 27 countries increased their national budgets. So I would argue that, if anything, Europe is becoming weaker because the EU budget is becoming weaker and national budgets are becoming stronger. This is what has happened in recent years.

The European Union budget goes back to the Member States. Ninety-four percent of the EU budget goes back to the Member States. For example, I have met a Polish Minister who said that for every one euro invested in cohesion policy, nearly 70 cents go back to the old Member States, to the contributors. From the investments made in cohesion between 2000 and 2006, we have 0.7% growth in Europe and that might reach 4% later on. So when we speak about the EU budget, this is not a budget which is spent badly.

By the way, Mr Callanan, the European Court of Auditors said that the UK is one of the examples with the highest error rate in spending EU money. This is not a reason to decrease the EU budget. You have to fix the systems in the United Kingdom. When we speak about own resources, this means that we have to decrease national contributions. That would help the consolidation of the national budgets so we would very much insist on what …

(The President cut off the speaker)

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

  William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD), Blue-card question. – I do not see how you can possibly say that the EU budget is efficient when the EU budget is a byword for corruption, waste and fraud.

  Ivailo Kalfin (S&D), Blue-card answer. – I have already mentioned that the Court of Auditors says that the error rate – or the fraud, in other words – occurs in several countries, including the UK. However, this is not the fault of the EU budget, it is the fault of the national systems.

And if that is indeed the image of the EU budget in the UK, then it is a pity.

(Applause)

  Anne E. Jensen (ALDE). – (DA) Mr President, as a Member of Parliament’s negotiating delegation for the Medium-Term Budgetary Framework (MTBF), I would like to begin by thanking the Danish Presidency and its Minister for Europe, Mr Wammen, and his team for the sound, open and trusting collaboration that we have enjoyed. You have listened to us, and we have enjoyed a heads-up about what was on the way.

This is a major package. It is not, after all, just about the economic framework; it also involves almost 60 different legislative proposals that establish future agricultural policy, the rules for the Structural Funds, for research programmes, for educational programmes, for transport investments and investments in energy. It is thus an enormous complex that is now to be adopted, and it seems to me that you have handled it well.

It has been said many times today that the budget is an important tool to ensure growth and jobs, and it is important that we should have this multiannual framework in order to make it possible to plan investments and to provide certainty in respect of the common agricultural policy. But, and it is a big but, 2020, which is the year up to which the framework runs, is a long way away, and there has to be flexibility, as unforeseen events could happen before 2020. We need flexibility both in the shape of reserves and in the shape of the ability to re-jig funds if we find we want to change our priorities at some point in the future.

Let me illustrate using the example that, six months after the last time one of these budget frameworks was adopted, the Russians turned off the gas supply to Bulgaria, whereupon we discovered that we needed an EU energy policy. There was no money to support such an energy policy, however. We came up with a solution by finding unused money within the agricultural budget, but it is not certain that we will be able to do so in future. There is thus a need for flexibility, and that will continue to be the case in the future.

  Helga Trüpel (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, Mr Wammen, Mr Barroso, we need to achieve three things in the European Union. We must consolidate our budgets, introduce structural reforms and take targeted measures to stimulate growth, for psychological reasons, so that we can give the citizens of Europe new hope and also overcome our common problems.

Mr Wammen began his speech today by saying: ‘Europe needs growth and Europe needs jobs’. At the same time, Denmark belongs to the club of net contributors who want to cut the European budget. How stupid, short-sighted and un-European! The multiannual financial framework is one of the instruments for growth that we urgently need. We must achieve our common goals: collecting taxes and introducing the financial transaction tax, because it is a fair instrument. We must finally get around to implementing it.

It is only fair for the banks at last to contribute to financing the crisis. That must not only be the job of the taxpayers. The responsibility for dealing with the crisis must not be unloaded onto them. The proposal made by Mr Lewandowski is a good one. You have finally realised that we need to make progress with the financial transaction tax now. Two-thirds of it must be used as own resources for the European budget. The Member States will have one benefit from this. They will need to contribute less money to the European budget and, in addition, they will have another incentive. They will be saving their own money and we will be able to finance our cross-border policies jointly.

Therefore, I would like to promote this idea once again. It is not a radical left-wing proposal, Ms Merkel. Mr Lewandowski belongs to your own group of parties and, what is so important, we can implement this proposal in 2012. If everyone were to join in, we would have EUR 47 billion of additional revenue by 2014.

Ladies and gentlemen, Ms Merkel and all the other Heads of State or Government, how can anyone be so stupid that they do not want to understand that the European budget is the democratic element which will stimulate growth in Europe, with the involvement of Parliament. We in Parliament and the Council must finally summon up the courage to implement this sensible policy.

  Jan Zahradil (ECR). – (CS) Mr President, it feels distinctly sad to be sitting in a body, the majority of whose members have lost touch with reality, as is the case with the European Parliament. That majority still think, moreover, that they represent the citizens of Europe. The words spoken here by Mr Verhofstadt and Mr Cohn-Bendit are, unfortunately, not isolated views, but convictions clearly shared by the majority of the European Parliament. The majority here actually believe that it is possible to build some kind of unified, centralised federal state in place of the EU. The demands to introduce own resources for the European budget unfortunately belong to the rhetorical toolbox of this federalist tendency. Giving the European budget its own resources will clearly allow the European Parliament and the Commission to inflate the budget. It will weaken the link between Member States – which are the foundation stones of European integration – and the European level. It will also allow the Commission and the European Parliament to further circumvent the Member States. For this reason, such a principle is unacceptable. I hope that the European Council and those governments that still retain some sanity will say a clear and emphatic ‘no’ to this plan.

  Marta Andreasen (EFD). – Mr President, an astronomical amount of taxpayers’ money has been given to Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain by the EU since 2010: EUR 285 billion. You heard me correctly – EUR 285 billion!

What has happened to this money? The EU’s failure to keep tabs on funding means that nobody can know for sure. Now, more money is wanted to waste on promoting deeper European integration.

The Lisbon Agenda was a disaster. Can anyone here say that Europe is the most dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world? Only if they are an ostrich.

Now the EU wants to pour billions more into the 2020 plan. The new own resources being proposed, namely the financial transaction tax, mean that this money will be even more unaccountable. This House, in approving this framework, is voting for a continuation of the last ten wasteful years. I shudder at that thought.

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

IN THE CHAIR: GEORGIOS PAPASTAMKOS
Vice-President

  Ana Gomes (S&D), Blue-card question. – Mr President, does Ms Andreasen accept that she is totally wrong when she says that money has been given to Portugal, Greece, Ireland and the other countries bailed out. This money has not been given; this money has been lent. Even Mr Klaus Regling, the Head of the European Stabilisation Fund, has been saying that this money has been gaining interest for the countries which are lending, and outrageous interest!

(Applause)

  Marta Andreasen (EFD), Blue-card answer. – Mr President, Ms Gomes is wrong. She is talking about something different. The EUR 285 billion is the EU budget that was paid into these Member States. This money is not to be returned and it does not earn any interest.

Ms Gomes, you are confused. I am not talking about the bailout. I am talking about the EU budget that was supposed to grow the economies of the countries concerned and did not grow those economies.

  Takis Hadjigeorgiou (GUE/NGL). – (EL) Mr President, economic union can only exist if the citizens of Europe, regardless of their home State, feel that their State is participating pari passu in such union. Participation pari passu means fair redistribution of European GDP. Participation pari passu means that German citizens and Maltese citizens participate pari passu in the election of Union leaders.

As regards States’ debts, where those debts accrued because the system generated debts for one State while, for the same reasons, generating profits for another State, the only solution is to write off those debts. It is also high time the European Central Bank started lending to States, rather than banks. The Union’s needs and objectives cannot be serviced by economies that decimate the prosperity of its citizens.

As regards the method of financing the Union, successive adjustments to the system have benefited the most wealthy Member States, because some such countries, which apparently are paying a contribution to the EU budget of over 10%, are, in fact, paying less than 1% of their per capita GDP. A budget financing system based on traditional own resources, in conjunction with the abolition of corruption and discounts, would be the most advantageous, because it is more in keeping with the principles of justice and solidarity.

  Hans-Peter Martin (NI). – (DE) Mr President, among many of us pro-Europeans, the mood is one of alarmed horror at what is currently happening in Europe. Nonetheless, it is pleasing that people are now speaking out much more clearly about what we are dealing with, and that we are not turning a blind eye to Italy either.

Members of the Commission – and these comments are addressed to the Council, too – you know yourselves that you are stuck in a number of traps, not just as regards debt and growth, but also as regards confidence, and in the power trap. I regret to say that, so far, you have, in fact, failed to tackle the central issue, which is that the financial sector has become detached from the real economy. Whatever we have decided here, the experts constantly counter this by saying that still no serious boundaries have been imposed on the shadow banking sector, there are still systemic risks, that the issue of ‘too big to fail’ has still not been appropriately addressed – and we need hardly mention the ratings agencies.

If you are currently preparing for the Council summit, then I can only urge and advise you to restore credibility in Europe by dealing seriously with the issue of the balance of power between the financial sector and the real economy. In plain terms, you need to be seen by Europeans to be at last working credibly to keep the banks in check, so that our citizens do not always have to bear the burden.

  Alain Lamassoure (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to acknowledge the excellent cooperation between the European Parliament delegation and the Danish Presidency on the budgetary framework and to extend my personal thanks to Mr Wammen.

The negotiations for the next framework will begin before Europe has emerged from the debt crisis. Contrary to what people think in some capitals, the European budget is not just one more problem. On the contrary, it contains part of the solution.

For, what is everyone clamouring for? Budgetary discipline? Long live the European budget! It is the only budget in the world to have always complied with the golden rule and, for ten years, it has increased less than all the national budgets.

Are we calling for national contributions to be reduced? Long live the financial transaction tax, which is to be allocated to the European budget to lighten national budgets accordingly!

Are we desperately searching for future investments? Long live the European budget! It enables us to achieve the critical mass in terms of scientific research, networks and renewable sources of energy that no country would achieve on its own. A euro well spent in Brussels saves several euro at national level.

Finally, in some capitals, we are even asking for an additional stage – that of a political Europe. Long live the European budget! The credibility of European professions of faith, which are heard here and there, will be measured by the position taken on the financing of EU policies.

IN THE CHAIR: ALEJO VIDAL-QUADRAS
Vice-President

  Göran Färm (S&D). – Mr President, the economic crisis is one of the reasons why a broad majority in this Parliament defends the EU budget. We are convinced that the budget is necessary to finance strategic investments in the internal market and its infrastructure, crucially needed in order to boost jobs, sustainable growth and competitiveness. I therefore very much welcome the broad agreement on my report on project bonds.

In this situation, we must avoid deep splits between institutions and Member States, particularly between richer net payer countries and the poorer ones. In this situation, we must build bridges, not dig trenches.

Let me focus on the negotiations on the financial framework. They are complicated, as several different procedures are involved. Codecision on sector programmes, consent on the MFF as such – meaning a veto for the European Parliament – a right for Parliament to be heard on own resources, and, on top of that, an interinstitutional agreement.

This is not easy, so let us speak clearly. This Parliament, elected to represent the citizens, will not accept that Member States’ leaders take decisions in areas subject to codecision such as Structural Funds, research, agricultural infrastructure, etc., without a full codecision procedure. That procedure can be finalised only when we have an agreement on the financial envelopes.

Two, the positions on the MFF agreed by the European Council must be negotiated between Parliament and the General Affairs Council in order to get our consent. A fait accompli will not be accepted.

Three, Parliament and Council should have fully-fledged negotiations on all MFF-related aspects and programmes before deciding on figures and finalising the MFF package.

To conclude, I agree with Mr Wammen: nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, but that includes MFF ceilings and legislative programmes as well as own resources. I am quite convinced that we will be able to find a reasonable solution as we know how important this is for the future of Europe. We simply cannot afford to fail.

(Applause)

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

  Hans-Peter Martin (NI), Blue-card question. – (DE) Mr Färm, you are from a country that declined to join the euro, mainly because it wished to retain the flexibility of devaluation, precisely in order to use it as a social policy instrument. In the light of current experience in Sweden, would you recommend to the Greeks that they also leave the euro area, so that they, too, can actively use devaluation as a social policy instrument?

  Göran Färm (S&D), Blue-card answer. – No, I would not, because I do not think that it is the euro that is the problem. It is the lack of policies to support the monetary union that is the problem. When we have those policies in place, I would recommend my own country to join the euro as well.

(Applause)

  Carl Haglund (ALDE). – Mr President, I want to congratulate the Danish Presidency for good progress with the negotiations.

There are many positive elements in the Presidency’s negotiating box. Let me note the fact that it has included ITER and Galileo and so forth in the MFF ceilings. This is a good idea and I am also happy about the proposals concerning RALs. Personally, I am also happy that the Presidency is critically scrutinising the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund. My colleagues here might not all agree with me on this, but personally, I think it is a good choice.

Allow me also to underline what my colleague, Göran Färm said, namely, that the Danish Presidency should not proceed with some of the programmes which are under codecision without properly involving Parliament. This is something that worries a lot of us, and it is something that could cause serious problems in the negotiations.

Finally, concerning own resources, speaking for the Liberal Group – and I am its coordinator in the Committee on Budgets – we have some key things we need to be included in order to vote in favour of this, and own resources is one of them. I hope this will be noted.

  François Alfonsi (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Mr President, this debate on the 2014-2020 multiannual financial framework is a debate of fundamental political importance, through which Europe, which is in crisis, is making the political choice to plan for the future.

For us, four priorities have been identified, the first of which is the establishment of the financial transaction tax. For many years, our group has defended the introduction of this tax, the aim of which is to regulate the speculative financial mechanisms which are largely responsible for the current crisis. This tax will bring in new resources without penalising economic or social equilibrium.

The second priority, made possible by the creation of this tax, is for the European Union to obtain substantial own resources as a substitute for the contributions of Member States. This will be a major leap forward for the European institutions, which will no longer be held hostage by any particular net contributor country. The EU will be able to commit its own resources in complete freedom.

The third priority is to ensure that an adequate budget is available, at least at the level of the debate of our Parliament on the report by its Special Committee on the policy challenges and budgetary resources for a sustainable European Union after 2013 (SURE). The creation of the financial transaction tax should have enabled us to go further, but, at the very least, we must avoid any regression. Less budget would mean less Europe, when what we need today is more Europe.

Finally, the fourth priority is to focus our budgetary resources on a central objective, that of accomplishing the ecological conversion of Europe in terms of its agriculture, its industry, its transport, its energy efficiency, and in many other areas. In dealing with the crisis, the European Union has a duty to move forward.

  Richard Ashworth (ECR). – Mr President, we all accept that jobs and growth are the most urgent priority for the European Union, and this multiannual financial framework, if it is used as an investment budget, presents us with a valuable opportunity to make a vital contribution to resolving the European financial crisis. So we do welcome investment in research and development in the single market and in cross-border infrastructure.

But there are three points which I have to make. First, the budget must be able to demonstrate real added value. Too many of the traditional spends in past budgets clearly have not, and we must understand that quantity of spend is no substitute for quality. Second, it must be fair: we are open to suggestions on new own resources, but I have to say that a financial transaction tax would not be acceptable, nor indeed would the abolition of rebates. Finally, this House would be mistaken to assume that we could increase the size of the budget at a time when all the rest of Europe is facing austerity, financial disciplines and hard times.

  Mario Borghezio (EFD). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it seems to me that the debate is being held within the wrong frame of reference. The debate is not about having more Europe or less Europe. Current events force us to think about a completely different Europe: participatory, united, regional.

A century ago, a certain Luigi Sturzo, exiled in England and writing in the English newspapers, was more modern in his thinking than this House, which refuses to consider Europe’s problems from the point of view of territories and regions, which is to say the productive, hard-working world which is the reality for our people.

Today, I would like to represent the people of the industrial triangle of agricultural production of Mantua, Ferrara and Modena, where a major seismic event has caused serious problems for one of the most important productive centres in Europe. However, aside from a few visits by Mr Tajani and Mr Barroso, which I concede are important and which I must acknowledge, there has been no debate on practical issues. There is no central intervention on the ground that responds to the expectations of these communities. This Europe thinks in a Brussels way, like our centralist states!

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL). – (ES) Mr President, I fervently hope that at the next elections, the Greek people will challenge and rectify the current economic course that is literally carrying us towards ruin.

The aim was to create a project – the European project – based on the deregulation of the market, which gave way to the biggest financial racket in our history, involving a single currency with no public treasury and a European Central Bank that does not issue that currency. We are therefore dealing with a financial racket that needs to be investigated. That is what we proposed in the Spanish Congress: a committee to investigate the racketeers.

It is costing EUR 100 billion to rescue them, but also to condemn the Greek people to a worse standard of living, to be denied good public services, to have to work for longer and to lower salaries and pensions. This is the result of the economic course that we wish to call into question.

We should not be paying the proportion of the sovereign debt that is the result of speculation. The speculators cannot be paid for the deals they have done, and we need to rescue the people of Europe and the European project rather than the racketeering bankers.

  Andrew Henry William Brons (NI). – Mr President, paying for growth is not like paying for a product. You might pay your money without receiving what you have paid for. In the present MFF, 44% of the EU budget is being spent on sustainable growth. That will go up to 48%. Is it really being spent effectively? Does the EU really know how to spend Member States’ money better than they do?

The EU’s embracing of globalism and neoliberal economics, of open markets and maximised competition will defeat any strategy for growth. As Sir James Goldsmith said a decade ago, the only way the West would compete with the emergent economies in a free market would be by our wage levels equalling theirs.

It is all very well to think our research and development will make our industries more competitive, but innovation spreads by industrial piracy by the Far East and industrial treachery by western-based multinationals. The Commission’s Europe 2020 document waxed lyrical about Europe’s talented workforces, but that presupposed that the present populations of Europe would survive and would not be replaced by immigration.

  Mario Mauro (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, Mr Wammen, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, on the streets of Europe we are divided exactly as we are in this House, the only difference being that on the streets of Europe, those who do not believe in Europe grow in number day by day. However, they are not growing in number because of the good work done by Eurosceptics with their propaganda, but because those who say they believe in Europe are foolish and lacking in knowledge.

If the Council meeting of 28 and 29 June shows the same lack of awareness, we will strike a definitive blow to the credibility of all those who are counting on the success of the European project. I believe that the leaders of European institutions and of the Member States are at a crossroads and need to take on an enormous responsibility. In just a few days, we risk dispelling a legacy of peace and development which has defined our history. In time, the consequence of this approach and understanding of our own responsibility will result in conflict between our countries. I believe that we all need to understand that 28 and 29 June are important dates. Our time is running out and I would like each one of us to realise this.

  Patrizia Toia (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, even though our budget is limited, a year’s budget adds up to a figure that can be wasted by the markets in a single day. The multiannual financial framework (MFF) is very important but only if the Member States do not see the budget as a source of expenditure to be cut like all public expenditure, but rather as a resource which can help the economy to grow – an investment – and not as a cost for citizens but as the way to produce tangible results. The figures represent programmes, projects, things to be achieved. Therefore, I say ‘no’ to short-sighted cuts and ‘no’ to infighting between countries, because growth is an opportunity for all European citizens.

In addition, the European budget should not be seen as separate, but as complementary to national budgets. A new approach is needed to strengthen links between the European budget and national budgets. In some ways, our budget is the 28th budget of the Member States. This is the only way we can create the global assets that can develop effective policies. We are asking for a more coordinated approach. The European Semester can also help with this.

Finally, as regards Parliament’s role, I say this to the Council: we will accept neither a fait accompli nor a ‘take it or leave it’ approach. We want a preliminary consultation before the formal proposal is presented for approval. Citizens, worried about the future of Europe, express themselves through us and we, as their representatives, want to play a part in taking decisions.

  Sylvie Goulard (ALDE). – (FR) Mr President, Mr Wammen, Commissioner, I would simply ask you not to be schizophrenic at the end of this month.

I am deeply concerned that, when it comes to economic governance, we are now having a debate, which, I believe, is fair, on how growth can be created which would make the discipline sustainable and lasting and which would make it possible to have balance sheets that balance and to reduce the debt.

However, as far as our attitude to budgets is concerned, it is the least creative and the most blinkered that it is possible to have. It entails considering that any money spent at European level would be a bad thing and should be reduced. Nor is there any interest – as Mr Verhofstadt said – or at least not enough, in having own resources, which would enable the European Union to act. These concerns are shared by all of us.

Democracy is at stake here, not only as regards the procedure but also because, behind closed doors, the Member States have rights of veto and the decisions taken are not in the public interest.

  Lajos Bokros (ECR). – Mr President, the new French President said that we need not only austerity but also growth. That is common sense. Nobody wanted to have just austerity without growth.

On a professional level, however, it is clear that governments have much less direct leverage on growth. Austerity is a direct result of restrictive fiscal policies, but there is no such thing as a growth policy. Government action can have only a very indirect and stochastic impact on growth.

In a market economy, most productive investments are undertaken by the private sector. It is only the private sector which can create sustainable jobs leading to increased output and tax revenues. The government can only facilitate this process by creating a business-friendly environment and investing in physical and human infrastructure.

Budgets are important tools to support private sector activity. The MFF is considered as such. It can contribute to growth only if it concentrates resources on investments and initiatives to improve competitiveness and productivity. The MFF should envisage more spending on research and development, education and infrastructure, and cut back significantly on current subsidies, including on agriculture.

As I always emphasise, EU budgets are capital budgets and should not pretend to be similar to national budgets. They have to remain small and finance the future.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI). – (DE) Mr President, surely I do not have to point out that, under the EU Treaties, the issue of own resources must be dealt with in the new multiannual financial framework (MFF) for 2014-2020. The revenues from the financial transaction tax, for example, provide the Member States with the possibility of reducing their contributions to the EU budget by an equivalent amount. Doing this would clearly take the heat out of the eternal dispute between net contributors and net beneficiaries. Surely it is also clear that Parliament is defending three basic positions: more leeway in budgetary policy – in other words, flexibility; reform of the own resources system; and a stable budget that enables the EU’s political objectives to be financed.

Finally, a word to the Council. It is time, once and for all, for all the talking to be backed up by actions. Think of our citizens. We urgently need investment in education and the labour market.

  Reimer Böge (PPE). – Mr President, I would like to confirm at the very beginning that the cooperation with the Danish Presidency on the multiannual financial framework (MFF) has developed quite well, and I insist that the good experience in this sort of pilot project will finally lead to real negotiations prior to our getting a proposal on the MFF regulation and on a new interinstitutional agreement.

The resolution we will vote on today includes our key messages towards the meeting of the European Council at the end of June. Our basis for negotiations remains the Garriga report from the Temporary Committee on Policy Challenges (SURE). We say very clearly that we need adequate financial resources in the EU budget which are linked to better spending; we insist on the Community method; we say very clearly that we are not ready to agree on expenditure without a proper agreement on future own resources; we insist on the unity of the budget as an iron principle; and, of course, we are asking for sufficient overall flexibility.

Here, despite some positive elements in the negotiation boxes on the unity of the budget – although the details are yet to be negotiated and this must also include the additional means which are outsourced at this stage – we are talking about EUR 24.5 billion – the negotiation box on flexibility is still quite empty, and it has to be filled to come to a good solution. And, of course, we have to follow the rules in the consent procedure and to respect the codecision procedure of the 65 multiannual programmes.

I would like to say as well that the position of the President of the Commission is, in some ways, understandable, but, on the other hand, there is a huge risk concerning giving up the Community method and going back to national contributions in special instruments. This is a real danger in the long term and is working against the Community method.

I would like to say as well that we should not only talk about better spending in the budget. Concerning budget consolidation, it is also important that the Commission stop any proposal for EU legislation which means additional bureaucratic burdens and costs for Member States, for regions and local communities, and the legislator has to do likewise.

Finally, Mr President, I hope that the Commission will support Parliament’s position this time more than it did last time, in 2006.

  Jutta Haug (S&D). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in unity, strength. That is what they say. We ought not to be wasting our energy among ourselves, therefore, because the vast majority of us – Parliament, Council and Commission – are in agreement: Europe needs growth, and Europe needs jobs.

How, then, can we put this unity of analysis into action? That is where the European budget comes into play – the common budget that is a budget for investment with no compulsion for consolidation, because it has no debts. A European budget with adequate funds, an innovative structure and the necessary flexibility is quite simply our common instrument for leveraging existing growth potential in Europe, opening up new prospects and maintaining our position in the global competition for talent, technologies and market leadership. The common European budget represents our joint European opportunity, our added value. That cannot be that hard to grasp; even the Council can do so.

  Liisa Jaakonsaari (S&D), Blue-card question. – (FI) Mr President, Mr Böge, you said that Europe should end all projects that require more money and increase bureaucracy. One might partly agree with that, but what is your opinion of those initiatives that do not require more money or bureaucracy? For example, the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament had proposed that EUR 10 billion in unspent resources should be released from EU funds to combat youth unemployment, thereby creating almost 2 million jobs for young people, and that would be from unused funds. What do you think of this initiative?

  Reimer Böge (PPE), Blue-card answer. – Mr President, of course we have to make a very clear distinction, I was talking about legislative proposals. I stress also that within the package of the 65 multiannual programmes on cohesion and agriculture policy, the Commission did not fulfil the request of its own Secretary-General asking for a reduction in the bureaucratic burden, asking for simplification. If ministers in the agricultural sector are telling me that there is an additional bureaucratic burden of 15 to 20%, we have to correct this. We cannot ask for budget consolidation at Member State level and, at the same time, force them to spend more on bureaucracy because we have decided on complicated EU legislation. This is a very important element, in terms of consolidation and progress and legislation.

As far as the question of unspent resources is concerned, I would like to refer back to the Policy Challenges Committee. The question of carry-overs of unspent funds and reprogramming to obtain better spending for SMEs and to combat youth unemployment are very useful elements. We support this.

  Alexander Graf Lambsdorff (ALDE). – (DE) Mr President, firstly, congratulations to Mr Lewandowski. However, the person I really want to wish all the best is not you, but rather your namesake, Robert, of Borussia Dortmund – I hope he manages to score to take Poland into the quarter finals. That really would be something to celebrate.

We have just heard a few things about the Council and the future of Europe that this Council is to decide on, that are to be debated. Listening to what Mr Bokros has said here, I believe this to be very important. The crucial thing as regards everything that we are debating in relation to the multiannual financial framework, in relation to the budget, is whether the private sector is going to invest again, whether the private sector will regain its confidence in the European economy and its prospects. This is the decisive factor. Public budgets can only provide incentives at best. The Social Democrats sometimes need that explaining to them. You cannot buy growth; you can only enable growth.

That is why it is crucial that the structural reforms that President Barroso mentioned come about. The second really crucial thing is the debt redemption pact; a clear, effective debt redemption pact linked to clear conditions which will relieve the burden on the budgets in the Member States, which at present, despite all their efforts – in Italy, for example – simply cannot emerge from the constraints of their refinancing. We therefore need a clear and effective debt redemption pact.

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, Mr Wammen, Commissioner, finally, we have a European Council on growth. I am sorry that in December 2011, when the Heads of State or Government agreed on the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance, the President of the European Council did not call a specific Council to look at growth, but we have got there in the end.

I think that we need to call formally on the 25 states to ratify this Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance, which sends out a message of confidence and solidarity, in terms of both the markets and the people. I appeal to the political powers in France to honour the signature of the French Republic without delay.

We have talked about growth, but I think that we also need to talk about competitiveness. We need to talk about the competitiveness of our continent: yes, we need a major infrastructure plan. We do not need EUR 10 or 20 billion; we need investments of between EUR 1 000 and 1 500 billion. We lack imagination when it comes to own resources. Why not establish compulsory contributions for digital measures, energy networks, roads, railways and water? I am proposing once again that we carry out an audit of public spending and pool military, diplomatic and research spending.

Finally, on an institutional level, I was pleased that our Chair, Mr Daul, reiterated the suggestion that the President of the European Parliament be invited to the European Council. However, Mr President, the President of the European Council himself needs to establish a relationship with our Parliament. Since the establishment of a permanent presidency, we have had no contact with the Heads of State or Government. We need political dialogue at the very highest level with the Heads of State or Government and with Mr Van Rompuy, who is absent from this House far too often.

  Anni Podimata (S&D). – (EL) Mr President, we are talking about growth in Europe, and this is not the time for more speeches and promises. We urgently need decisions and action, European decisions and action because, as the course of events has demonstrated, we cannot get out of the crisis without a strong, targeted and cohesive European response.

The President of the European Commission said in his speech that Greece should stay in the euro and respect its commitments. I completely agree and my answer is that Greece wants to stay in the euro and will respect its commitments to restructure its public finances and implement structural changes in the economy and State. However, if that is our common objective, if we are to succeed, we must also jointly reject the dogmatic approaches that are bringing the economy and society to its knees and, of course, the populist approaches that promise what are vaunted as easy solutions and question the essence of the rules governing the European Union. Greece and Europe as a whole need to isolate dogmatism and populism, because that is the only way we shall move forward together.

  Jean-Luc Dehaene (PPE). – (NL) Mr President, as a member of the negotiating team for the multiannual financial framework, I, in turn, would like to thank the Danish Presidency for the cooperation it has shown. The result of this cooperation has been the negotiation box, among other instruments, in which the relationship between expenditure and income was retained, in keeping with Parliament’s express demand, and which makes this a precondition for the final solution.

It is also valuable that the negotiating box will now be included on the Council’s agenda, where growth, but also the European Semester and hence fiscal consolidation at Member State level, will be discussed. Because, thanks to our own resources, the proposal before us allows Member States to reduce their contributions and, therefore, to make more room in their own budgets to contribute, with their own resources, to a growth budget, which is essential for the European budget going forward.

It is therefore time that we lay down basic principles that will ensure both growth and budgetary orthodoxy. The budget can make an essential contribution to that. I hope that the meeting of the European Council will also be an opportunity to send out a structural signal to the euro and the euro area. We do, indeed, need a banking union, a political union, and we need to take structural measures if we want to be credible.

  Catherine Trautmann (S&D). – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we need to give our fellow citizens concrete proof of our capacity to resolve the crisis, first and foremost, through growth fuelled by investment.

Can you justify, in these times of precarious employment, doing away with the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF), which is supposed to support workers who have lost their jobs because of globalisation, especially when we have to reinvent an industrial policy for Europe? Solidarity and insecurity are affecting a new population of young people, unemployed workers, women and pensioners. Yet those same people who were unable to manage this crisis would choose to do away with the European food distribution programme? Mr President, I ask that it be maintained beyond 2013, without doing away with any other essential programmes.

The last aspect is cohesion. The regions must not be held responsible for the poor management of the Member States. We reject the strengthening of macro-economic conditionality because, in a time of crisis, we need to be able to adjust the support policies where economic growth is regional and where jobs can be provided. We therefore stand alongside the trade unions and NGOs that are fighting for solidarity, and alongside the regions, which must play a key role in the vitality of the territories in order to promote more growth, employment and social justice.

  Jacek Saryusz-Wolski (PPE). – Mr President, I am not going to speak about competitiveness, growth and fiscal discipline. I want to go beyond economics because on that, nearly everything has been said.

I want to speak on the cost of shrinking Europe and the cost of there being a half Europe on the horizon, and on the collateral damage being done to the Union itself and its future and its unity.

Five points. One: we witness the birth of two levels of solidarity for those inside and those outside the eurozone – compare Spain and Hungary – with a shrinking budget for the EU27 and generous handouts for eurozone Member States only. Eventually, proposals for a separate parallel growth budget of up to 1% of GDP for the eurozone only, which will be equipped with a separate parallel eurozone Parliament along with a eurozone summit and administrative Councils.

Two: we witness two standards of treatment and macro-economic conditionality of Member States, different for big and small countries, and once again different for eurozone Member States and non-eurozone Member States.

Three: we witness a two-speed Europe, not just expanding, but becoming more and more acknowledged and approved, irrespective of the wishes of President Barroso. This threatens the very integrity and unity of the Union.

Four: we witness the mounting erosion of the Community method with intergovernmentalism and national egoisms resurging.

Five: we witness the political weakening of the EU on the international scene and we risk a security vacuum and geostrategic threats if Greece or anybody else falls out.

How does one measure the collateral political damage? What is the cost of a shrinking Europe and the cost of Europe? How many billion euro is it worth?

How does one find a solution for all of Europe and not half of Europe?

  Enrique Guerrero Salom (S&D). – (ES) Mr President, last weekend, we had two different types of news on the same problem. The bad news was that the Spanish Government needs to ask for aid to rescue part of its financial system. The good news was that thanks to the fact that we belong to the EU and to the euro, Spain and its financial system can have access to this aid immediately.

The banks should indeed be rescued, but this should not cause more damage to the social rights and living conditions of the Spanish people; the banks should be rescued, but it should be done in order to save a whole generation of young people from ruin; the banks should be rescued, but with parliamentary control over how this is implemented and its effects. This does not, however, solve the problem of growth. In order to grow, we need a strong European budget, a debt redemption fund, eurobonds, more involvement from the European Investment Bank and more activity from the European Central Bank. In short, we need more Europe, a fiscal treaty, banking union and a European treasury.

  Marian-Jean Marinescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, it is 2012, not 2005. The procedure for adopting the budget has changed. All horizontal policies are adopted using the codecision procedure. I am saying this primarily for the benefit of the Danish Presidency, which does not seem to have read the Lisbon Treaty.

Mr President, you said that you have enjoyed excellent cooperation with Parliament. Please demonstrate this and withdraw from the proposal for (unintelligible) for negotiating all the items which need to be decided by codecision between Parliament and the Council. I believe that your efforts needed to be directed towards reaching an agreement between Member States, first of all, on own resources and then on the budget amount, and not towards items which will be decided by codecision.

We are discussing economic growth and jobs at a time of crisis. The European budget is one of the resources which can help achieve this growth. Ninety-five per cent of the EU budget is geared towards investment and generates economic growth and jobs in all Member States, both contributors and beneficiaries. The forthcoming budget must at least be the same size as the current one and geared towards economic growth and jobs. This can only be achieved through horizontal policies.

I believe that Parliament needs to take the initiative and start negotiating with the Council on all policies in order to table a concrete proposal to the European Council, including even the figures and financial proposals.

  Constanze Angela Krehl (S&D). – (DE) Mr President, this morning we have talked a great deal about targeted growth in the European Union. The cohesion policy is a European investment programme that we have at our disposal for creating growth. For this reason, we need at least as much money in the future budget as we have had available to date. The Friends of Cohesion are not against better spending of the money. However, I am not sure whether the friends of better spending in the Council really want good cohesion policy, which is something we need in order to overcome the crisis.

There is a second point I would like to mention. In the negotiation box, which has also been mentioned frequently here, 90% of all points in the area of cohesion policy are basically decided with the European Parliament in the ordinary legislative procedure. Please would you accept that this time, for the first time, Parliament is involved in the ordinary legislative procedure for all areas of cohesion policy. The negotiations in committee will be complete in mid-July. We will then have a mandate and be able to negotiate. I hope that the Council will be prepared to do the same at that time.

  Jaime Mayor Oreja (PPE). – (ES) Mr President, the seriousness of the situation undoubtedly means that the forthcoming European Council to be held on 28 and 29 June will be perceived differently by Europeans, as a starting point in the efforts to build a new structure for the European Union. It cannot therefore simply involve the proposed freezing of a series of measures and initiatives that people do not understand. Instead, we need to be able to find sufficient symbols and unequivocal signs in this Council that a new era is dawning in the European Union.

A plan needs to be decided upon, with a timetable and priorities, and, above all, short-term measures need to be as important as medium and long-term measures.

We are all aware of the areas where action needs to be taken. The Spanish Prime Minister, Mr Rajoy, has recently sent the President of the Council and the President of the Commission an action plan with five measures. What we wish to highlight, however, is the need for a new European structure that can bring an end to the instability and turbulence that we are currently experiencing.

  Glenis Willmott (S&D). – Mr President, in this time of deep economic crisis, we need to use every opportunity to change direction.

The MFF gives us the chance to completely reassess how the EU spends its money and how we prioritise spending for creating jobs and growth. We need a balanced strategy, not one relying entirely on austerity, because it is clear to us all that this approach is just not working. Our challenge, though, is not just to find more money, but to use what we have more efficiently and more effectively, focusing on job creation to ensure that we tackle the huge problem of unemployment throughout the EU.

Let us take the chance to shape our approach and seize this opportunity not just to protect the status quo, but to ensure we do whatever is needed to give hope to our citizens, particularly our young people, who sadly have very few prospects in sight.

  Georgios Papastamkos (PPE). – (EL) Mr President, the Union faces crucial economic, demographic, social and environmental challenges. The Member States are under unprecedented pressure from immigration. The position of the Union within the global economy is being tested. The solution is more Europe and stronger common bonds, by which I mean common European policies, with obvious European added value. European economic governance and economic and social union are being promoted as an urgent need. The multiannual financial framework must be a strong and effective instrument in the recovery of the European economy and in creating sustainable growth and jobs, stimulating investments, promoting research and innovation and achieving economic, social and territorial cohesion. We need a link between targets and European funds and to place the EU 2020 strategy within a strong multiannual financial framework. For example, if the agricultural sector is to increase its contribution to the production of public goods for the benefit of Union citizens, we need a strong budget for the CAP. Ambitious targets need ambitious funding.

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

  László Surján (PPE), Blue-card question. – (HU) Mr Papastamkos, it is all over the media, and it has also been mentioned constantly in this debate, that Greece has received substantial aid from the European Union. What happened to that aid? How has it been utilised so far? What is the situation? Is it worthwhile pouring further funds into countries in difficulty?

  Georgios Papastamkos (PPE), Blue-card answer. – (EL) Mr President, it is true that Greece has not made use of available European funds. This is the sad reality for my country. Greece needs an overall fast-forward growth plan. It needs pioneering changes of an institutional, organisational and structural nature. It needs an unwavering and ambitious, realistic and democratic plan for restructuring the country, based on the maximum possible social and political consensus. Above all, Greece needs direction from the political leadership and decisive action, which has been missing from the Greek system of governance. This is the proposal for the elections on 17 June: a strong, European, reform movement.

  Danuta Maria Hübner (PPE). – Mr President, I am also among those who hope that the Council, at the end of June, will make a decision on an ambitious and very bold action on growth for Europe. Our duty in Parliament is to see that this new multiannual budget invests in new sources of growth, but also in restarting the EU-wide competitiveness machinery and relaunching convergence forces.

There is a lot of catching up to do in Europe, because the EU machinery for convergence in the areas of the economy, trade and finance has clearly slowed down. This is dangerous, because divergence can become a force for break-up. Without a doubt, the EU budget must focus strongly on genuine investment policies and competitiveness for all.

This leads me to the reformed cohesion policy and its founding tools. We must see that they target the most effective sources of growth. We must ensure that the well established pro-catching up capabilities of cohesion policy work for all of Europe and we must also ensure that this policy-powerful convergence machinery works towards reducing competitiveness gaps between south, north and east.

Let me conclude by emphasising the need for us here in this House to stick to Parliament’s commitment to give the EU the budget level it needs.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in recent years, we have talked more and more in the European institutions about rules for budgetary surveillance of Member States, which is certainly the right thing to do, but this is now no longer sufficient in the economic situation we are in.

The European economy as a whole and the economies of some Member States are slowing down, which is why we should pay increasing attention to growth, competitiveness and development. At the forthcoming European Council meeting, the Member States must make brave and ambitious choices to tackle the path for development together. In many countries, Europe is now seen as the problem; instead, we must make strong and courageous choices to make it clear that Europe is the solution. Therefore, eurobonds, project bonds, strengthening projects and planning for small and medium-sized enterprises must be the issues covered. We cannot put off the problem any longer. Europe must be, and is, the solution to all the problems caused by the crisis.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE). – (PT) Mr President, I should like to state clearly here that we consider the Council taking place at the end of June crucial and that what is really essential is that a European solution to the crisis be sought. We think the problem up to now has been tackling each issue as it arises, individually and in isolation. The time has come for us to have a comprehensive solution for Europe; a solution involving – as Mr Daul made clear, in fact – more integration, more cooperation, European policies that are more in step with one another and a reassessment of the Community method. It is crucial that we have growth alongside stability, but that we do not abandon stability concerns. This will require a comprehensive European solution, not a different response for each Member State or region experiencing problems.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – Mr President, firstly, I think that we need to draw a line under bailouts. If any other countries need a bailout, they should come out now and say so. This endless speculation about who is going to be next – they will, they will not – has to stop; it has to stop at the next summit.

Secondly, we need a jobs and growth strategy that can be implemented immediately at the next summit, not some Hy-Brasil at the end of the rainbow. For that we need real leadership, not self-serving, nationalistic interests. The Danish Presidency – whom I compliment – mentioned some of the things that we can do immediately, such as the Energy Directive which, if implemented, would create 400 000 jobs, save energy and help combat climate change. We should also help SMEs.

Finally, I want to say that I agree completely with President Barroso that we need own resources. I would ask our leaders to show statesmanship in allowing us to have own resources and put an end to this endless speculation about the multiannual financial framework.

  Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (S&D). – (HU) Mr President, European citizens, including Hungarians, blame the austerity measures that have been going on for years on the EU; it is therefore extremely important to have strong cohesion policy at our disposal in the future, because if citizens were to see results in terms of job creation and investment under the cohesion policy, it would reinforce their trust in the EU. I believe it is a major problem with cohesion policy that my home country could lose one-fifth of the support it receives. Therefore, where ‘capping’ is concerned, it is extremely important to define not only an upper ceiling, but also a minimum level, that is, a limit for the amount of funding a Member State can lose, because in the case of Hungary, we are talking about a 20-30% loss, which would be very difficult for the country to handle.

  Danuta Jazłowiecka (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, for many months now, there has been disagreement over cohesion policy and the multiannual financial framework for 2014-2020. The people of Europe are finding this discussion increasingly difficult to understand. It may be that many of the Member States’ Heads of Government are tired by the crisis, but are they so tired that they do not see that the European budget is, in fact, one of the most important instruments for stimulating growth? It is the European budget which makes Member States allocate own resources for investment. Every EUR 1 channelled through Structural Funds means that a further amount of between EUR 2 and EUR 5 has to be invested in the Member States from public and private own resources.

Furthermore, the example of cohesion policy proves that the traditional dispute between net payer countries and those which make greater use of EU funds does not have a raison d’être. Recent research shows clearly that a large proportion of every euro spent on cohesion policy in the EU’s Member States comes back to western Europe in the form of increased consumption, higher exports or greater demand for modern technologies and services. So all attempts to reduce the European Union budget do no more than provide only apparent savings and, as a consequence, contribute to a reduction in the competitiveness of the entire Union. I hope that Parliament and the Commission will not give up their efforts to defend cohesion policy and the size of the EU budget.

  Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – (ES) Mr President, the next Council must decide on the financial aid requested by the Spanish Government to rescue part of its financial system. It is an inevitable decision in view of the inability to finance through bonds at close to 7% interest and 500 points’ difference from the German bonds.

This reminds us, however, that a change of tack is required, which means that political union is not solely limited to banking surveillance, but rather a need to reassess the deficit review schedule, mutualisation of the debt, and a budget with the resources to fund strategic investments that stimulate growth and create jobs.

It also means preventing a messy exit from the euro by Greece, which is an issue we must resolve within days rather than weeks. Furthermore, it means changing Europe’s image, which is increasingly identified with the so-called ‘men in black’, who threaten sanctions and use a stick, but no carrot, with no stimulant for growth and no hope for young people.

It is essential to change not only that Europe, but also that idea about Europe, for which we are facing a race against time.

  Peter van Dalen (ECR). – (NL) Mr President, Mr Van Rompuy, who is not here today by the way, received an honorary doctorate from the University of Leuven on 1 June. In his inaugural speech, Mr Van Rompuy argued that Europe must cross the Rubicon. Europe must move towards a monetary union.

Mr Van Rompuy has made a profound statement, because what actually happened when Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon? He staged a coup, he was killed a few years later and then Rome struggled with civil war for 15 years. The young doctor could not have made a worse comparison.

With this approach, the mountain of debt in Europe, which already amounts to thousands of billions of euro, continues to grow. So do not cast the dice! It is time for a study of a two-speed Europe. This would allow the southern Member States to keep the euro and the countries around Germany can introduce a euromark. Now that offers a future.

  Isabelle Durant (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Mr President, Minister, Commissioner, we obviously need an ambitious multiannual financial framework (MFF), a solid budget and own resources, but I understand that you are preparing to reintroduce into the budget amounts that were previously outside the budget. So be it. Why not? It might even be a good idea.

However, if you do not raise the ceilings in proportion to what you have put back into the budget, we can expect a double cut, because the Council today, Minister, is unable to identify its negative priorities. The SURE report asked for them but there has been no response.

I would add one word of warning here: with the SURE report that we adopted, we cannot hope for a 2020 strategy, the new competences of the Treaty of Lisbon and a smaller budget with a double cut at the same time. Otherwise, the 2020 strategy will suffer the same fate as the Lisbon strategy and be a bitter failure.

Personally, I have absolutely no desire to see the 2020 strategy become a bitter failure. We have to be careful about this particular issue. It is very important.

End of the catch-the-eye procedure

  Janusz Lewandowski, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, as a former Member of this House, I know what it means to speak when voting time is coming. Therefore, I will make only two short points.

Firstly, a general one. We are all under the shadow of a crisis, but it should not overshadow the basic truths nor justify some unfounded points I could hear on the margins of this very good debate in Parliament. The European Union, which still holds a 20% share of world trade – with the share of Japan and the United States clearly declining – does not deserve the metaphor of a Titanic.

We do face problems. They are not national. Therefore, a national answer is not enough. We should transform the emerging mantra of growth and jobs into reality by a more systemic response to banking and fiscal union, which is emerging, including through today’s votes in Parliament.

My second short point concerns the multiannual framework, which is part of the solution, not part of the problem. I can illustrate this empirically with a credible paper from the UK Treasury indicating where taxpayers’ money is going. The UK middle-income taxpayer contributes GBP 28 to the European Union, which is the same as for the fire service. National debt interest servicing is GBP 363 rather than GBP 28. This is the problem.

The European budget is not the answer to the problem, but could be part of the solution, via investment to act as a carrot via the Structural Funds – nobody denies this and it was also part of the anti-crisis resistance in my country of origin – with the stick of conditionality enforcing structural reforms. This part of the answer concerns own resources. Mr Zahradil was wrong. This is not about expanding the budget but about changing the proposal, fully respecting the fiscal autonomy and the sovereignty of the national parliaments.

This is the design for the future: more Europe under the Lisbon Treaty with the same amount of money. I am happy to see Parliament’s resolution going in the same direction. Jutta Haug is right. Einigkeit macht stark.

(Applause)

  Nicolai Wammen, President-in-Office of the Council. – (DA) Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, I am going to take my inspiration from Commissioner Lewandowski, whose birthday it is today, to make this quite short. I would like to thank you all for a really productive debate with the European Parliament, in which it is quite clear that, in the run-up to the meeting of the Heads of State or Government at the end of this month, we must, together, do everything possible to create growth and job initiatives that can unite the European Parliament, unite the Commission and unite the Member States. The Members of this House have provided a great deal of healthy inspiration today.

In respect of the multiannual financial framework, I would like to offer my thanks, once again, for the constructive cooperation that we enjoy. In particular, I would like to thank Mr Lamassoure, Ms Jensen, Mr Kalfin, Mr Färm, Mr Haglund, Mr Böge, Mr Dehaene and Mr Kelly for their very kind words about the collaboration with the Danish Presidency and about the importance of finding the right solutions together in respect of the future budget. In light of that, the Danish Presidency will continue its close cooperation with Parliament. Thank you all for the many examples of constructive input we have had so far and I look forward to numerous sound joint solutions in future.

  President. – I have received three motions for resolutions⁽¹⁾ tabled in accordance with Rule 110(2) of the Rules of Procedure.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place immediately.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Liam Aylward (ALDE), in writing. – (GA) In the current difficult economic times, it is easy for us to understand the delay in discussing and finalising the multiannual financial framework budget.

It is difficult, however, to accept an increase in the contributions of Member States to the EU budget when European countries are being forced to cut their own budgets and to implement stringent measures. It is also implied that cuts to the budget of the common agricultural policy (CAP) are being considered, since it is on the CAP that most of the EU budget is spent. Nevertheless, European leaders should not make significant reductions in the CAP.

The CAP represents value for money for European taxpayers, especially in the following areas: security of food supply, high-quality affordable food that complies with high environmental standards, sustainable management of natural resources and measures to deal with climate change.

We face a major challenge: a growing shortage of water, energy and arable land; and, by 2050, nine billion people to feed. To that end, it would be a mistake to reduce the CAP budget and to weaken the ability of European farmers to produce and compete.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) Today, Europe is committed to changing direction and is ready to adopt complex but necessary decisions which hitherto have been adopted too slowly and hesitantly. With investor confidence in the market in decline and the new Member States queuing up for financial assistance, there are still doubts over the need for such solutions as a debt redemption fund or eurobonds. I congratulate the Commission on the proposals put forward on a banking union and its determination to seek a balance between budgetary discipline and long-term growth and job creation. However, the essential commitment – combating fraud in the Member States – is missing. The situation that has come about is unjustifiable because the Commission does not know the true scale of corruption as the Member States are not providing the necessary data. The fight against fraud must be strengthened and the Commission must take responsibility for the illegal use of funds and their return to the EU budget. While discussing economic recovery, we must not forget that we need to protect our markets from too much third-country influence. Economic operators in third countries take advantage of the openness of the EU market while our economic operators in those countries operate under much more difficult conditions than local operators. We have thus reduced our competitiveness and narrowed the labour and business market for our own citizens. I believe that combating fraud and market protection must become one of the foundations of future cornerstone initiatives and strategies, which would help ensure a more stable and speedy economic recovery in the long term.

  George Becali (NI), in writing. – (RO) I am not only fairly moved, but I am also concerned by our debate today. I am concerned, like anyone in our countries, about all the reforms and austerity measures that have been adopted. We can see for ourselves that we are in an almost unprecedented social situation. We certainly need growth to generate millions of jobs which young people in Europe, and not only them, are waiting for in every corner of our European Union. These young people will truly believe that we are making this our duty and that the EU budget is not a budget for Brussels when they find a job for which they are qualified and which will allow them to have a start in life. The situation which we have been in for too long requires the utmost urgency. I am only going to mention this point: it is vital that Europe stops being a noble, but empty project, which is disconnected from the lives of a generation that wants to continue the idea.

  Ivo Belet (PPE), in writing. – (NL) We will not solve the crisis in Europe through Greece’s exit from the euro area. Such a scenario will only lead to socio-economic disaster and a heavy loss of prosperity, for all Europeans. Besides, the departure of Greece from the euro would mean a humiliating defeat for the European integration project. Basically, it is not an option. The only way out of this crisis is to move forward. Only by deepening European cooperation can we emerge stronger from this crisis.

There is, therefore, an urgent need for common management of (a part of) the debt of Member States in a European debt redemption fund. Put differently: economic growth and sound finances, these are the two sides of the same euro coin. ‘We still have three months’, said Christine Lagarde of the IMF, ‘to save the euro’. I assume that she knows what she is talking about. Three months is more than enough time for us to do what must be done. It is purely a matter of political courage. Parliament is setting out a number of clear beacons here. At the summit of 28 June 2012, the Heads of State or Government must take responsibility and continue.

  Zuzana Brzobohatá (S&D), in writing. – (CS) The new multiannual financial framework (MFF) is an instrument that should come into use from 2014 and last for seven years. The budget estimate is about EUR 1 000 billion. The new MFF has a number of welcome changes compared to the MFF for 2007-2013. It has a pro-growth orientation, and it is aimed at supporting the European economy. The financial instruments within the new MFF can also support further cofinancing from private and public investors. I very much welcome the orientation of the new MFF towards growth, development and a sustainable environment. The creation of new, green jobs is important as well. I also welcome the retention of the European funds, especially the Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund, which contribute not only to the strategic and long-term development of Member States, but also short-term, rapid and targeted support addressing the consequences of the crisis. I firmly believe that, with the correct setup for the financial instruments, the MFF 2014-2020 will contribute towards responsible growth in the EU economy.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – As one country goes bust, calling to be rescued by the others, more and more economies are dragged deeper into the mire as they add repercussive economic impacts and bailouts onto the burden of national deficits. The Commission’s programme for more money to be sent to the centre, bound by tighter regulation, with the impetus of closer economic union, forces cash flow to be circulated around the eurozone pulling Member States into a maelstrom of economic destitution and political control. It is the concept of more Europe that has exacerbated, if not created, the entire crisis. If the EU’s reactions have been, as both President Barroso and Prime Minister Rajoy of Spain proclaimed, successful, then the crisis would surely be over. Yet the EU’s actions have been successful in forcing the European project along at a pace by furthering state capitalism. In the USSR, highly centralised government and economic policy inflicted poverty on millions of voiceless citizens. The echoes are chillingly familiar. The only difference is that the EU has not used tanks to subsume countries by force, but masterminded the use of subversive bureaucracy alongside the prolongation of the economic crisis.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) More than just Members of the European Parliament, we are citizens of the various Member States striving for a better Europe. Europe’s response to the challenges of our time will only become effective if anchored in a robust budget that ensures adequate funding for the EU’s political objectives; in a budget that is flexible and rational, and makes dynamic use of the funds spread across its various headings; and in a political agreement on reforming own resources. I refer to a budget that will not cost the taxpayer any more but is ambitious and innovative. I believe that only a budget that is simpler and more flexible will have an impact on Europeans’ lives. In particular, I would stress the important role of science and innovation, which will help make European industry more competitive, not least small and medium-sized enterprises.

  Frédéric Daerden (S&D) , in writing. – (FR) The European budget is vital as a powerful investment tool, a vehicle for cohesion and solidarity among states, a balanced budget, and a source of savings for national budgets through the pooling of expenditure.

We need a budget that is, for the most part, funded by own resources. The financial transaction tax (FTT) and VAT reform should help to increase the European budget, reduce the contributions from the Member States and give Europe budgetary sovereignty. The guidelines laid down by the former SURE Committee must be followed, particularly the increase of at least 5% and the creation of regions in transition for the Structural Funds. The Council’s ‘negotiating box’ cannot reduce the European Parliament’s negotiating capacity. It must be able to play the role of colegislator enshrined for it in the Treaties. I would pay particular attention in this document to the regions in transition (to ensure the cohesion of Europe as a whole), the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) (to help workers who have been made redundant find work) and the food distribution programme.

I hope that the Belgian Government will defend these issues in the Council because we are defining the EU’s budgetary framework for the next seven years, so this is a key moment for the European project.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The guidelines that emerge from the European institutions on the course of the integration process translate to a simple equation. One the one hand, they want to go further with everything that has been leading to divergence between the Member States: free competition in the internal market, the now-reinforced Stability and Growth Pact, the liberalisation of international trade and common policies created to suit only the few. On the other, they want to weaken instruments that could mitigate or even, ideally, overcome inequalities; the EU budget plays a key role in this. There can only be one outcome: more divergence, more inequality between Member States and less cohesion. What is happening in the Council is a disgrace. The greatest beneficiaries of the internal market and common policies now want to reduce even further their contributions to the EU budget by forcing the compression of the next multiannual financial framework 2014-2020. They want to cut the budget and cut cohesion funding. They also want to seek a greater share of this cohesion funding. That is what results from conditionality proposals, from ‘transition regions’ and from changing the weighting coefficients associated with cohesion. For the others – the weaker economies – the damage from this integration is ever greater while its benefits are ever fewer.

  Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE), in writing. – (HU) The rapid pace that has been set recently is foreboding. Yesterday, we were debating the rewriting of the Schengen Agreement and the total exclusion of the European Parliament’s involvement, whereas the topic of today’s debate is that there seems to be some form of banking union in the making, and while efforts and demands in this respect did emerge in the European narrative, we know neither their exact practical planning and effects, nor even the consequences they would entail. I am pleased to note that today’s statements by the Council and the Commission already showed moderation, because with such a tense mood, it is questionable whether the European summit can be successful. Still, I respectfully ask the members of the European Council to carefully review the efforts made so far, and to only commit themselves to a higher level of integration if it involves openness and preparedness throughout Europe, and especially if, while securing the long-term functionality of the European banking system, it serves the actual interests of at least 500 million citizens.

  Zita Gurmai (S&D), in writing. – As pointed out in Parliament’s motion for a resolution, a better and more efficient use of the EU funds must be safeguarded, while ensuring that the EU budget is drafted in a transparent way. We also need sufficient budgetary flexibility in order to ensure that budgetary means are properly aligned with evolving circumstances and priorities. Moreover, the EU budget should be a strong investment budget. We won’t be able to exit this crisis and restore sustainable growth and employment without an ambitious budget that gives Europe the means to achieve the targets set in the 2020 strategy. It should also guarantee fairness in distributing the resources and sustainability. Therefore, it is important to ensure that Cohesion Policy continues to receive adequate funding. Moreover, I am also worried by this new tendency within the European Commission to reduce funding for citizenship programmes. The decrease in funding also concerns gender-related issues, which is a very negative development in the light of the need to combat discrimination and promote equal opportunities policies. I strongly believe that fairness and sustainability of budgetary programming may only be achieved by means of introducing gender budgeting in the EU budget procedure.

  Edit Herczog (S&D), in writing. – (HU) The Competitiveness chapter and its research and development lines are among the most important tools of the EU budget. The Council should not encumber these lines with the costs of major infrastructural investments. I would like to remind my fellow Members that a popular metaphor likened the COMECON in its final years to 12 emaciated cows milking each other. Today, the European Council must not be allowed to share the same fate; the 12 yellow stars should shine with the light of excellence and progress. We need an EU budget that is able to stand on its own feet and is supportive of growth; a budget in which ITER (the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) and GMES (Global Monitoring for Environment and Security) are financed from outside the seven-year financial framework. However, if the Council decides otherwise, then it should also allocate the proper financial conditions, and should not once again draw away the necessary funds from R&D lines. I believe that to entrust the Council with the supervision of the disbursement of funds is like setting the fox to watch the geese. Indeed, the decision taken last week by the Council of Ministers demonstrated that the ministers for finance are capable of cutting down the amount of research disbursements for the ongoing year with a single, parochial decision taken by a close circle, even without the knowledge of the ministers for development. I must therefore once again stress: the Council must not be allowed to jeopardise Europe’s competitiveness.

  Cătălin Sorin Ivan (S&D), in writing. – (RO) Negotiating the forthcoming multiannual financial framework is a complex, delicate process, which will lay the foundations for the EU’s political and economic activities for the next seven years. Seven years which we hope will be seven years of growth and economic recovery. This is why we need an investment budget which is as substantial as possible and offers solidarity to all Member States. Regional policy, the common agricultural policy, research policy, Erasmus, support for SMEs – these policies have nowadays become the basic pillars of the European economy and are actually the real driving forces of the single market. However, in order to implement them, we need a budget to tackle the following challenges: globalisation, climate and demographic change and the transformation of the economy into one based on new technologies. Negotiation is the art of compromise. However, when it comes to the next financial framework, Parliament has set itself a number of minimum criteria which we will not budge from: • Maintaining the budget at least at the 2013 level • A higher quota of own resources • Parliament must be acknowledged as a genuine negotiating partner. We are all aware that we need this budget, and I firmly believe that we will ultimately find a happy medium.

  Sandra Kalniete (PPE), in writing. – (LV) The EU budget makes up only a relatively small portion – just 2% – of all public spending in the EU. Therefore, it must facilitate the achievement of the common EU policy goals. It will not be possible to achieve them without adequate financing from a stable European budget. That is why I support the requirement – which is also set out in the European Treaty – to ensure adequate revenue obtained from resources that are truly Europe’s own. Before we approve the multiannual financial framework, we must achieve a political agreement on a reform of the own-resources system that would ensure its transparency, fairness and sustainability. Furthermore, in determining expenditure under the European multiannual financial framework, we must strictly adhere to the principles of solidarity, balanced territorial development and fair competition. This particularly applies to the common agricultural policy, where subsidies that distort fair competition are most obvious.

  Jan Kozłowski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) The challenges currently facing Europe mean we need a guarantee of efficient, effective and reliable instruments which will enable us to meet these challenges. Hard times require difficult but emphatic decisions – we cannot continue to be torn between our ambitions and the need to make savings. I would like to stress that the EU budget should be a budget for investment. The right level of investment, based, in particular, on cohesion policy, will allow us to overcome the crisis and ensure that Europe enjoys growth, competitiveness and an accompanying high level of employment. I am certain that a strategic, transparent and sustainable budget will allow us to achieve these goals. By basing the EU budget to a large extent on own resources, in particular on a financial transaction tax, and by moving away from rebates and correction mechanisms, we will be able gradually to reduce the burden on national budgets while also making the EU budget fairer and more transparent.

  Marine Le Pen (NI), in writing. – (FR) The European Council on 28 and 29 June will endorse the European Commission’s annual recommendations to France to reduce its public debt and regain, so to speak, its competitiveness.

Those recommendations will become binding after the adoption of the new legislative texts, particularly those on the EU’s economic governance. The recommendations include, in particular, the continuation and exacerbation of the liberalisation of public services, the end of regulated professions, a more flexible labour market and measures that make it easier to make workers redundant, otherwise known as the dismantling of the Labour Code.

Add to this the end to the restrictions on distribution outlets, the threat to reduced VAT rates, the increase in consumption taxes and even the creation of new environmental taxes. Those are some of the measures that Brussels is forcing on us to ensure the viability of the euro area.

The worst part is that François Hollande and his Finance Minister will, of course, approve them unreservedly, going back on his campaign promises just a few weeks after winning the election. The French people will certainly appreciate that.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) As representatives of Europe’s citizens, it is our duty to provide a well-financed, transparent and fair budget which will be results-orientated. This is precisely why I think that the European Union needs investments in its priority areas more than ever. I think that channelling the expenditure into policies which have a proven, really successful track record, such as the cohesion policy, can continue to offer real added value, while boosting the European Union’s economic growth and global competitiveness.

  Sławomir Witold Nitras (PPE), in writing. – (PL) A European Council summit is to be held in June, and the main item of business will once again be the crisis in the euro area. Putting the economic situation back on its feet requires measures which are effective in macro-economic terms but which are also acceptable politically. The many aspects of the financial crisis and the lack of a firm political response at the outset mean that there is not now an easy and painless way out of this difficult situation. The euro area is still in need of urgent reforms. Some of them have already been carried out – the ‘six-pack’ should be mentioned here, as well as the ‘two-pack’, on which work is currently in progress. However, these pieces of legislation are only an answer to some of the institutional problems involved, and their effect will only be seen in the long term.

Meanwhile, the way the financial crisis is continuing to get worse requires action which will have an immediate effect, because the crisis of confidence and pressure from the market are today seriously impairing the Member States’ ability to refinance their debt. The forthcoming summit is an excellent opportunity to make bold decisions. First and foremost, measures should be adopted which do not require treaty changes, that is, steps to make the process of fiscal adaptation more flexible and to improve the firewall to give greater protection to the financial systems of peripheral states. The next stage should be institutional reform of the euro area, by which I mean creation of a common system of recapitalisation and restructuring for banks and a common system for protecting deposits, and development of a plan for at least the partial mutualisation of public debt.

  Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE), in writing. – (FI) The financial framework for drafting the EU’s annual budgets for 2014 to 2020 represents one of the biggest political battles between the Council and Parliament this year. It is good that Parliament should insist on greater flexibility, clarity and transparency, especially in the forthcoming budget, and adopt a position on own resources, as they are known – on reforming the system in such a way that funds would be amassed directly in the EU’s own budget and, at the same time, the contributions from the Member States could be reduced accordingly. A reformed budget is needed as part of a more integrated monetary policy. A more integrated monetary policy is not at all as novel an idea as one might sometimes think, reading the headlines. When the notion of a European monetary and economic union was only in its infancy, a work group led by the British economist, Donald McDougall, was set up to consider the structures involved in a single currency. The McDougall report, as it is referred to, states that, in general, areas using a common currency guarantee the value of their currency by means of a central or federal budget, which is largely funded by taxes collected by a central administrative body. The report says that, depending on the level of integration, the joint budget should account for between 2.5% and 7% of the Union’s combined GDP. The Union’s present budget accounts for not much more than 1%. The US federal budget, for example, amounts to a good 20% of GDP. Although, for Member States struggling with financial difficulties, calls for an increase in the joint budget understandably sound virtually impossible, we should insist on an open and creative attitude on the part of the governments of countries towards the joint EU budget. It takes adequate resources to implement uniform policies. A commitment to common objectives means that one is also prepared to commit the resources needed to realise them.

  Georgios Stavrakakis (S&D), in writing. – (EL) We understand the budgetary restrictions on the Member States and reiterate that the EU’s long-term budget is a strategic instrument for investment, for stimulating growth and competitiveness and, of course, for creating jobs throughout Europe. As far as cohesion policy is concerned, the message is clear. That policy is the only pan-European development policy and, as such, should continue to be available to all regions of Europe. Cohesion policy is the main means for responding to the crisis, as it makes a decisive contribution to growth and to job creation. Cohesion policy is worthy of and entitled to adequate resources. The Commission proposal is NOT the minimum for us as regards cohesion policy. If we want to achieve growth, as cohesion policy is a development policy, if we want to find effective answers to the crisis, THEN we need the resources to achieve it. For cohesion policy, the minimum is the current financing level, as clearly decided in the SURE report. We do not support an increase in the cohesion policy budget; if we maintain current budget levels and use modern, thematic targeting and are guided by the results of cohesion policy, we shall achieve a great deal more.

  László Surján (PPE), in writing. – (HU) For the first time, we are about to draft a financial framework in such a way that is not a matter of free agreement but a constitutional obligation. Our choices have become narrower; we can say either ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to the framework. Thanks to the work of the Hungarian, Polish and Danish Presidencies, we are continuously in touch with the Council so as to prevent a ‘no’ by Parliament from turning over a hard-fought consensus, seeing as how there are some red lines that cannot be crossed according to Parliament.

One such red line is the matter of cohesion policy. Since developmental disparities between the regions of the EU are stronger than ever, Parliament demands efficient and effective cohesion. EU funds spent on cohesion policy must not be reduced; we must maintain at least the level of 2007-2013. This is a difficult task, as the European Commission’s proposal is already envisaging an almost 5% cutback in the total framework, with Member States only being allowed to draw funding to the amount of 2.5% of their GDP. What is more, the basis for calculating the 2.5% ceiling is not future economic growth but the period between 2008-2010, where Hungary suffered serious economic downturn under its socialist governments.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The EU multiannual financial framework (MFF) 2014-2020 is increasing by EUR 49 billion compared with the MFF 2007-2013. This means it will total EUR 1.025 trillion, with cohesion policy accounting for the largest share, exceeding the common agricultural policy for the first time. The European Parliament and the Committee of the Regions accept some aspects, such as the intermediate regions, the increased allocation for territorial cooperation projects, the creation of the Common Strategic Framework, and continued Cohesion Fund support for countries with a GNI less than 90% of the EU’s GNI. It is important to stress that the June European Council is the first time that the MFF 2014-2020 and the new cohesion policy regulations will be discussed. I consider it essential that cohesion policy levels be kept at the same level as for the last programming period – 2007-2013 – and that the outermost regions have enough funding from the additional specific allocation to tackle their natural constraints.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The European Council taking place on 28-29 June will deal with economic policy issues, the multiannual financial framework, as well as with the governance of the Schengen system and asylum. In defining and implementing its policies and actions, the EU must take into account the requirements in terms of promoting a high level of employment, guaranteeing adequate social protection, combating social exclusion, as well as the requirements for a high level of education, vocational training and health protection. I think that the EU needs a common agenda on economic growth and job creation, with a particular focus on youth employment. We call on Heads of State or Government to set out and adopt this agenda. In this context, the multiannual financial framework is an effective tool which helps achieve economic growth in the EU. With regard to the governance of the Schengen system, we call for the codecision process to be used and for Parliament to be involved in all the decisions relating to the free movement of persons, one of the EU’s greatest achievements. We are also in favour of Romania and Bulgaria joining the Schengen area, given that both the Commission and Parliament have acknowledged on several occasions that both states meet the necessary technical criteria.

IN THE CHAIR: ROBERTA ANGELILLI
Vice-President

(1) See Minutes

7. Voting time

  President. – The next item is the vote.

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

7.1. Nomination of a member of the Court of Auditors (Iliana Ivanova - Bulgaria) (A7-0188/2012 - Inés Ayala Sender) (vote)

7.2. 67th session of the United Nations General Assembly (A7-0186/2012 - Alexander Graf Lambsdorff) (vote)

7.3. Scheme of generalised tariff preferences (A7-0054/2012 - Christofer Fjellner) (vote)

7.4. Economic and budgetary surveillance of Member States with serious difficulties with respect to their financial stability in the euro area (A7-0172/2012 - Jean-Paul Gauzès) (vote)

– Before the vote on the legislative resolution:

  Jean-Paul Gauzès, rapporteur. – (FR) Madam President, I would like to thank my colleagues for their support and I propose that the report be referred back to committee so that we can start the trialogue discussions and try to reach an agreement at first reading.

(Parliament approved the request)

7.5. Monitoring and assessing draft budgetary plans and ensuring the correction of excessive deficit of the Member States in the euro area (A7-0173/2012 - Elisa Ferreira) (vote)

– Before the vote on the legislative resolution:

  Elisa Ferreira, rapporteur. – (PT) Madam President, as well as thanking all those who contributed to this result, I would like to ask that the final vote be postponed so that we can immediately negotiate at trialogue level.

(Parliament approved the request)

7.6. Extension of the geographic scope of the EBRD to the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean (A7-0142/2012 - Slavi Binev) (vote)

- Before the vote:

  Slavi Binev, rapporteur. – (FR) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by expressing my gratitude to the shadow rapporteurs for their help and cooperation in preparing this report on the extension of the geographic scope of the mandate of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development to the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean. I believe that when society expresses its desire for democracy, particularly as the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean countries have done, politicians must listen to the voice of the people.

Ladies and gentlemen, we all know that the European Union is in the midst of an economic crisis, but those who have a right to criticise also have a duty to help. I would encourage all of my colleagues to pay close attention to freedoms in certain Member States, such as Bulgaria, so that we are not ashamed when we criticise the regimes in totalitarian countries.

  President. – That concludes the first round of voting.

(The sitting was suspended for a few minutes)

IN THE CHAIR: MARTIN SCHULZ
President

8. Formal sitting

  President. – Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for rising from your seats in honour of the President of the Republic of Peru, President Humala, whom it gives me great pleasure to welcome to the European Parliament.

(Applause)

Mr President, the European Union’s relations with Latin America are particularly important to us. The European Union and this Parliament have traditionally had close transatlantic ties with the United States of America and with Canada, but transatlantic relations also include relations with the Latin American part of the American continent. It is clear to us all that cooperation with the countries of Latin America is becoming increasingly important for the European Union. Peru is a country which, under your Presidency, is putting particular efforts into the idea of regional integration. As President of Peru, you made it clear from the time you took office that you see cross-border cooperation with the states and peoples of Latin America as the way of the future. That is exactly the same idea as that on which the European Union is based: overcoming what separates us and seeking to bring about cooperation between states and peoples in common institutions in order to make economic, ecological and social progress. That is what you have just embarked on, including through your Pacific cooperation. I would therefore like to give you a warm welcome to an institution that shares precisely this spirit of regional cooperation.

President Humala, you and your country are in the closing phase of important negotiations on a tree trade agreement with the European Union, which will have to be ratified in this Parliament. We have made progress and we all hope that this agreement will be able to be concluded to the satisfaction of both sides – that means also to the satisfaction of the Members that you see here.

Finally, Mr President, I am delighted that a man who is standing up for democracy and the rule of law in his country is a guest of a Chamber that is greatly concerned with defending the individual basic rights of all people, wherever they are in the world. Consequently, the European Parliament constantly keeps a very close watch on the human rights situation in all countries. We hope that, in this common spirit of peaceful cooperation between regions of the world, we will be able to build on and expand relations between the European Union and its individual states and Latin America and its individual states – in this case, Peru.

I would now like to give you the floor, Mr President. Welcome to the European Parliament.

(Applause)

  Ollanta Humala. – (ES) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to express my satisfaction at being here, in the European Parliament, the manifestation of the melting pot of different communities and cultures that make up Europe, a Europe with which Peru has strong ties.

Peru, a multilingual and multicultural country with age-old history, has been involved in intercultural dialogue with European traditions since the 16th century. I would like to highlight the efforts of distinguished Europeans to Peruvian causes and issues, such as the learned Italian Antonio Raimondi, the French admiral Petit-Thouars, the German scientist Alexander von Humboldt, and the German researcher Maria Reiche. They are just some of the European names who have supported Peru and the solid bond between our country and the European continent, an undertaking that has lasted through the years and which we value in its current scope.

The European Union is currently Peru’s second most important trading partner, being the main destination for our exports and one with significant investments in Peru.

During this century, marked by the increasing globalisation of resources, goods and services, as well as the breathtaking rate of development of new technologies, Peru and the European Union share the common objective and challenge of moving forward down the path of cooperation by acknowledging individual values, identities and projects, whilst sharing the same ideals.

Peru is a representative democracy in which macro-economic policies, along with the stable legal framework, have translated into sustainable economic growth and quite a notable social outcome as regards the reduction of poverty, the reduction of inequality, the increase in employment rates, and general compliance with the Millennium Development Goals.

Our gross domestic product tripled during the last decade, with growth for this year projected at close to 6%, and our aim is to maintain this same level of growth for the next five years, despite the difficult international climate. Different studies have led to the same conclusion: that this trend will continue in the coming years, which will lead to Peru becoming one of the leading regional economies.

In this context, my government has set social inclusion as a priority objective, which will come with economic growth; the profits Peru has been reporting, its favourable climate for business, trade openness and investment, will extend to the entire Peruvian society and the poorest sectors of our country in particular.

We need to include the most disadvantaged populations in the economic loop of creating wealth and worthwhile employment through the modernisation and diversification of our manufacturing, promoting local innovation and using advanced knowledge, supporting our people in education and providing them with the tools to be more competitive.

My government proposes to consolidate democracy so that it is able to resolve the problems and needs of the entire Peruvian society, but with a particular focus on the minorities that have been left out or forgotten by the state.

Let us be clear: there cannot be development, a democracy or an economy that causes inequality, poverty and exclusion. The big transformation that my government has pledged to bring about is based on the process of social inclusion, which was our main commitment to the Peruvian people. That is, to transform economic growth into development and well-being, to transform wealth into quality of life.

Peru is a country with a population of just over 29 million people. Poverty rates have been reduced from 54% in 2001 to 27% in 2012. My government aims to lift over 3 million Peruvians out of poverty by 2016, that is, to reduce the poverty rate to below 20%, and reduce the extreme poverty rate, which currently stands at around 7% in Peru, by as much as possible. My government is committed to a proactive public policy on social investment and development to achieve this. Despite having achieved the Millennium Development Goals, we therefore continue to make the greatest efforts to continue reducing the differences in equality.

As such, the budget allocated to social and human capital in 2012 has been increased by 20% compared to 2011. Social inclusion means that a human being can become a citizen and we have created the Ministry of Development and Social Inclusion for this undertaking. Through this, we aim to transform social programmes through a single social inclusion policy for our government, where we will clearly establish a set of multi-sector programmes with a view to improving efficiency and focusing attention on the most needy.

Within this framework, a set of social programmes have been developed that cover early childhood (Programa Cuna Más), through to young people (Programa Beca 18), up to the retirement age (Programa Pensión 65), and the conditional transfer programme for the most vulnerable families (Programa Juntos) and the mobile emergency medical service (SAMU, Sistema de Atención Móvil de Urgencias) have been extended.

Cuna Más is an early childhood programme which is already being implemented. This year, it will attend to over 90 000 children up to the age of three in the poorest regions of the country, supplying them with food and nursery services, education and comprehensive health care.

Programa Beca 18 will provide higher education to qualified young people with fewer resources. It is aimed at skills training and the appropriate assimilation of science and technology that needs to be transferred to diversify our manufacturing model. The objective for our first year of government is to reach 5 000 interns and provide 3 000 grants for masters and doctorate courses abroad.

Programa Pensión 65 provides an economic subsidy to adults over 65 years of age who are in poverty or extreme poverty.

As part of this programme, my government has approved the first list of beneficiaries, comprising 126 787 adults in more than 14 regions throughout the country.

This year, my government plans to spend over USD 790 million on social programmes run through the ministry. Other programmes include the Cooperation Fund for Social Development (Fondo de Cooperación para el Desarrollo Social), which promotes the development of local manufacturing, and the Qali Warma food programme (‘child with energy’ in Quechua), the main objective of which is to ensure that food is provided to children in public primary education centres from the age of three years old.

It is essential to increase the efficiency and coverage of Programa Juntos given that it is a programme that directly delivers monetary incentives to households in poverty or extreme poverty, on the condition that the mothers representing the household fulfil the commitment of ensuring that their younger children attend health care and education centres. We have extended this programme from 350 000 to 450 000 families this year.

Within this framework, the Peruvian State is making efforts to ensure that all sectors of society benefit from the trade agreement with the European Union. The agreement is a significant opportunity for micro, small and medium-sized enterprises in both the European Union and Peru. In Peru, these types of companies represent 98% of the total number of companies; they employ 75% of the working population, and generate 42% of national GDP.

In addition to economic growth with social inclusion, a second aspect I would like to highlight is the sustainable development of our natural resources and the promotion of responsible mining.

My government’s main interest is to promote a responsible policy for the use of our natural resources, particularly water resources, which aims to resolve the just concerns and demands expressed by the population in different ways, due to the fears generated by the operation of certain mining projects. We have been working on building a new relationship between the state and the mining sector. This new relationship will mean the involvement of communities and towns in the areas affected by the mines, and will allow us to manage the legitimate uncertainties and doubts that an area’s population may have in a clear and inclusive manner. We will use dialogue as the main tool for resolving conflicts, as well as strengthen our environmental and sustainable development policy, for which we have created the Ministry of the Environment.

Latin America in general, and Peru in particular, has specific challenges to ensure social and environmental sustainability through its development model. Some of the most important challenges include: changing manufacturing and consumption patterns; promoting agribusiness and a rural economy that adapts to climate change; integrated management of natural and water resources; a land use regulation policy that ensures security and the integrity of indigenous villages and communities in harmony with national protected areas; and the promotion and development of clean technologies that fit the needs of each of the many ecosystems we have. My country has ratified the main international agreements on the environment. Given that the country is extremely diverse and highly vulnerable to climate change, policies to mitigate and adapt to climate change, to conserve and use the Amazon rainforest sustainably, and to protect biodiversity are deemed to be high priority.

Lastly, as well as a being a full member of the Convention on Biological Diversity, and having ratified the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, we have endorsed the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources, which is currently undergoing legislative approval, and we have recently approved a law that has set a 10-year moratorium on the introduction and production of modified living organisms, destined for cultivation and breeding, based on the precautionary principle of the protection of human, animal and vegetal health and the environment. Peru, however, has been particularly affected by indecision on, and breaches of, the 1992 Rio Treaty.

Industry in Peru, including mining, currently operates under a legal framework that protects the environment and includes indigenous communities in decision making by means of a prior consultation mechanism. The law for this was unanimously approved by the Congress, and I know we are the first country in the world to establish a prior consultation law for communities.

(Applause)

Accordingly, the drafting of this regulation, which has already been passed, involved the participation of organised civil society and the indigenous communities in particular. As such, the indigenous populations will take part in the evaluation of the measures that may affect them. They will be able to express their concerns and their voice will be taken into consideration. This aims to implement improved practices that combine prior consultation with the promotion of private investment.

In addition, we have adopted specific measures for a greater state share in income generated from the extraction of our mineral resources. A new levy on mining was approved in September 2011 after constructive dialogue with mining companies. Those additional resources will be used for infrastructure works in the poorest areas of the country that do not receive benefits from the mining levy. To strengthen the social inclusion policy, the government will promote the creation of social inclusion funds as part of mining or oil investment projects, which will serve to develop education, health, sanitation, drinking water, public services, electricity and agricultural infrastructure.

We will continue to call on private enterprise, alongside the state, to develop human resources in the regions and generate employment for all Peruvians. The development of a major mining project can take at least four years, which is enough time for the aforementioned companies to set up specialised technical training centres in the project’s area of influence. We also consider it to be necessary for mining companies to allocate an insurance fund that would be used should environmental damage occur. We need to strengthen the corporate social responsibility of all the mining and extraction companies that come to my country.

Respect and protection of human rights will be a cornerstone of the Peruvian State’s policy, not only internally, but also in foreign policy. Peru has signed up to, and strictly complies with, the eight main international human rights treaties. My country is currently a member of the United Nations Human Rights Council for the 2011-2014 period. We are committed to building a culture of peace, not only to ensure that acts of terrorist violence are not repeated, but also to initiate a process to establish trust and peace in the country, as well as the consolidation of democracy. Thanks to the support from the European Union, and from countries such as Germany and Sweden, as well as the United Nations Development Programme, and the resources allocated by my government, we hope to complete the construction of the ‘Memorial’ museum (Lugar de la Memoria) by the end of this year.

Furthermore, Peru has ratified 67 International Labour Organisation (ILO) agreements on employment. My country is strongly committed to promoting opportunities for worthwhile jobs under conditions of freedom, security and equality, as well as improving social security, strengthening dialogue and driving guarantees for workers’ rights and the freedom of association. There is fluid and constant interaction between the state, the ILO Committee on Freedom of Association and the ILO Conference Committee on the Application of Standards. I would also like to highlight the fact that the country has different national mechanisms to ensure the implementation, monitoring and inclusive dialogue on such issues, such as the National Human Rights Commission, the National Labour Council and the recently established Economic and Social Council. With this support, in our first year, we have managed to increase the minimum wage, a commitment we made during the electoral campaign.

The trade agreement with the European Union clearly reflects that commitment in this sense given that it contains disciplines developed under a sustainable development and trade approach, which reaffirm the ILO’s main agreements. I wish to emphasise that my government is firmly committed to working in a concerted manner with the democratically elected local authorities and civil society institutions.

My government is firmly committed to that objective and has declared that it will tackle head on issues that affect security, such as narco terrorism and drug trafficking. Peru allocated around USD 100 million of its own resources to combating this phenomenon in 2011. Peru has reduced the growth rate of coca leaf plantations by 2.2%, which, in recent years, had reached an average annual rate of 5%. Peru has also put alternative sustainable development programmes in place that have already benefited 84 000 families, at a cost of over USD 100 million a year.

Peru is constantly involved in the fight against drugs and we have to work in unison with the European Union.

Ladies and gentleman, Peru is a country that respects its commitments and maintains a legal stability that breeds confidence. The agreement concluded between Peru and the European Union, which is about to be signed, is an essential alliance of multiple and reciprocal benefits that will help to promote development with social inclusion, looking to the future of this century.

This is an appropriate moment to express my appreciation and gratitude to the European Parliament for adopting the report on defining a new cooperation policy with Latin America. With the support of 640 MEPs, Parliament has acknowledged the need for coordinated cooperation that takes account of each country’s situation and is also based on the most extensive indicators measuring income levels. In the case of Peru, this will contribute to the efforts my government has been making.

To close, I would like to inform you that this multilateral agreement process began in the Andean Community of Nations several years ago. Due to several problems, it has been reduced down to two countries: Colombia and Peru. Today, there is a window of opportunity. Latin America is undergoing very significant economic growth, but not everything is perfect. We have our own issues, and one of our weaknesses is that we are countries that export raw materials. We citizens of Latin America need to break down this barrier, to stop being raw material-exporting countries, and to embark on the route you started decades ago: industrialisation, and the fields of science and technology. For that reason, it is important for us that this agreement ensures technology transfer and fair and reciprocal trade to Peru; that both parties gain from this agreement, not in terms of economic lobbies, but that our citizens benefit; that this agreement is a significant step towards the integration of America with Europe. It needs to be understood that America is not only the United States. America is Peru, Chile, Colombia, Bolivia, Ecuador, Panama, Mexico and many other countries, and that America is currently in good shape and an investment opportunity.

We empathise with the serious crisis that the European Union is currently experiencing. We can say today that we hope that the dark cloud that is blighting European skies does not reach Latin America. We are blowing from our country to prevent the cloud from reaching us, but we have already prepared for it. We are ready to tackle this crisis and that is important; that is, with this multilateral agreement, we also provide, we bring something to the table, and we wish to work in a transparent, open, and cooperative manner for our mutual benefit, so that both parties benefit. It is a two-way street, rather than a one-way street. That is important to me and that is why I have come here today, because I, Ollanta Humala, have always been critical about free trade agreements. Today, however, having been president for ten months, I have to respect state policies and we have to do well. That is why I firmly believe that signing this agreement will be in our collective interests.

I firmly believe that we may progress faster if we go it alone, but that we will progress further if we work together.

(Applause)

  President. – Thank you very much, Mr President. I would like to express our sincere thanks for your most impressive words. May I reiterate that I am sure that the Members of the European Parliament listened very attentively to your closing remarks. We would be delighted if everyone who came into government were to act like you, by taking what they had previously rejected and then implementing it as Head of Government. Perhaps there are certain areas in which we, in the European Union, could learn from you.

Many thanks for your visit, Mr President.

(Applause)

IN THE CHAIR: ROBERTA ANGELILLI
Vice-President

9. Voting time (continuation)

  President. – The next item is the continuation of the vote.

9.1. Multiannual financial framework and own resources (B7-0303/2012) (vote)

– After the vote:

  Alain Lamassoure (PPE). – (FR) Madam President, the negotiations on the next budgetary framework began a few months ago, but the Heads of State or Government will only meet to discuss it for the first time at next week’s European Council.

The resolution that Parliament has just adopted on the proposal by five groups, which was adopted by a majority of five-sixths, is a precise, clear text: it highlights Parliament’s ‘red lines’ in these negotiations, it will act as Parliament’s formal mandate to President Schulz when he meets the European Council next week, and it will be the mandate for the remainder of our negotiations. It was therefore very important that it be adopted by a large majority. I thank my colleagues for that. The real negotiations are about to start.

(Applause)

9.2. EU trade negotiations with Japan (B7-0297/2012) (vote)

9.3. Guinea-Bissau (B7-0277/2012) (vote)

9.4. Sudan and South Sudan (B7-0281/2012) (vote)

9.5. EU trade agreement with Colombia and Peru (B7-0301/2012) (vote)

9.6. EU Special Representative for Human Rights (A7-0174/2012 - José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra) (vote)

– Before the vote:

  Richard Howitt (S&D). – Madam President, the negotiations on this took place only this morning and it is with sincere thanks to Mr Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra, and also to his colleague, Mr Grzyb, and Mr Donskis from the ALDE Group, that we have managed to come to an agreement.

To get consensus on this, I am withdrawing all the wording from the S&D amendment after the words ‘Human Rights’ and from the words ‘in the light of their agreement in 2011 and the priority…’ That is a different split from the one that we discussed with session services earlier on. I am sorry about this, but it is something that we have agreed with Mr Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra. I withdraw the second half of this amendment, but ask Parliament to support the first half.

9.7. Negotiations on the UN Arms Trade Treaty (B7-0276/2012) (vote)

9.8. Follow-up of the elections in the Democratic Republic of Congo (B7-0280/2012) (vote)

  President. – That concludes the vote.

10. Explanations of vote

Oral explanations of vote

Report: Christofer Fjellner (A7-0054/201)

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission has proposed a review of the scheme of generalised tariff preferences that the Union has granted to goods entering the European market from developing countries since 1971. Although the new criteria put in place in order to benefit from the preferences will reduce the number of beneficiaries by about half, I believe that this system continues to represent a real opportunity for these countries to increase their international trade, generating revenue which can be used to increase income and implement policies for sustainable development and the eradication of poverty.

  Cristiana Muscardini (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, we are happy with the arrangement reached in trialogue negotiations for the new scheme of generalised tariff preferences (GSP), due to both the complexity of the regulation and its political worth and the differences which have characterised the debate. In the current climate, European small and medium-sized enterprises that share industrial sensitivities, particularly in the areas of textiles, tanning and agriculture, must be given the chance to compete in international markets through careful evaluation of the different kinds of preferential treatment given to our main partners by the Union.

We cannot allow countries that have shown they have a competitive economy, like Brazil, Russia and Argentina, to receive help entering the European market by means of reduced tariffs at the expense of our manufacturing sector, which, for years, has been suffering the consequences of the financial crisis and protectionist choices on the exports and contracts of these third countries.

We are therefore in favour of greater monitoring of differentiation, thus avoiding showing favouritism to countries with offensive interests in strategic European sectors, and we welcome strengthening of the safeguard clause to also cover textile products. We would also like to thank the rapporteur for his excellent work.

  Claudio Morganti (EFD). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I appreciate that the number of countries benefiting from this scheme is notably reduced. It is right and proper to offer support through favourable trade policies only to those states that truly find themselves in difficulty, concentrating it where our intervention could be of the greatest benefit.

According to current calculations, Pakistan should be one of these new beneficiaries. This is a country with a highly developed textile sector, partly thanks to economic and social rules which heavily penalise our businesses. I come from Prato, a city that was one of the main textile districts in Europe and which, in recent years, has seriously suffered from unfair competition from Asia. I am therefore opposed to this agreement including Pakistan, just as I was opposed to cutting import duties for this country because of the 2010 floods. Aid for trade must be targeted, but it absolutely cannot cause the decline of entire manufacturing sectors in Europe, which could occur with the recent invasion of textile products from Pakistan.

  Julie Girling (ECR). – Madam President, I voted in favour of this proposed update to the scheme of generalised tariff preferences. This is a key instrument being used to help developing countries participate in international trade. Trade is vital for growth. Without income from exports, developing countries cannot put into place either the physical or democratic infrastructure which is necessary for sustainable democratic growth.

If resources are not available through trade, this funding is only available through aid. Trade, not aid, is the right way forward. Of course, this report is not perfect, but I support the general message from Parliament that trade preferences with developing countries should be maintained and developed.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). – Madam President, I, too, voted in favour of this report on generalised tariff preferences as a means of promoting economic growth through trade in developing countries. I strongly believe that, since it came into force in 1971, it has had an overall positive impact.

It is extremely encouraging that the least developed countries are able to participate in international trade in this way and are thus able to support their own poverty reduction schemes and their own sustainable development projects through the additional export revenue that this generates and by easier access to EU markets.

Of course, it is also important that we also reasonably defend EU industries, at the same time as providing benefits to third countries. So we must remember to create the right balance in this regard with a level playing field. Politically, I generally support the idea that trade preferences rather than aid handouts are an extremely useful tool for promoting economic development and growth in those less developed countries outside the European Union.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). – Madam President, it was only last July that we had the stress tests of all the European banks and we were told that there was no problem in Spain – certainly none that the national government could not look after.

We have now had a bailout of EUR 100 billion and Spanish ten-year bonds were at their highest level since the single currency was launched, so the only impact of this bailout has been to burden every Spanish household with a further EUR 15 000 debt that they did not have last week. Where does the money come from? It has come from the other members of the eurozone, including Cyprus and Italy and so on.

Europe is giving itself a transfusion; it is taking blood from one arm and pumping it into the other arm, but the tube is leaking. The liquid is coming out en route. My friends, when are we going to understand that you do not solve a debt crisis with more debt? The euro is the problem, not the solution. We are treating the tumour when we should be treating the patient.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – (GA) Madam President, I was happy to support my group on all aspects of this report. It was readily accepted in the end, and that is good. I am pleased that the European Union is giving so much aid to developing countries, and that is greatly to our credit. One of the ways we do this is through trading.

And with regard to trading, I think the changes here are desirable. Certain countries are coming off the list, I think about 80 out of 120 are remaining on it, and certainly some of those countries should have been taken off the list before now, particularly at a time of economic crisis – and Mr Hannan referred to the difficulties in many countries at the moment – when we have to think of our own SMEs, our own companies. Having reduced numbers in this scheme is good for those countries and it is good for the European Union.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Madam President, I, too, voted for this report because it proposes a suitable approach for revising the scheme of generalised tariff preferences. The GSP is one of the main tools which help the EU achieve its foreign and development policy objectives. We must therefore ensure that the latest reform enables it to retain and fulfil even better the specified role. With this in mind, I support the rapporteur’s position on preserving the structure of the proposal tabled by the Commission.

I agree, in principle, to reducing the number of countries eligible for generalised tariff preferences. However, I think that a special clause is needed for states which have signed a free trade agreement. I also support the mandatory review of the regulation after 10 years. This is a suitable period of time to allow an effective evaluation of the system’s operation.

  David Campbell Bannerman (ECR). – Madam President, I voted for this as I believe that trade, rather than aid, is a better way to assist less developed countries to prosper.

However, I want to make a wider point about tariff reduction and trade agreements relevant to all of us. Here, we see preferential access to the EU single market being given to nations which are not members of the EU but which get reduced – or even zero – tariff walls from the EU customs union. Yet they do not have to sign up to financial contributions to the EU or to a whole body of law, the acquis, and can trade pretty freely. It goes to show how far we have travelled from the 1970s world of high tariffs and menacing trade walls and how much has been achieved by the WTO and GATT in reducing barriers to trade around the world. We can all benefit from much looser trading relations and lower tariff walls.

  Syed Kamall (ECR). – Madam President, one of the biggest myths about trade and international trade is that countries trade with each other.

Countries do not trade with each other. It is people and businesses who trade with people and businesses in another country for mutual benefit. What can governments do? They can either get in the way or they can facilitate that trade. The best way of facilitating that trade is by simply getting out of the way. But what do governments and what do institutions such as the EU do? They get in the way with tariff barriers and non-tariff barriers.

Surely the best way to help people in less developed countries is to remove all these trade barriers and to make sure that entrepreneurs in those countries can create wealth. Otherwise, if we stop them creating wealth in their own countries, they lose hope and they seek to leave those home countries and they emigrate to our countries, and then we complain about immigration.

As a development economist once said to me, either you take our goods and services, or you take our people, so let us help entrepreneurs in poorer countries.

Report: Jean-Paul Gauzès (A7-0172/2012)

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, today’s vote in Parliament completes the package on European economic governance approved at the end of 2011. The continuation of the crisis affecting the whole of Europe has made it necessary to strengthen economic and budgetary surveillance of those Member State whose financial stability in the euro area is at risk, giving the Union’s supervisory bodies the power to intervene with appropriate preventative instruments if necessary.

  Ewald Stadler (NI). – (DE) Madam President, doing the right thing at the wrong time is wrong too. The rules that are being proposed here should have been passed at least 15 years ago for there to be any point to them. It is clear that they are no longer of any use today. It is too late for Greece and Cyprus, it is too late for Portugal, it is too late for Spain, and it is probably too late for Italy. It is no use continuing to gloss over the issue: the euro has failed. That is not just my opinion, but apparently it is also the opinion of Christine Lagarde, the head of the International Monetary Fund, who gives the euro no more than three months at most. What good is this resolution today going to do? I had no hesitation in voting against this resolution, quite simply because it comes too late, it is wrong and it can no longer mask the failure of the euro project. The euro, as an historical project of this European Union, has failed. By now, we ought to have reached the stage of admitting that economic facts cannot be politically denied any longer.

  Cristiana Muscardini (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, this legislative proposal gives rise to confusion because it would give the Commission greater powers of control over the fiscal policy of euro area countries, but with no greater democratic control in return. Greater powers mean states have less sovereignty and this is all very well, but not if control is not transferred to Parliament. The democratic deficit will increase if Parliament does not have a stronger role.

The second reason for confusion is the budget cuts and the rigid austerity policy imposed by the executive, with no investment proposals designed to create growth and development except for the amendments which luckily were passed in this Chamber. We have established that up to now, the policy has been disastrous: tax increases, reduced consumption, increased unemployment, collapse of businesses, young people out of work, and so on. It would be irrational and harmful to continue in this direction. Consider the Delors White Paper of 1993: 19 years have passed since then and we are worse off than before.

  Erminia Mazzoni (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of this report because I believe that it is still important for Parliament to have its say on a document which I hope can be brought to the attention of governments at the forthcoming important meeting on 28 and 29 June. With the vote on Mr Gauzès’s report, we, as Parliament, have said that we cannot accept increasingly strict surveillance without balancing out these powers in the direction of democratic participation. Parliament must be involved. It is important and commendable that the link between surveillance and conditionality of financial aid programmes should be strengthened, but it is just as important that the conditions for this to happen are established in collaboration with those who represent the people of Europe.

  Petri Sarvamaa (PPE). – (FI) Madam President, without a strong and decisive integrated approach to economic policy in the European Union, the entire European mission of peace and well-being is doomed to failure.

In the last two years, we have seen how individual measures are inadequate. We need a structural solution. The report drafted by Mr Gauzès on the economic and budgetary surveillance of Member States experiencing difficulties in the euro area is part of this greater and vitally important structural solution.

We are going through an historically difficult stage on the path to a better tomorrow. On this path, we now need everything we can obtain to take us towards greater joint responsibility. The Member States cannot tackle the problems in the global economy alone, so we must implement all solutions that promote economic integration. For these reasons, crucial as they are from the perspective of Europe’s future, I voted in favour of this report and for the deeper economic integration that it supports.

  Gianluca Susta (S&D). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to explain my vote also in relation to Ms Ferreira’s report, because it seems to me that it is the right time to overcome the contradiction between growth and austerity, which is at risk of becoming outdated.

Today, we have spoken in favour of growth and, at the same time, in favour of recovery. There is a contradiction when we say that we do not want to adopt a report like Mr Gauzès’s, on which I abstained for reasons I will explain, and then at the same time we call for a consolidated European budget and fiscal union. We need fiscal union, we need to monitor the budgets of Member States and, at the same time, encourage growth with the amendments we have presented and voted for in Ms Ferreira’s report.

I therefore believe that we have done something important. We have done it even though Mr Gauzès’s report contains an article – Article 10 – which sends a negative message to the markets, as it concerns controlled default procedures, which we should not even talk about at the moment because we have to show the European public that we want to move forward with the euro and with greater integration.

  Salvatore Iacolino (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of this document, as well as the other document with which it forms the ‘two-pack’, because I believe that they could be important in creating both stability and growth. However, these alone are not enough. In any case, we believe that at a time of serious crisis such as that which the European Union is facing, Parliament should take on an even more courageous role than it has so far, and we believe that development, employment and the labour market go hand in hand with a mechanism for surveillance of the budgetary policy of each Member State, because discipline is extremely important.

The European debt redemption fund could prove to be a useful tool, as could the annual coordinated public debt issuance framework. The European Investment Bank has a greater role in order to achieve budgetary, political and fiscal union, which are the essential objectives for growth and development, the need for which we are fully feeling and noticing at the moment.

  Peter Jahr (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, the European Union is a community project; it is an economic union, a political union and also a union of values. It goes without saying that if someone has got into trouble, then the countries of the European Union should help each other out. Naturally, that requires clear rules of engagement. I believe that the rules of engagement are important not just for the recipient of the assistance, but also for the party giving the assistance. Naturally, we also have to be in a position to check up on the conditions and the rules of engagement decided on.

I think it is also equally important that we establish what actually happens if, for whatever reason, the rules that we previously set are not adhered to. This may mean that some Member States, if they want to receive assistance, then have to relinquish certain of their own powers or that the Commission can intervene where necessary. That is why, in the final analysis, I voted in favour of this report, this motion, because for me, it is an important part of the overall solution.

  Dimitar Stoyanov (NI). – (BG) Madam President, I also voted for the Gauzès report for one sole reason.

Our current practice is to apply double standards to the countries which are members of the euro area and those countries which are Member States but do not use the euro by imposing the requirements for a moderate deficit on their budgets, as the Commission is able, under the procedure for admitting new countries to the euro area, to punish those countries which still use their national currencies, whereas there have been no such cases so far involving the countries which have already adopted the euro.

It also transpires that those of us still outside the euro area are paragons of financial discipline, while the problem countries which are broke and now need to take out loans turned out to be inside the euro area.

This is also why I supported this report, thinking that it will remove these double standards between both groups, and I hope that we will also continue to operate like this from now on.

  Julie Girling (ECR). – Madam President, I abstained from voting on this report today because I do not believe that as a representative of a non-eurozone Member State, I should be interfering in the internal economic functioning of those countries which are part of the eurozone. However, I do believe that those countries which are part of the eurozone should start to get themselves sorted out.

I also believe that it is important that my delegation encourage eurozone countries to act responsibly. It is, of course, too late. The eurozone needs to sort itself out, but there is no sign that this is happening with anything like the urgency which is required.

There is no better example of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted than the way European leaders have behaved during this crisis. Rules which should have been in place years ago are changed on a daily basis. We see magnificent examples of shirking responsibility, cries of ‘not me, it was him’ that would be more appropriate in a kindergarten playground. I hope it works, and it gives me no pleasure to say that I doubt it will.

  Daniël van der Stoep (NI). – (NL) Madam President, a monetary union made up of 17 different societies is doomed to fail. That is exactly what we now see happening. Financially well-functioning countries, such as the Netherlands, Germany and Finland, are paying for complete mismanagement, corruption and self-enrichment from the southern Member States.

The Netherlands should leave the euro immediately and introduce its own currency next Friday, after the markets close. Such a currency would have to be pegged one-to-one to the euro until the following Monday morning, after which we should be looking for a more stable currency to peg it to. Transferable transactions could then immediately be pegged to pound sterling or the US dollar. Anything is better than the euro.

Monetary sovereignty is of national interest for the northern Member States if we do not want to keep paying the southern Member States’ debts until the end of time.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). – (ES) Madam President, the Spanish 10-year bonds have reached their highest level since Spain’s entry into the euro. It is clear that the markets have not received the bailout as simply as was hoped. The rescue has achieved something, however: that the Spanish now owe EUR 100 billion more than they did last week. The Spanish people are perfectly aware of something that bureaucratic pride stubbornly wishes to ignore. The rescue will lead to the same outcome as in Greece and Ireland: more poverty, deflation and despair.

The Spanish are going to see how the value of their savings drops and how their debt totals rocket. Despite the fact that Brussels enjoys opacity and people not asking questions, here is a query: Madam President, when are those who accept the risk of jumping from an aeroplane without a parachute going to be left to fall?

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Madam President, I voted for this report because suitable measures need to be taken to restrict the levels of excessive debt and avoid future crises. I welcome it against the backdrop of the financial crisis and sovereign debt facing the states in the euro area. The Stability and Growth Pact needs to be strengthened further to safeguard financial stability and economic growth within the euro area. I should stress the importance of protecting Member States from the potential adverse impact of serious financial upheaval. Combining the ‘six-pack’ with the two new reports is intended to achieve precisely this result.

I also think that the economic and social problems caused by the crisis need to be looked at as a whole. Therefore, not only should Member States’ budgetary situation be taken into consideration, but also the investment required to improve it.

  Syed Kamall (ECR). – Madam President, when you look at the make-up of the eurozone, what we have is an economic project that was actually doomed to failure from the start – a bankruptcy machine, as some have called it. You have 17 countries, one currency, one set of interest rates, but 17 different spending decisions.

If you look at the lessons from successful currency unions, what keeps them together? You have fiscal transfers from the richer parts of the currency union to the poorer parts of the currency union. Therefore, we have a choice. We can keep the eurozone together in its current form, but then you have to have the transfers from the richer countries, Germany and the Netherlands, to the poorer countries. But what will the voters in those countries say? They will ask why they should pay for the less disciplined countries.

The other choice is to allow those countries that cannot economically viably stay in the eurozone to leave in an orderly fashion. The eurozone then does not break up altogether and you have a smaller, more viable eurozone. Failing to choose either course could lead to a disorderly break-up. Actually, it is a course that could be avoided if politicians were to act responsibly.

Report: Elisa Ferreira (A7-0173/2012)

  Markus Pieper (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, I rejected the report on the ‘two-pack’, but not because I do not believe in the need for stricter, clear rules on the path to fiscal union. Naturally, if the EU wants to survive, then it needs a new basic framework of confidence and stability. No, I rejected the report because this debate is being misused by those who think it can be used to pass a road map for the communitarisation of European debt and to bring in eurobonds at the same time.

Ladies and gentlemen, debt redemption funds and eurobonds will prevent national reforms and extend the agony of debt. That would poison European cohesion. The glue that holds us together has always been freedom, values and reciprocal responsibility. We cannot have the EU unilaterally imposing burdensome responsibilities on a few countries. The population of Austria, of the Netherlands, of Finland and Germany will never accept that, and candidate countries for the euro will also see it as a great deterrent. I am genuinely in favour of stability, but I am against unilateral burdens.

  Ewald Stadler (NI). – (DE) Madam President, the same as I said regarding the Gauzès report applies to this report, mutatis mutandis – particularly as regards its virtuality. Mr Kamall of the European Conservatives and Reformists Group is absolutely right when he says that this euro currency was doomed to failure from the start, simply because economies with vastly differing trade balances – think, for example, of Germany, Austria and Greece – were bundled together in a currency area. No country has ever been destroyed by devaluations or revaluations. There are, however, countries in economic history that have been destroyed by their debts coupled with a trade deficit. That is the problem that this report by Ms Ferreira is not in a position to resolve.

We simply have to recognise what Paul Krugman said two days ago, when he commented in an American newspaper that the political élites of Europe are always ready to take action to protect the banks, but are not willing to adopt a policy that protects their citizens and puts the economy back at the service of people. That is precisely what is clearly expressed in this report. For this reason, I voted against.

  Erminia Mazzoni (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, unlike my colleague, Mr Pieper, and for precisely the opposite reasons, I voted in favour of this report. With the two proposed regulations presented last November, the Commission said that if we want to achieve real risk sharing, we need to share more responsibility beforehand.

Through the votes cast in this Chamber on Ms Ferreira’s report, in particular, on the amendments with which we have started to pave the way for the redemption fund, project bonds and the separate consideration of investments, Parliament has reaffirmed the same concept, simply in the reverse order. If greater sharing of responsibility is what we want, we must share the risks. In other words, if we want strengthened governance and budgetary surveillance, we must also introduce forms of issuance which are tied to public debt and the risk must be shared.

  Peter Jahr (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, unfortunately, I was unable to vote in favour of this report. Nobody doubts that we need budgetary consolidation and a programme for growth and employment. So far, so good. However, the impact of new instruments should be checked before they are used. I find it extremely regrettable that this review mission for eurobonds and the debt redemption fund was more or less deleted from the report. It seems to me that a lack of knowledge is being covered up with actionism, and actionism can lead directly to disaster.

My second point concerns honesty. Naturally we need a programme for growth – nobody is objecting to that; but we should deal with this honestly. If people write that they want to invest 1% of gross domestic product every year in a growth programme – in other words, that we would yet again have to pay something alongside the European budget – then they are quite simply not being honest with our citizens. That is why, unfortunately, I had to reject this report.

  Mitro Repo (S&D). – (The speech began mid-sentence as the microphone was off) (FI) ... has become a crisis for the euro and for European integration as a whole, one that is affecting not just ordinary people, but also the reputation of all of Europe. Closer monitoring and coordination of economic policy are essential measures if we are to avoid such crises in the future.

More stringent budgetary discipline is a welcome sequel to the ‘six-pack’ adopted last December. In order to get through the crisis, we need to implement measures that promote growth and employment. For this reason, it is important that the recommendations for the budgets of the Member States are not detrimental to investment that creates growth, nor should the requirements for growth be allowed to water down the objectives agreed for budgetary discipline.

A crisis always has its social dimension, which should be taken into account. It is important to safeguard education and health care. At present, the priority agenda should be the promotion of employment, and it is for this very reason that I supported the report.

  Dimitar Stoyanov (NI). – (BG) Madam President, I voted in favour of this report for the very same reasons I also gave a short time ago for the Gauzès report, in other words, to get rid of the double standards being applied between various Member States.

At the same time, however, I wish to state that I support what Mr Callanan, Chair of the European Conservatives and Reformists Group, said this morning to the effect that Member States, or at least their governments and peoples, must have the opportunity to express their opinion as to whether they want to continue being part of the single currency system with the euro, or whether they would prefer to go back to their national currencies and, therefore, with a more flexible policy now, look for other ways to resolve their problems.

This right that European citizens have, citizens of every single Member State, must be guaranteed, and no country should be made to remain in the euro area at any cost. When its citizens make such a decision, it must be left of its own free will to quit the euro area and pursue its own independent financial policy.

  Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE). – (EL) Madam President, budgetary discipline is necessary for the stability of our common currency and the credibility of the euro area if we are to achieve viable growth and employment. The Gauzès and Ferreira reports strengthen this framework, especially the preventive aspect. The current crisis in the euro area proves how important it is that we prevent budgetary derailment in the Member States. That is why the New Democracy group voted in favour of these reports. At the same time, our group voted in favour of Amendments 27 and 67 on eurobonds and the creation of a redemption fund for joint debt coordination and management, with responsibility shared among the Member States. The creation of a growth facility is an important element in those amendments. It is high time for, and we urgently need, ambitious policies and instruments at European level that will stimulate investment and growth initiatives and generate exponential value and stability in the Member States’ initiatives and policies to increase growth and employment rates.

  Julie Girling (ECR). – Madam President, I took the unusual step of voting rather than abstaining on this eurozone report for several reasons. Most of all, I really wanted – yet again – to use the opportunity to express my opposition to a financial transaction tax which – yet again – found its way into a report before this Parliament. There are, I am sure, some good things in this report, but Parliament is talking about tidying up the system and ignoring the real issue.

We hear that the Commission is busily preparing plans to cope with eurozone membership default. We hear Commissioners dropping hints in the media and Parliament is, as usual, completely behind the curve, proving yet again its irrelevance in these matters.

Why are we not discussing the real point here, which is how we are going to go forward? We are like rabbits in the headlights. We are just not seizing the agenda, and are just following the bureaucrats.

No doubt people will be beating their breasts and wailing in this Chamber in months to come about how we have dealt with the issue of default countries, and yet we are just not taking the opportunity to deal with it at the right time.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). – (ES) Madam President, it is painful to see a vibrant and joyful country consumed by the deepest social depression. Despite this, I would like to send my most heartfelt hopes to the Spanish people. Spain, there is a way out; you can experience another golden age, one in which dreams are fulfilled. The way out is through confidence in your citizens and in your entrepreneurs. The way out is a greater culture of effort, and fewer rewards and bailouts for those who have not wanted to take responsibility for disastrous investments; the way out involves less and not more state involvement.

I do not believe in spending a large amount of everyone’s resources to save just a few, nor do I believe in a macro-state that means another level of bureaucracy. Madam President, I believe in Spain.

  Sampo Terho (EFD). – (FI) Madam President, the ‘two-pack’, like the ‘six-pack’ before it, will not work in the way that was hoped for. The ‘two-pack’ will not cure the present crisis. Instead, it will promote undemocratic surveillance, control over Member States from above, and joint accountability for debt, resulting in loss of morale and transfers of income within the Union. In a word, the ‘two-pack’ will promote the development of federalism.

I myself cannot support the notion that the EU should move in a direction for which I know we would not have a mandate from the citizens of Europe.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – (GA) Madam President, undoubtedly, this was a controversial report. That was clearly to be seen in the debate we had in the EPP Group last night, and again today in what my colleagues said. Be that as it may, it contains good points, and I hope that a good solution is found when it goes forward for further discussion.

There is an urgent need for discipline in the countries, especially as regards financial expenditure. Therefore, I was delighted that my own country passed the referendum two weeks ago by a large majority: 60% in favour. I think that great credit is due to the three major parties – Fine Gael, Labour and Fianna Fáil – for the leadership they showed. I hope that the other countries will ratify the Treaty soon also and that we will succeed in resolving the euro’s problems.

  Syed Kamall (ECR). – Madam President, first we had the ‘six-pack’ and now we have the ‘two-pack’. Some say that adds up to the ‘eight–pack’ but, whatever it means, actually we have not really done anything, have we?

We need look no further for inspiration than the rapper of the same name – 2Pac. He actually had some very interesting things to say about this. In his song ‘Changes’ he says: ‘Come on, come on, I see no changes’. Some people in some countries suffering at the moment ‘wake up in the morning and … ask … is life worth living?’.

2Pac said ‘you see the old way wasn’t working so it’s on us to do what we gotta do to survive’. If only the leaders of the eurozone countries would do what they ‘gotta’ do: either go for a full Union with fiscal transfers from the richer countries to the poorer countries, or allow those countries which cannot viably stay in the eurozone to leave. But, as 2Pac himself said, I see no changes.

  Martin Kastler (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, I voted against the Ferreira report for a number of reasons. Reading our newspapers in Germany – only today, one of the big dailies says that the German chancellor is asking whether anybody still sticks to the rules in Europe, or they say that Cyprus is the next candidate for a bailout – I ask myself: ‘What next?’. Just as the previous speaker said that after the ‘six-pack’ comes the ‘two-pack’, I believe that after the ‘two-pack’ will come the ‘zero-pack’, because we no longer know how it is actually supposed to work. I am very concerned that we, the elected representatives, will be the last to find out the secret plan that the European Commission and the institutions have for how we carry on with Europe. I am firmly convinced that in the future, we will have to consider how we carry on at all.

The mood among the population of my constituency is so bad that it is clear: we want to help, but we also want to have rules, and those rules should be adhered to and checked. I cannot therefore vote for further debt, for a Europe of debt, a transfer union, which is what we already have in many areas. I am against eurobonds. I am also against project bonds, because I do not think that they will help us to act usefully in this area in the future and make progress together. I hope, however, that at some point, the European institutions will tell us transparently and openly about this so-called secret plan, so that we find out what it involves.

Motion for a resolution: B7-0303/2012

  George Lyon (ALDE). – Madam President, today, I and my colleagues voted for this resolution on the multiannual financial framework (MFF).

I want to make it clear that we do support a substantial reform to how the EU is funded, including a move to own resources, allowing a substantial cut in Member States’ contributions – although we do not believe the flawed Commission proposal for a financial transaction tax is part of that solution and we voted against that particular line. However, I want to make it very clear that we do not support any reduction in the UK rebate on a unilateral basis.

The MFF is an important tool for investment and growth across Europe, with 94% of spending taking place in Member States’ backyards. However, the size of the budget must take account of the tough financial times that we live in.

We need a budget that is realistic and able to tackle the problems Europe faces. If we are to have a tight budget, it is essential that the EU has greater flexibility on how we manage it to allow us to incentivise more efficient and more effective spending. Our priorities are clear: a realistic MFF budget with the flexibility to spend it effectively and efficiently on boosting growth across Europe and creating jobs.

  Peter Jahr (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, I voted in favour of the report, quite simply because it also represents the basis on which serious negotiations can be resumed not just with the Commission, but also, and above all, with the European Council. Quite simply, I consider it unfair the we, as Parliament, are, on the one hand, set off down the route of having to decide on new reforms in the new financial period of 2014-2020 as regards the Cohesion Fund, as regards – in particular – also European agricultural policy, without knowing exactly how much money is actually in the war chest. I do not consider this particularly fair and, quite simply, I expect this resolution to jolt things into action, so that the Member States tell us once and for all how much money is actually available. Reliable funding is, after all, the basis for being able to plan reliably and bring about any kind of stable reforms.

  Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR). – Madam President, governments across Europe are trying to bring public spending under control. So why do the European institutions think they should be exempt from tightening their belts?

A British think-tank recently revealed that the Commission now employs more officials to deal with education and culture than to work on the internal market. That is a disgrace.

The European Union must refocus its efforts on the single market and ensure that EU taxpayers are getting a fair deal.

I have explained to this House many times my opposition to the EU financial transaction tax. I am equally opposed to the introduction of EU VAT. More Europe is not the answer to the current crisis. More taxes are never the answer to any crisis.

I cannot support this report.

  Dimitar Stoyanov (NI). – (BG) Madam President, when we were debating the multiannual financial framework at earlier stages in this very Chamber, the Commission declared to us that it would make those who were responsible for the financial crisis pay for inflicting it on the peoples of Europe. It was stated and promised that this would be achieved through a financial transaction tax, which I support.

At the same time, we can, nevertheless, see that there is also the intention now in this resolution, which is obviously still at a very early stage, to impose a new EU VAT. However, when VAT is levied, its burden basically falls on the very ordinary man in the street, in other words, on those who have the fewest resources. This means that we have debated financial transactions for years on end, yet, all of a sudden, it has turned out that the own resources burden will again not be shouldered by those who caused the crisis, but yet again by the ordinary European taxpayer. However, since both these points appeared together (one which I support and the other which I firmly oppose: the introduction of VAT), I abstained on this report.

  Julie Girling (ECR). – Madam President, regrettably, I was unable to vote for this resolution today and, regrettably, the rest of the House was unable to vote for the resolution from my Group. We find ourselves, as ever, at an impasse.

I always try to look at this sort of issue from the point of view of my constituents. My constituents want a few questions answered. They want to know why the Commission is not preparing a significant reduction in its expenditure when it is calling for fiscal austerity throughout Member States. My constituents want to know why this Parliament, which they have elected me to attend, is not calling for a significant reduction in its expenditure. They want to know why we are living in a different universe, and they are going further and further away from accepting that there is any relevance at all, or any benefit at all, to being part of either the European Union or this Parliament. That is regrettable.

  Daniël van der Stoep (NI). – Madam President, the multiannual financial framework is something to be cherished. It gives the Member States ultimate control over this money-hungry Parliament. The Heads of Government have more realistic views on priorities than the unelected Members of the Commission and Members of this Parliament.

I hope that we will see a drastic decrease in funding for the failed EU project and that more money will come back to the taxpayers. Dutch citizens and taxpayers have, for too long, been the ATM machine for dysfunctional Member States. As the largest net contributors per capita, we are more aware than any other country that the system needs to change. This Parliament has to realise that it is not fictional money it is spending, but money brought up by the peoples of Europe, who are sick and tired of this puppetry Parliament and its continuous desire to spend more and more money on bogus projects.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). – Madam President, almost exactly 100 years ago, from the city of Southampton in my constituency, the Titanic made her maiden voyage. It is an irresistible message for many in this House and to many observers outside.

There are so many natural similes to draw about icebergs and scrambles for lifeboats and the hubris of saying that a vessel was indestructible and so on, but you know me, you have heard me in this Chamber many times before: I abhor the cliché, I disdain the easy metaphor.

Let me instead focus on a different aspect of the sinking of that vessel, which was the behaviour of the band leader, Wallace Hartley, who, we are told from several witness accounts, played a hymn as the ship went under the water, the old hymn ‘Nearer my God to thee’, which had been introduced by his father, who was a Methodist choirmaster, to their Lancashire congregation.

I wonder whether the reason he did that was not because he was soothing himself. In times of great panic, some people run around like ants, but others go back to what is familiar and there he was playing his elegy, his funeral threnody with the notes he had learnt as a boy.

Are we not doing something similar? Hundreds of millions of euro are being withdrawn in a bank run across the Mediterranean. The system is about to crash and we are legislating about a common definition, upon the phobia about company boards having quotas of women and so on. Why are we doing it? Because it makes us feel good. Regulation is what makes us feel good. Regulation is what makes us feel comfortable. Therein is our tragedy.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – (GA) Madam President, I was happy to support this report, but I and my colleagues in Fine Gael then abstained in connection with item 3 of the votes because we are concerned about tax matters.

At the same time, there were 517 Members in favour and 74 against. That is a large majority in favour. The sooner the talks produce a result, the better.

The sooner we have definition and certainty regarding the MFF, the better, particularly for the CAP, CFP, Horizon 2020, etc. We also need some clarity regarding own resources. President Barroso was again talking about it this morning.

As the former British Prime Minister, Edward Heath, said, it is time for us to take the Community approach rather than a nationalistic approach. To paraphrase the rapper, Mr Kamal, I might say ‘come on, come on, we do need to see some changes’.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Madam President, I voted for this resolution as the EU budget is an important tool which generates growth and new jobs. It can put the European economy back on the right track, while also fostering economic and social cohesion. I think that the budget needs to play a strategic role, reinforcing the EU’s position as a global player. At the same time, I would like to emphasise how important it is as part of achieving the EU’s political objectives.

I must highlight that there should be a balance between the income from own resources and expenses. The multiannual financial framework must be flexible enough to adjust the budget’s resources to the current circumstances. In this context, reforming the own resources system could result in greater fairness, thereby helping create a transparent, predictable and accountable framework.

  Syed Kamall (ECR). – Madam President, at a time when governments not only in the EU but across the world are struggling with enormous debts and having to tighten their belts and looking at ways they can cut their spending – and rightly so, because we have all allowed the debt to grow out of control – we have all forgotten the lesson of Mrs Thatcher in the 1980s, who said that we should all remember the housewife’s rule that we should never spend more money than we have coming in.

Governments across the EU, and governments across the world, forgot that lesson and thought that the solution to more problems was to carry on spending more money than they actually have. As we reflect on the crisis, as we reflect on the problems in our Member States, what do we see the EU doing while countries tighten their belts? We see the EU asking for more money from taxpayers, asking for it to spend more taxpayers’ money that they do not have, hoping that it will solve problems when all it will do is increase the mountain of debt. It is time we learnt the lessons.

Motion for a resolution: B7-0297/2012

  Morten Løkkegaard (ALDE). – (DA) Madam President, I abstained from the vote on the resolution on EU trade negotiations with Japan just now, not because we in the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe do not want to see the agreement in question, but because we believe that the resolution adopted will actually help delay the process.

For us in the ALDE Group, there is no doubt that the way out of the crisis is growth and trade, free trade, and now is therefore the time that the EU must get started with the negotiations with Japan on a trade agreement.

Today, Parliament voted on a joint resolution proposed by the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), and the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance. We believe that this resolution, in the form in which it has ended up, will delay the start of these negotiations, which is to the benefit of neither the EU nor Japan.

Rather than discussing interinstitutional disputes, we Liberals would like to get the negotiations under way with Japan about this trade agreement based on the mantra that growth is something that you trade, rather than buy, your way to. A free trade agreement with the world’s third largest economy has an enormous potential, and I hope that all parties understand that, so that we can get started on negotiating a trade agreement right away.

  Peter Jahr (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, I voted in favour of this report, quite simply because trade can also be a factor in adding value, if it is conducted fairly. I think this motion for a resolution clearly underlines once again the fact that trade must naturally be of benefit to both sides. Quite simply, it is also a matter of both sides making a few concessions. As far as I am concerned, this requirement is met in the motion, and I therefore voted in favour and I now also hope that the negotiations will be conducted successfully so that a so-called free trade agreement is not solely detrimental to the European Union. I expect our partners in Japan to make significant concessions too.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). – Madam President, I voted against this progress report on EU trade negations with Japan as I do not believe that our negotiations in this regard should be delayed any further. The scoping exercise which was carried out relating to the potential for EU-Japan free trade agreements has identified many key areas on both sides. Both sides are now prepared to start discussions and this has shown clearly that Japan is ready to commence negotiations.

Indeed, Japan has already delivered on a number of non-tariff barriers by eliminating them. So, given the fact that Japan has already embarked on negotiations with ASEAN and the USA in these matters, any further delays by the European Union now would mean running the risk of being seriously left behind once negotiations actually start. EU FTAs with countries as far apart as Mexico and South Korea have been a great economic success story, so I hope that the European Union can now conclude FTA deals with India and Japan, which are the two great democracies of Asia.

  Jim Higgins (PPE). – Madam President, I voted for this particular resolution today. I think the first thing we have got to do is to congratulate the people of Japan on their resilience and the manner in which they have bounced back after the earthquake and the tsunami of March 2011. As a highly developed economy and as a major global trader and investor, Japan is an important partner for the EU. Japan is the world’s third largest national economy, accounting for around 1.3% of the world’s population and around 9% of the world’s GDP.

However, it is important – and I stressed this when we discussed negotiations on trade relations with China – that Japan remove regulatory barriers to trade as a precondition for launching further negotiations on the EU-Japan trade agreement. I agree with the previous speakers, I agree with Mr Jahr, I agree also with the other two speakers, that what we need to do is to get down to business immediately.

Trade is crucial if we are to rescue ourselves out of the economic morass in which we find ourselves at present, so I welcome the resolution. Today is a good day, but let us get on with the business.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – Madam President, I have always been fascinated by Japan. I think its people’s sense of industry, enterprise and willingness to face calamities – as my colleague Mr Higgins mentioned in regard to the earthquake and tsunami last year – are most admirable. Of course, as the world’s third largest national economy, it is important that we trade with them. They are our sixth largest trading partner. We are their third largest trading partner. So obviously the closer the ties are, the better.

In the last ten years, there have been four important agreements with Japan. This needs to be developed into a full FTA. There are issues regarding IPR, public procurement and maybe investment that need to be looked at, but Japan has shown a willingness to deal with all these issues. It is important now that we have an openness of approach and that we try to reach a full FTA with Japan, in the interests of our own economy, in the interests of their economy and in the interests of democracy.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Madam President, I voted for this resolution because a trade agreement can provide substantial benefits to both parties. However, the interests of European industry must be taken into account and protected in this process. Therefore, before initiating negotiations, a number of problem issues need to be resolved. I am referring, in particular, to the non-tariff trade barriers applied by Japan which create an imbalance in relations with European economic operators. The car industry is among those hardest hit.

This is the reason that I, too, endorse the proposal for postponing the decision on initiating the negotiations for a trade agreement. I believe that Parliament must have the chance to express its view on this subject, following an analysis carried out within the specialist committee. I call on the Council to respect the point of view expressed by Parliament.

  Syed Kamall (ECR). – Madam President, as the shadow rapporteur for the ECR Group on the EU-Japan negotiations, I thought it was very important that we send a strong signal that we want to commence negotiations with Japan.

Of course there are concerns about whether Japan has tackled some of the non-tariff barriers and whether they are able to do so, but surely the best way forward would have been to start negotiations because we always have the option of saying that the Japanese have not done enough and therefore we will not sign the agreement.

All we do by adopting the stance that we have adopted in delaying the start of negotiations is create bad will, or not enough goodwill, between us, and we have to make sure that we do not use that option too often, because Japan has other areas to negotiate with. It has started to negotiate the TPP – the Trans-Pacific Partnership – with the United States, and it is negotiating with other Asian countries.

Let us make sure that after this delay, hopefully in the autumn, we give the Commission the mandate to start negotiating so we all benefit from the free trade. It is time that governments got out of the way and allowed people in businesses in the EU to trade with people in businesses with Japan.

Motion for a resolution: RC-B7-0277/2012

  Adam Bielan (ECR). – (PL) Madam President, ever since Guinea-Bissau gained independence in the 1970s, the county’s political situation has been marked by permanent instability, chaos and constant conflict between the civil authorities and the military. This has resulted in a profound crisis which has affected the whole country and caused high levels of poverty among its citizens. A further cause for concern is April’s military coup, which was carried out on what was practically the day before the presidential election and made conduct of the election impossible.

I would like to condemn this shameful incident, and I would like to ask the European institutions to use diplomatic means to stabilise the situation in Guinea-Bissau and restore the civilian administration. Only democratically elected representatives of government can expect international recognition and support for the process of building a healthy state from the bottom up. Upholding constitutional order and bringing peace to Guinea-Bissau is vital to Europe’s interests because of the need to block the international drug smuggling route which runs through the country from South America. I support the resolution.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR). – (PL) Madam President, I very rarely agree with Mr Bielan, but this time it is with a certain amount of surprise that I realise we have a very similar attitude to what is happening in Guinea-Bissau. I, too, support this resolution, and voted for its adoption.

Guinea-Bissau is a country which is, unfortunately, a very important link in a certain chain – a chain used by drugs cartels to send drugs to Europe. If only for this reason, it is a country which must attract the particular interest of the European Union, although it should also attract our interest because – as I have often stressed in my speeches, and this is something we probably too often forget – for many people throughout the world, the European Union is a symbol of freedom and democracy. We must be – and people in very different countries expect this of us – an international organisation and a Union which sets standards in democracy.

The military coup we witnessed recently in Guinea-Bissau, which brought a halt to the presidential election, is a sad consequence of all that has happened since Guinea-Bissau achieved home rule and became independent from Portugal. Since that time, a constant conflict has been in progress between soldiers loyal to military governments and attempts to reactivate or to establish civil society.

Motion for a resolution: RC-B7-0281/2012

  Mitro Repo (S&D). – (FI) Madam President, I supported the joint resolution. The recent culmination of tensions between Sudan and South Sudan has driven the countries to the brink of war.

The issue of how commercial advantages and raw materials might be divided up in the countries’ border regions was left mostly unresolved when South Sudan gained independence. The countries must be persuaded to sit down at the negotiating table. Above all, a political solution to the crisis needs to be found.

The United Nations must propose a viable, comprehensive solution in the form of the road map published in May. The ball is now in the court of these two countries, but the presence and visibility of both the UN and the EU in the region is necessary. The European Union should closely support regional and international actors, so that the terms and conditions of the UN road map, in particular, can be implemented without delay. The EU must stress the importance of ending the violence in both countries.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR). – (PL) Madam President, all of us in the House know that President al-Bashir is the subject of an arrest warrant charging him with genocide. The international community still does not know what to do about the fact that Sudan is headed by a man who should not be allowed to function in a normal democratic world. On the other hand, South Sudan – a country which has huge natural resources and opportunities for development which frankly are probably unrivalled throughout Africa – is still a country where the incidence of infant mortality, poverty and other tragic circumstances is among the highest in the world. Therefore, I think it is important for the European Union to take action to mitigate a situation which today has reached a critical state. Armed hostilities and exchanges of fire at the border between South Sudan and Sudan are increasing, although, of course, we all considered the peaceful separation of the southern provinces of Sudan and their declaration of independence to be a success. I think, therefore, that this resolution is a good one, and I voted in favour of its adoption.

Motion for a resolution: B7-0301/2012

  Paul Murphy (GUE/NGL). – Madam President, the negotiation and conclusion of the EU free trade agreement with Colombia and Peru has rightly caused great opposition from trade unionists and from civil society organisations in both Europe and in Latin America. The human rights and workers’ rights situation, particularly in Colombia, remains extremely alarming, despite the claim from President Santos that his government represents a major departure from the vicious anti-worker and anti-indigenous peoples government of President Uribe.

Colombia still remains one of the most dangerous places in the world for a trade unionist to be active: 55 human rights defenders were killed or disappeared in 2011 alone, an increase of 40% compared with 2010. For example, Manuel Ruíz, leader of the Curvaradó peasant community, who was included in the special protection programme by the government, was murdered together with his 15 year-old son on 23 March of this year.

The resolution which has been approved by Parliament is meant to raise some of its concerns before giving consent to the free trade agreement. I obviously share those concerns. However, this resolution cannot serve as a fig leaf for giving consent to an FTA which will largely benefit European corporations.

  Metro Repo (S&D). – (FI) Madam President, I supported the resolution. The European Union is the second largest trading partner for Colombia and Peru. A trade agreement will be of enormous benefit to both countries in the field of industry and fishing, as the Peruvian President said today.

The European Union is a community of values, based on a respect for the principles of human rights and democracy. This obligation also extends to the Union’s trade policy. It is vitally important that the EU implements its foreign and trade policy with reference to its values. Business is not just about business: the situation in the countries that we trade with must be taken into account as a whole.

Both Colombia and Peru need to continue their work in acknowledging and implementing human rights obligations and environmental protection. These are not obligations imposed by the European Union: they are each country’s own international obligations. The trade agreement with Colombia and Peru is becoming an important example of what sort of trade partnerships Europe is prepared to agree on and on what terms and conditions.

  Adam Bielan (ECR). – (PL) Madam President, trade relations with the countries of South America are an important factor in EU economic policy. In addition, a commitment to promote human rights, democratic principles and the rule of law – a commitment of this kind is also mentioned in the resolution – is always an important condition for effective dialogue with foreign partners. This means that the efforts of these countries’ governments to establish a legal framework and mechanisms of dialogue with civil society – where such things do not exist – should be supported. All the measures being taken by the Peruvian and Colombian authorities to combat poverty, violence, corruption and drug trafficking deserve recognition. Therefore, I voted to adopt the resolution.

  Jim Higgins (PPE). – Madam President, what is in this agreement? Well, what we have in this agreement basically deals with tariffs, investments, public procurement, services and sustainable development. What is the advantage? Obviously, there is a mutual advantage for both sides. It will certainly have a positive advantage in terms of trade for both parties. The EU will increase its presence in these dynamic and growing markets, which have produced an increase in GNP of around 1% in each country.

However, I abstained on this particular vote today. I abstained because, as has been said previously, there is a major human rights problem in the shape of the murder of trade unionists, particularly in Colombia. The situation is that trade unionists have been murdered and are being murdered by the day. Yesterday, my colleagues Gay Mitchell and Mairead McGuinness and I met with the Colombian Attorney General. We emphasised the fact that something would have to be done. He quoted the figure that between 2010 and 2011, there was a 50% reduction in trade union murders. Much done, but an awful lot more to do.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR). – (PL) Madam President, I endorsed the agreement because, having observed Colombia for many years, I think it is a country which should be held up as an example of how to cope with enormous problems effectively. Colombia today is a truly different country from the one it was 10-15 years ago. This is, in large measure, due to the very effective Presidency of President Uribe, whose leadership brought peace and the opportunity for development to a great many Colombians. I think that our free trade agreement with Colombia opens the way to opportunities for still faster growth of the country, faster reduction of poverty and also – something which should be stressed here, because we must not close our eyes to Colombia’s problems – an effective fight against what is still the greatest problem in Colombia today, the country’s huge production of drugs. If opportunities for trade with the European Union allow many of the people of Colombia’s villages and rural areas to change from producing drugs to some other activity – something we will enable them to do by opening European markets – this will also contribute to fighting effectively against the terrible evil of drug production in Colombia.

  David Campbell Bannerman (ECR). – Madam President, I abstained on this report as it is another classic case of the right idea but in the wrong place.

Of course we all want to see better human rights records around the world. I personally raised the issue of human rights with President Santos of Colombia last year and I was impressed with his commitment to improve human rights in a country which has suffered from 50 years of guerrilla warfare.

But this is to confuse political agreements about political measures with trade agreements, which should be about jobs and market access. Trade agreements are not trade agreements when they become weighed down with non-trade issues.

No matter how worthy those issues are, it is not desirable or effective to confuse the two, nor can you switch trade agreements on and off like light switches, as this report suggests, so that every accusation on human rights leads to the suspension of the agreement.

That is a recipe for chaos, confusion and misery, for lost jobs and lost opportunities, and we cannot afford that, especially not at this time.

Report: José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (A7-0174/2012)

  Oreste Rossi (EFD). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the proposal to appoint a Special Representative for Human Rights comes from the Treaty and from a series of requests made by Parliament. Although the appointment will be made by the Council at the proposal of the High Representative, it is essential that Parliament and the Commission also have their say on this matter. We are also asking to be able to participate in the election procedure and to have responsibility for monitoring the representative’s conduct through hearings before the competent committee. The Special Representative for Human Rights should have to provide an annual report on their activity to the Council, the Commission and Parliament. However, I hope that the new representative appointed will know how to separate the protection of human rights from financial interests, because I do not believe the overly tolerant behaviour of many states towards China is acceptable – for example, the attitude towards human rights violations in Tibet – just because China is an economic power.

  Mitro Repo (S&D). – (FI) Madam President, the EU’s foreign policy has been adrift for the last few years. This is partly due to the establishment of the new European External Action Service.

The European Parliament has repeatedly called for the appointment of a special EU representative for human rights. Nevertheless, I fear the worst: that the candidate who is actually the most qualified for the position will not be chosen once again. Europe deserves a human rights representative selected on the basis of his or her qualifications and not because he or she has the right political connections or as a result of political wrangling. The Finnish Government has a capable woman for the job: Astrid Thors, an honorary Member of the European Parliament.

The role will be a particularly responsible one. The special representative must be expected to improve the visibility and consistency of the Union’s human rights policy. The EU’s human rights profile needs a global figurehead; it needs a face to represent it. For this reason, I also voted in favour of this important report.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). – Madam President, I abstained on the report on the appointment of an EU SR for human rights. I remain uncertain about the need for the creation of such a new post, as important human rights dialogues are already frequently being held by the EU with all our global partners. Of course, there might be benefits to having a dedicated EU representative appointed to promote the strengthening of democracy, international justice and freedom of expression throughout the world, but, in my view, the case has not yet been fully made.

However, I am also concerned that the recommendations by Parliament are too broad, and that the mandate that they will provide for will be too flexible and too far removed from the original proposals submitted by the Council. I am also concerned that the creation of such a position would have implications for the EU budget, especially at a time when we need to be making cuts, rather than creating new posts and spending more money.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Madam President, I voted for this report because the new EU Special Representative for Human Rights must live up to the expectations he or she generates. With this in mind, he or she needs a clear, comprehensive mandate to ensure that European policies in this area are consistent.

I endorse the idea that the special representative should chair high-level dialogues on human rights. This will guarantee a coherent, uniform approach in the EU’s relations with other countries. I also think that the person taking on this function must become the natural point of contact for the other international and regional organisations. At the same time, there must be a close relationship with Parliament. By this, I mean primarily not only organising the initial hearing, but also exchanging opinions on an ongoing basis as part of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Motion for a resolution: B7-0276/2012

  Oreste Rossi (EFD). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union has always accepted all international agreements regarding the arms trade. I believe that we should regulate the sector by giving operators a clear and common regulatory framework. It is also important and necessary to distinguish between weapons for military use or possible military use, which must be regulated separately, and weapons for sporting or recreational use. If this is not done, the European manufacturing sector, in particular, that of civilian and sporting weapons, will be penalised.

Once again, Europe risks failing to protect our small and medium-sized enterprises which export arms all over the world and which could see more constraints applied unilaterally by legislation that puts a weapon for sporting use and a tank in the same category. Fortunately, this morning we rejected an amendment by a political group proposing a ban on exporting any type of weapon, without considering in the slightest the damage this choice would have done to our economy.

  Adam Bielan (ECR). – (PL) Madam President, we come across instances of illegal arms trading on a regular basis. The conspicuous lack of transparency and specific international legal measures concerning the transfer of conventional weapons or their components is sure to lead to political instability and the escalation of armed conflicts, as well as to terrorist attacks and a growth in the significance of organised criminal groups. All the above factors result in unnecessary loss of life and the suffering of millions of people throughout the world. In view of the fact that practically every country in the world is involved in the arms trade, and because the value of this trade is steadily rising in spite of the crisis, it is essential to regulate this area at global level. I therefore support the very important call in the resolution for the speedy negotiation, and urgent adoption and entry into force, of a comprehensive UN treaty on this matter. However, irrespective of the result of these negotiations, the European Union should consistently support action which leads to stabilisation of the arms trade, with the help of diplomatic measures, consultations and an appropriate information policy.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). – Madam President, I voted in favour of this resolution on negotiations on the UN Arms Trade Treaty as I believe the arms trade can only be properly regulated at a global level.

It is important to note that the arms trade plays a significant role in contributing to economic growth and creates many jobs in the European Union, including in my country, the United Kingdom. However, the arms trade in its unregulated and non-transparent state seriously threatens local, national and international peace and stability and also undermines democracy, the rule of law and sustainable development through fuelling, tragically, armed conflict, organised crime and terrorism.

The creation of internationally agreed standards to ensure that conventional weapons are only imported, exported and transferred for appropriate use would, I believe, have a very positive impact. Thus, I back these calls for a resolution that is legally binding, in order to establish common international standards. It is revealing that the only UN member opposed to this move is Zimbabwe.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR). – (PL) Madam President, the arms trade is a serious moral problem for civilised nations. On the one hand, the production of weapons is an important factor in the economies of many of the European Union’s Member States and is the source of many jobs, because we know of course that weapons are simply a necessity – democratic countries need these weapons to ensure protection from the evil which still exists in our world. On the other hand, however, we are aware that a large part of the arms trade today also supplies a variety of dictatorships and terrorist organisations – organisations which are nothing more than criminal groups. For this reason, global control of the arms trade would appear to be essential, and so it was with complete conviction that I endorsed the resolution.

Motion for a resolution: RC-B7-0280/2012

  Zoltán Bagó (PPE). – (HU) Madam President, I myself was part of the European Parliament delegation to the Election Observation Mission dispatched to Kinshasa on 28 November 2011 to monitor the legislative process and presidential elections in the Congo. I was there to personally observe the votes. I can state on the basis of my own experience that there were serious problems with the electoral process, namely, irregularities and fraud. Voter registration was lacking, the counting of votes lacked transparency, and there were incidents of violence in some places. Following its stay in the Congo, our Election Observation Mission formulated recommendations intended for the provincial and municipal elections, which, to this day, have not taken place. I find it crucial for the legal framework of elections to be respected, especially in a country with such a large population and in which the massive turnout at the November elections was proof of the demand for free elections.

The publication of the results was followed by uproar in the streets of Brussels as well, where Congolese citizens living in Belgium gave voice to their disagreement through vandalism.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). – Madam President, I voted in favour of this resolution on the follow-up of the elections in the Democratic Republic of Congo, which has succeeded, five months after holding elections – that admittedly were of questionable conduct and fairness – in forming a new government. However, all things said and done, the Congolese people did turn out to vote in huge numbers, which demonstrates their deep enthusiasm for the building of a genuine democracy in their large nation.

But it is not just the election process that is necessary for the building of a true democracy. The new government, led by President Kabila, must now commit itself to the social and economic development of this vast mineral-rich country and to upholding the population’s basic human rights. With the reports of continued human rights violations, in particular, mass rapes, the DRC still has a long way to go and must start to make significant progress in the criminal investigations into these atrocious crimes and the enforcement of criminal justice.

  Adam Bielan (ECR). – (PL) Madam President, free and fair elections are the foundation of democratic governments. The presidential and parliamentary elections held in November last year, despite the assistance of the European Union and the involvement of a large number of observers, have given rise to numerous doubts both among the people of Congo and in international opinion. It is also disturbing to hear of violations of human rights, particularly those which have taken place with the involvement of members of the Congolese army. While I do accept the results of the recent elections, I would like to draw attention to the need for continued commitment to the process of establishing a fully democratic political system in Congo. I appeal to the Republic’s current authorities to give attention to the recommendations for reform of the electoral mechanism referred to in the final report of the European Union’s Election Observation Mission, reforms which are being demanded by the opposition. All the irregularities revealed during the course of the elections should be unequivocally condemned. I would also like to call the attention of the Congolese authorities to the urgent need to bring an end to the violence among the civilian population, and to guarantee security and the rule of law. I voted to adopt the resolution.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR). – (PL) Madam President, the European Union provided a fairly large sum – over EUR 50 million in total – to finance the monitoring and conduct of the elections in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Today, unfortunately, while we do accept the results of the elections, we are not able – unfortunately we are not able – to verify that the results are genuine. This is a fundamental problem when it comes to what is, in many ways, a very important country from our point of view. However, there are other problems which are, in fact, more important. I refer to the mass rapes being committed in the Republic of Congo, which we are told are being committed – and this is reliable information – with the involvement of the Congolese army. So it would appear that this resolution was a necessary one. I think the resolution was also hoped for by very many people in Congo, who would like the country to move in a democratic direction – the direction it deserves, and as indeed is deserved quite simply by every country in the world.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Madam President, I voted for this resolution because Congo has not emerged completely from the spiral of violence and instability which has been affecting it for so long. Clashes continue in the eastern part of the country between the rebel groups and armed forces. The security situation has deteriorated again, causing the civilian population to be displaced. As I have confirmed in other similar cases too, under these circumstances, the priorities must be to stop the acts of violence and deliver emergency humanitarian aid. In order to achieve this, full compliance with the arms embargo is vital.

Democratic progress must also be encouraged in Congo, along with the process of stabilisation. In this regard, the recommendations made by the EU Election Observation Mission must be implemented in full so as to avoid a recurrence of irregularities at future elections.

Written explanations of vote

Report: Inés Ayala Sender (A7-0188/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this appointment because the Committee on Budgetary Control has evaluated the qualifications of the proposed candidate, with particular reference to the conditions laid down in Article 286(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and because, at its 4 June 2012 meeting, the Committee on Budgetary Control held a hearing for the Council’s proposed candidate for the Court of Auditors.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this report because I feel that Iliana Ivanova has the qualifications and experience required to perform the function of a member of the Court of Auditors of the European Union in an effective and suitable manner. Ms Ivanova has considerable experience in auditing, management and financial reporting in both the public and private sectors. This experience is supplemented by her work in Parliament, especially as a member of the Committee on Budgetary Control. At the same time, I think that Ms Ivanova gave convincing, well-argued answers to the questions in the specific questionnaire, including on topics relating to independence and integrity. I think that they guarantee the impartiality and objectivity with which she will perform her future function. Last but not least, I feel that the experience gained by Ms Ivanova as an MEP will prove to be conducive to interinstitutional communication and coordination at EU level.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this European Parliament report because the Committee on Budgetary Control welcomed the nomination of Iliana Ivanova as a Member of the Court of Auditors. The Committee evaluated the credentials of the nominee, in particular, in view of the requirements laid down in Article 286(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Iliana Ivanova has 12 years of professional and political experience in the public as well as in the private sector related to financial management, auditing and reporting. She was mostly dedicated to matters of financial management and reporting and further developed her professional experience at premier banking and financial institutions. In 2009, Iliana Ivanova became a member of the European Parliament and full member and Vice-Chair of the Committee on Budgetary Control. She also worked as rapporteur on a number of dossiers in the Committee on Budgetary Control: the 2010 EIB annual report, the regulation on the Hercule III Programme to promote activities in the field of the protection of the European Union’s financial interests, the regulation on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy, the opinion on innovative financial instruments in the context of the next multiannual financial framework, etc.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), in writing. – (HU) Iliana Ivanova was nominated for Member of the European Court of Auditors by the Bulgarian Government. A Member of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), Ms Ivanova has been an MEP since 2009, and has been Vice-Chair of the Committee on Budgetary Control, Vice-Chair of the Special Committee on the Financial, Economic and Social Crisis, Vice-Chair of the Delegation for Relations with the People’s Republic of China, a member of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, and a substitute member of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs.

In the Committee on Budgetary Control, this Bulgarian MEP has demonstrated her competence on several occasions, having been rapporteur for the following reports: the 2010 Annual Report of the European Investment Bank, the regulation on the Hercule III Programme to promote activities in the field of the protection of the European Union’s financial interests, and the regulation on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy. Within the Committee, this Bulgarian PPE Member was responsible for the opinion on innovative financial instruments, and the study concerning the European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism and the European Stability Mechanism.

Between 2007 and 2009, Ms Ivanova was Municipal Councillor of the city of Sofia and a member of the Committees on Budget and Finance, European funds and Environment. Previously, she had worked in the United States, and prior to that she had been Coordinator for international financial institutions in the Ministry of Agriculture and Food of Bulgaria between 1999 and 2002.

The European Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control heard Ms Ivanova at its meeting of 4 June 2012 and, at the subsequent vote, the vast majority of Committee Members supported the Bulgarian candidate.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I wish Iliana Ivanova every success in her mandate for the important task entrusted to her, and I am convinced that she will carry out the duties for which she is being appointed with great dedication and skill.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The purpose of the European Court of Auditors (ECA), constituted by the courts of auditors of the Member States, is to verify the sound financial management of the funds provided for the EU by taxpayers, within the rules laid down in EU law. The Court comprises a representative of each Member State, who choose their president from amongst their number. It is currently chaired by the Portuguese Dr Vítor Caldeira. This report by Inés Ayala Sender recommends that we approve the appointment of Iliana Ivanova to the post of member of the Court of Auditors. In view of the training and experience of the candidate nominated by the Council and of the opinion of the Committee on Budgetary Control, I am voting for the appointment of Bulgaria’s Iliana Ivanova as a member of the ECA. In view of the importance of the ECA’s role in the transparency of European accounts, I hope the new member’s mandate will go well, since her success will be a success for the European public as a whole.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) Since 2009, Iliana Ivanova has been Vice-Chair of the Committee on Budgetary Control, Vice-Chair of the Special Committee on the Economic, Financial and Social Crisis, Vice-Chair of the Delegation for Relations with China, a member of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, and a substitute member of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. In the past, she has acted as Councillor on the Sofia Municipal Council, and has also worked at the Ministry of Agriculture and Food of the Republic of Bulgaria as a coordinator for international and financial institutions. In the past, she also worked in a number of foreign institutions and companies as financial analyst and business development expert. The Committee on Budgetary Control considered the qualifications of the proposed candidate. The European Parliament delivers a favourable opinion on the Council’s nomination of Iliana Ivanova as a Member of the Court of Auditors and, at the same time, instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and, for information, to the Court of Auditors, the other institutions of the European Union and the audit institutions of the Member States.

  Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE), in writing. – (HU) In the light of the financial crisis, major national supervisory institutions, as well as the European Court of Auditors and the European Parliament, should endeavour to cooperate closer than ever before, in order to be able to appropriately assess the quality of the utilisation of EU funds. I voted in favour of the appointment of Iliana Ivanova because it was she who, as a member of the Committee on Budgetary Control, initiated that hearings be held regarding matters of budgetary control concerning financial instruments (EFSM, ESM, EFSF) that affect the aforementioned institutions. I believe that this could represent a first step in the right direction. Since controls of the new instruments aimed at combating the credit crisis were performed, in part, by national control institutions, sometimes through the European Court of Auditors, and since it is the responsibility of the European Parliament to represent democratic scrutiny on behalf of the public in this process, it seems self-evident to hear all viewpoints that outline the major challenges Europe must face in connection with the aforementioned stability mechanisms at a common discussion. Additionally, my Bulgarian colleague has earned the respect of our fellow Members through her comprehensive work and excellent reports, and has demonstrated through her professional competence that she is fit to fill the position to which she has been appointed. I congratulate Ms Ivanova, and wish her all the best for her work in Luxembourg.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for the report on the nomination of Ms Ivanova as a Member of the Court of Auditors for six years. This nomination, approved by a large majority of the European Parliament, follows the regulatory procedure, that is to say, prior consultation of the European Parliament before any Council decision, which will be based on the proposals made by each Member State.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted in favour of the nomination of Iliana Ivanova as a Member of the Court of Auditors.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Court of Auditors is an institution that monitors the European Union’s income and outgoings to verify their legality, as well as verifying sound financial management. It operates with complete independence. In this spirit, the appointment of the individuals of which it comprises must be governed by criteria of capability and independence. As such, on the Council’s initiative, individuals from several EU countries have been put forward for the Court of Auditors. The candidate has submitted her curriculum vitae, completed a written questionnaire and been interviewed by the Committee on Budgetary Control. She argued her case well enough to demonstrate that she would perform her duties capably and independently if appointed to the Court of Auditors. I therefore voted for the appointment of Iliana Ivanova.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – Unfortunately, neither her biography nor work experience convinced me of Iliana Ivanova’s ability to fulfil her responsibilities efficiently. I abstained.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report on the appointment of Iliana Ivanova to the post of member of the Court of Auditors. My decision is based on all the information presented for this choice, including her answers to the questionnaire for candidates for membership of the Court of Auditors, annexed to this report, as they show she complies with the criteria laid down in Article 286(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the need for members of the Court of Auditors to be fully independent. I therefore welcome Iliana Ivanova’s appointment.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Section 7 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) establishes the Court of Auditors as one of the EU institutions. It was created in 1975 to audit the European Union’s accounts and improve its financial management. The Court of Auditors can carry out audits of any person or organisation with responsibility for managing EU funds and present its conclusions in the form of written reports, which are sent to the Commission and to the governments of the Member States. The Member States present a proposal to the Council, which approves the list of members of the Court of Auditors following consultation with Parliament. I am voting for the appointment of Iliana Ivanova as she fulfils all of the conditions set out in Article 286(1) TFEU.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Despite her youth, Ms Ivanova has gained professional experience in banks, multinational companies and the Bulgarian Government, which has allowed her to acquire skills in financial management in both the public and private sectors. Considering her curriculum vitae and her work as Vice-Chair of Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control, I believe she is ideal for nomination as a Member of the Court of Auditors.

Report: Alexander Graf Lambsdorff (A7-0186/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for these recommendations because I agree with their substance as regards the EU’s role in the UN, particularly as regards global governance; peace and security; reform of the Security Council; development issues, including sustainable development; climate change; human rights; justice; and support for democracy. However, it is regrettable that no agreement has been reached on setting up a parliamentary assembly for the United Nations.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report. I welcome closer cooperation between the EU and the UN General Assembly, which enables the EU to strengthen its global role by putting its views across more clearly and effectively. I welcome the proposals set out that we need to develop a long-term strategy targeting the UN’s membership and thus enhance the visibility of the EU’s actions, involve civil society and international and regional organisations in cooperation between the EU and the UN General Assembly and mainstream human rights in all aspects of the UN’s work. It is also important to build partnerships in the area of conflict prevention and civilian and military crisis management with the UN, the OSCE, the African Union and the Arab League, and to ensure that the share of overall European aid earmarked for development is not reduced and retains a poverty focus.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this report because, as a global player with major responsibilities, involvement and visibility, the European Union must adopt clear, coherent positions coordinated at UN level, enabling it to achieve the fundamental objectives in terms of peace and security, human rights and development. The EU needs to be constantly involved in reinforcing global governance by supporting the UN as a key aspect of effective multilateralism. At the same time, the process of reforming the UN needs to continue with the aim of ensuring greater legitimacy, efficiency and responsiveness. I should stress the importance of strengthening the operational partnership to guarantee the effectiveness of the peacekeeping and building missions, especially in cases where the civilian capabilities of the common security and defence policy (CSDP) offer support to UN missions. I think that the EU needs to continue to develop its mediation capacities in order to maximise its constructive impact in preventing and resolving conflicts. I call on the High Representative and the EEAS to pay more attention to this area. I welcome the provisions on the gender aspect and on the involvement of women at every stage of the peace process, in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 1325/2000. I believe that the EU must be involved even more actively in implementing it globally, including via partnerships with other states.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this European Parliament report because, in an international organisation like the United Nations, there is a growing need for common rules and decision-making mechanisms in order to jointly address emerging global challenges and the negative impact of the global economic crisis. In order to remain a key player in an increasingly multipolar world in need of global concerted action, in accordance with the Treaties, the European Union Member States are obliged to coordinate their action in international organisations and at international conferences. The European Union is also committed to effective multilateralism with a strong United Nations at its core, since this is essential in order to address global challenges. Justice and the rule of law are pillars of sustainable peace, guaranteeing human rights and fundamental freedoms. A solid and stable EU-UN partnership is therefore fundamental to the work of the UN under all three pillars – peace and security, human rights and development – and is also key to the EU’s role as a global actor.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The United Nations is naturally subject to scrutiny which is sometimes tainted by partiality or by political prejudices. However, it is impossible to downplay the recurring problems of legitimacy and adequacy in light of the established episodes of maladministration and the history of weakness regarding global challenges and the need for coherence concerning universal values such as peace and civil, religious and economic freedom.

The report directly addresses these two issues, working on the commendable premise that a stronger partnership with the EU could strengthen the United Nations in a wide range of activities such as cooperation, conflict prevention, peacekeeping and promoting models of governance, which, while preserving different cultural traditions, respect human and civil rights, with the positive effect of global stabilisation.

With regard to the United Nations, the EU, despite the difficulties of the integration process, is more cohesive in terms of culture, philosophy of government, constituent values and strategic interests. In this regard, it seems reasonable that the EU, considering its financial and operational contribution to the United Nations, should work to take on a more assertive role on the international stage. I therefore voted in favour of the report’s recommendations.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for this resolution, which calls for greater international efforts aimed at ensuring that all human rights agreed under UN conventions are considered universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated. We must also better integrate support for democracy into the EU’s external action and support democratic governance through its different financial instruments.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this text, which calls for European diplomacy to have a stronger influence on United Nations decisions and actions. Our common commitment to human rights, and to the values of peace, security and freedom, should enable the European Union to contribute to the development of democracy, peace and prosperity throughout the world, working in a complementary and coordinated manner with the Member States.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The United Nations does not reflect the reality of 1945 but that which the winners of the Second World War still thought existed at that time. Its inability to change means the UN will run the risk of its survival being called into question. While it is true that the worlds of the Cold War and of the period of US dominance could coexist with a Security Council devoid of true military, demographic, economic and cultural representativeness, its ability to carry on in present times is far more doubtful. The attainment by vigorous states in the South and East of the status of emerging powers, along with the speed of the media and the ease of their access by the peoples, demand a new approach. The best way of symbolically enshrining this new understanding may involve expanding the number of permanent members of the UN Security Council, and strengthening the way in which the European Union operates and its Member States cooperate within the UN.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report by Mr Lambsdorff, of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, concerns a proposal for a European Parliament recommendation to the Council on the 67th Session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). EU participation in the UNGA is always an important moment of political involvement in an international-level coordination and supervisory institution, so preparations for it should be equal to this huge responsibility. I voted for this report because it aims to improve the conditions under which the EU participates in the UNGA, whose widely supported Resolution 65/276 reinforces the EU’s observer status. It is also crucial to provide information about the commitments made by the Member States on the United Nations Human Rights Council institution building package and the outcome of the review process. I hope EU participation will contribute decisively to preparing a post-2015 development framework in the context of the Millennium Development Goals, of international level sustainable development and of international humanitarian aid for populations whose survival is at risk for political or climate reasons.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This is a report from which obvious contradictions emerge. Although it is true that it defends international law, the UN and its ‘global governance’ role are hard to square with the positions advocated by NATO, the G8, the G20, the IMF and the WTO. These forums, amongst others, pervert the world order for which the UN’s creation paved the way and seek to establish a new order dominated by the major imperialist powers. Advocating ‘respect for, and the promotion and safeguarding of, the universality and indivisibility of human rights’ cannot be squared with complacency about Israel’s state terrorism against the Palestinian people or the occupation of and killing of civilians in Afghanistan, to name but a few. We reject the well-worn aspiration of some, expressed more than once here, of obtaining a seat for the European Union on an expanded Security Council, designed to confer on the EU state legitimacy that it does not have.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) Common international values and norms aim to ensure peace, the protection of human rights, security and prosperity in the world, and to share the benefits of globalisation among all on a more equitable basis. There is a growing need for common rules and decision-making mechanisms in order to jointly address emerging global challenges and the negative impact of the global economic crisis. I am of the view that the European Union needs to strengthen its cohesion in order to remain a key player in an increasingly multipolar world in need of global concerted action. A solid and stable EU-United Nations partnership is fundamental to the work of the UN under all three pillars – peace and security, human rights and development – and is also key to the EU's role as a global player. The European Union and the UN are natural partners in peace and state building, and together provide a framework for collective peace and state building efforts. However, I also believe it is important to better integrate democracy support into European external action, and to support democratic governance through its different financial instruments using the resources of the EU delegations whenever possible. It is equally important for the EU to work with the UN and other partners globally and locally to enhance the rule of law, foster independent media and build and strengthen democratic institutions that can deliver.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) By adopting the report containing a proposal for a recommendation to the Council on the 67th Session of the United Nations General Assembly, the European Parliament is affirming its desire to create a solid and stable partnership between the United Nations and the European Union. I welcome that desire. It is essential that we coordinate the EU’s action to the fullest extent possible, by putting across unified positions and strengthening the coherence and visibility of the EU as a global actor at the UN, and by consolidating its contribution to the work of the UN.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this resolution, which calls for action to strengthen international efforts aimed at ensuring that all human rights agreed under UN conventions are considered universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated; to help strengthen national capacities for the fulfilment of international human rights obligations; and, in this connection, to stress the need to secure the right of freedom of religion and belief for all.

  Clemente Mastella (PPE), in writing. – (IT) We are calling on the Council to implement any kind of initiative to strengthen the coherence and visibility of the European Union as a global actor at the United Nations and we call on it to work closely with the Member States towards improving coordination, transparency and the exchange of information.

To advance effective multilateralism in foreign policy is not only one of our main goals but also one of the Union’s overriding strategic concerns. Therefore, we must engage more actively with strategic and other bilateral and multilateral partners, especially the USA, in order to promote effective solutions to problems which affect both EU citizens and the world at large, including the poorest and most vulnerable.

We must therefore strengthen the operational partnership and promote the strategic coherence and effectiveness of peace building efforts in order to strengthen EU mediation and dialogue capacities. Our international efforts must be aimed at ensuring that all human rights agreed under our Treaties and under United Nations conventions are considered universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the report. In particular, I agree with the need to strengthen international efforts aimed at ensuring that all human rights agreed under United Nations conventions are considered universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated. We should also help strengthen national capacities for the fulfilment of international human rights obligations. Lastly, it is right to stress the need to secure the right to freedom of religion and belief for all.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) At this time of crisis we are experiencing, the EU needs to step up its cohesion and be a cornerstone of the international political scene. Given the importance of a solid and stable EU-UN partnership to the work of the UN, the EU must fight on all fronts to strengthen the international criminal justice system, to guarantee better protection and recognition for human rights, to promote the culture of democracy and the rule of law, and to assume a leading role on climate issues, supporting biodiversity and protecting the climate in developing countries.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The report put forward the annual EP recommendations to the Council regarding the 67th UN General Assembly; notably, the role of the EU at the UN, global governance, peace and security, reform of the Security Council, development issues, including sustainable development and climate change, and human rights, international justice and democracy support.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) The Middle East peace negotiations that took place in Washington in autumn 2010 are further evidence of the EU’s dwarf-like status in external policy. Although it is officially part of the so-called Middle East Quartet, alongside the US, the UN and Russia, we do not even have a place at the negotiating table, let alone being allowed to speak. This insignificance does not seem to bother Brussels any longer, because Europe has long enjoyed playing the role of paymaster. It seems that the principle of ‘he who pays the piper calls the tune’ does not apply to the EU, which is always ‘concerned’ or ‘shocked’ at the risks to peace that arise or at existing injustices. Rather than imagining ourselves to be a giant in external policy in the context of the Treaty of Lisbon, it would have been better at the outset to clarify issues surrounding appropriate representation of the European Union at the United Nations, including the speaking rights of its main representatives or the tabling of motions. After all, the European Union is not a country, and the people of Europe do not want it to become one. Since the EU does not deal with these basic problems, I abstained from voting on this report.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (S&D), in writing. – I support the report containing detailed recommendations for improvement of the global governance helping to promote EU values, preserve our world and improve quality of life for millions of people. The European Union is one of the world’s biggest democracy, peace, human rights promoter and development supporter. We have to use opportunities offered by the UN at the global level to strengthen our foreign policy and achieve its goals more effectively. On the other hand, the EU can increase the effectiveness of the UN. The EU should take advantage of its experience, take a leading role in strengthening cooperation between different UN organs and other stakeholders and put this common potential into action. The joint global action is needed in many fields in many places in the world.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the European Parliament’s recommendations to the European Council on the 67th Session of the United Nations General Assembly because I agree with their content, particularly strengthening the coherence and visibility of the EU as a global actor at the UN, thereby meeting the expectations of UN members regarding the ability of the EU to act and deliver in a timely fashion.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report includes a proposal for a European Parliament recommendation to the Council on the 67th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. It concerns various issues, but the most significant is that regarding EU-UN relations. The intention is to step up further the EU’s role in the UN, both through increased representation in its specialised institutions and agencies, and through the development of stronger public diplomacy. It also focuses on issues relating to maintaining and consolidating global peace and human rights. As regards the former, the intention is to promote the role of ‘mediation’ and strengthen the international criminal justice system. With respect to human rights, it provides for greater efforts at international level to ensure that all the human rights accorded under the UN conventions are considered universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated. Finally, it aims for greater integration of EU development policies at all levels, always taking into account protecting human rights and environmental protection. I voted for this report for the above reasons.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – Deemed adopted without a vote (Rule 97(4)).

  Tokia Saïfi (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The European Union and the United Nations (UN) share common values and norms aimed at ensuring peace, security and the protection of human rights around the world. Moreover, the EU and its Member States are the largest financial contributors to the UN, funding 39% of its regular budget and more than 40% of its peacekeeping operations. However, cooperation between the two organisations is still not clearly defined. In the report adopted in plenary this week, which I supported, we called on the Council to clarify and strengthen the EU’s relations with the UN, in particular, with its General Assembly, which will meet for its 67th session at the end of the year. That international meeting will be the EU’s opportunity to affirm its role as a leader in a world in which concerted action is increasingly necessary.

  Joanna Senyszyn (S&D), in writing. – (PL) I endorsed the resolution on a European Parliament recommendation to the Council on the 67th session of the United Nations General Assembly. I consider the defence of human rights to be of particular importance. Efforts should be made to achieve the adoption in 2012 of a resolution banning female genital mutilation worldwide and on continuing efforts in relation to the call for a moratorium on the use of the death penalty. It is also important for there to be continued support for action on the rights of the child, free media, religious tolerance and to eradicate torture, including adoption of the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention on Torture. The Union should emphasise its commitment to the work of the UN Human Rights Council by co-sponsoring statements and declarations. The appointment of an EU Special Representative for Human Rights will raise the Union’s status in the international arena in the field of human rights. Therefore, at the 67th session of the United Nations General Assembly, the Union should announce this appointment and say that the special representative’s mandate will include cooperation with the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the UN Human Rights Council.

I would also like to draw attention to the need for women to be involved in building and maintaining peace around the world. With regard to this, we should strive to achieve the implementation by all UN Member States of UN Security Council Resolution 1325, which addresses the issue of gender in the context of conflict prevention, peacekeeping operations, humanitarian assistance and post-conflict reconstruction.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) With regard to the proposal for a European Parliament recommendation to the Council on EU priorities for the 67th session of the United Nations General Assembly, I believe that a post-2015 international global framework should be set out with the following essential objectives: to improve the implementation of innovative financing mechanisms to meet climate change goals, assessing first the successes and failures in respect of the current goals achieved and not achieved; to make a wholehearted commitment to the goals set at Rio+20; to reiterate the commitment to food security in member countries and to stimulate productive capacity in agriculture, infrastructure, new businesses, access to technologies, human and social development in least developed countries; to support fully the core role played by the United Nations, and particularly by the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In the report adopted today, the European Parliament makes some recommendations to the Council regarding the European Union’s position in the United Nations system, with particular emphasis on issues of global governance, of peace and security, of international justice, of human rights, of support for democracy, of development, and of climate change, environmental protection and sustainability. I would also stress Parliament’s insistence to the Council that a common interpretation be reached regarding how the European Union participates in the work of the General Assembly and that progress be made towards a consensual reform of the Security Council, so as to make it more legitimate. I voted for this report for those reasons.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of the European Parliament recommendation to the Council on the 67th session of the UN General Assembly. The EU needs to strengthen its cohesion in order to remain a key player in an increasingly multipolar world in need of concerted global action. I think that the EU needs to coordinate actions to the maximum possible extent, present common positions and improve its coherence and visibility as a global player at the UN. The EU and its Member States are among the largest financial contributors to the UN system. The EU27 fund 39% of the UN’s regular budget and more than 40% of UN peacekeeping operations. I think that it is important to ensure that the share of overall European aid channelled through the EU budget is not reduced and retains its focus on combating poverty and hunger. Taking into account the EU’s support for the ‘Education for All’ initiative and its commitment to playing a role in global health, 20% of all EU assistance needs to be earmarked for basic social services, with a special focus on free, universal access to primary health care and education.

  Geoffrey Van Orden (ECR), in writing. – This report sets out the case for the EU as an independent actor at the UN, which I and fellow British Conservatives have consistently opposed. The EU is neither a nation state nor a member of the United Nations, and the EU’s intention (in the words of the report) ‘to develop a long-term strategy targeting UN membership’ goes completely against UK Government policy and the wishes of the British people. Under no circumstances should European Member States of the UN, still less members of the Security Council, allow the EU to demand (in the words of the report) ‘the defence of the positions and interests of the EU in the UN Security Council’ by those Member States which are members of that body. As a matter of principle, I therefore opposed this report.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – The EU needs to strengthen its cohesion in order to remain a key player in an increasingly multipolar world in need of global concerted action. The EU is committed to effective multilateralism with a strong UN at its core, since this is essential in order to address global challenges. A solid and stable EU-UN partnership is fundamental to the work of the UN under all three pillars – peace and security, human rights and development – and is also a key to the EU’s role as a global actor.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) At a time of crisis like the one we are experiencing, the European Union needs to strengthen its cohesion in order to remain a key player in international politics. Considering the importance of a solid and stable EU-UN partnership to the work of the United Nations, the Union needs to commit itself on several fronts in order to strengthen the international criminal justice system, provide better protection and recognition of human rights, promote the culture of democracy and the rule of law and to take the lead in global climate governance by supporting biodiversity and climate protection in developing countries.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) As it is not possible to highlight all the – many – important issues included in this report, we would underline the hypocrisy of those claiming to defend international law, the UN and its ‘global governance’ role, at the same time as they support its perversion and hijacking, specifically through the role of NATO, the G8, the G20, the IMF, the WTO and other forums aimed at rolling back the democratisation of international relations represented by the creation of the UN and at a world order dominated by the major imperialist powers. Once again, they are hypocritically invoking ‘respect for, and the promotion and safeguarding of, the universality and indivisibility of human rights’ and the need to strengthen them at international level, when they violate these rights or are complicit in the violation thereof every day, through their support for Israel’s state terrorism against the Palestinian people, and the occupation of and killing of civilians in Afghanistan, to name but a few. They support the ‘responsibility to protect’, which can be translated as deepening the processes of intervention, aggression and violation of national sovereignty whenever the interests of the major world powers are at stake. They also defend a state legitimacy that the EU does not have, with the already tired aspiration of obtaining a seat on the expanded UN Security Council.

Report: Christofer Fjellner (A7-0054/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report because the European Union has been awarding non-reciprocal trade preferences since 1971, in the form of reduced duties for goods imported into the European market from developing countries through the generalised system of preferences. However, in this area, it is particularly important to draw attention to the fact that the new legislative proposal is intended to focus on the import preferences of the developing countries in greatest need. In practice, this means that preferences are withdrawn from some countries, thereby increasing the value of the preferences for those who remain in the scheme, a process which could be called ‘preference consolidation’; that seems like the most suitable approach to me, in fact.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report. The existing generalised scheme of tariff preferences (GSP scheme) dates back to 2008 and I therefore believe that it should be improved and adapted to today’s realities. The aim of this trade instrument is to enable developing countries to participate more fully in international trade and thereby generate additional export revenue. Several important changes to the scheme should be adopted, with the aim of concentrating import preferences on those developing countries most in need. I agree that preferences should be withdrawn for countries which have an alternative preferential arrangement and countries which are classified by the World Bank as high-income countries. I also believe that the GSP scheme should not apply to certain products if they become too competitive on the EU market. As for poorer countries, I agree that preferences for these should be increased and product coverage extended. On the subject of GSP+, I agree with the new criteria laid down by the Commission and it is important for more countries to be involved in the GSP+ scheme.

  Erik Bánki (PPE), in writing. – (HU) The purpose of the scheme of generalised tariff preferences is to use preferential customs tariffs to allow access to the EU market for those developing countries that need it the most. The current regulation, however, essentially covers all non-European countries other than the developed member countries of the OECD. Among the countries covered there are several that have more competitive economies than the EU or which are granting their own export companies subsidies contrary to WTO rules. Coming into effect in 2014, the new system will cut down the number of countries eligible for reduced customs tariffs to less than half. This will allow us to ensure that it is developing countries truly in need that can enjoy preferential treatment. This is why I, too, voted in favour of the report.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this European Parliament report because the generalised scheme of tariff preferences (GSP scheme) is one of the EU’s trade instruments for promoting sustainable development and poverty reduction in developing countries, and ensuring respect for human rights. The European Union has granted non-reciprocal trade preferences in the form of reduced tariffs for goods from developing countries when entering the European market through the GSP scheme since 1971. It is part of its common commercial policy. The aim of this key trade instrument is to enable developing countries to participate more fully in international trade and thereby generate additional export revenue to support income growth and the implementation of their own sustainable development and poverty reduction policy strategies. The latest scheme dates back to 2008 and is now due for review. While maintaining this general structure, the new legislative proposal introduces several changes to the import scheme from developing countries, with the aim of concentrating import preferences on those developing countries most in need. In practice, this means that preferences are withdrawn from some countries, thereby increasing the value of the preferences for those who remain in the scheme.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The EU’s scheme of generalised tariff preferences was introduced in the 1970s, with the aim of the preferences granted being for the common trade policy to complement the development cooperation policy for the benefit of the developing countries, providing a system of preferential tariffs granted unilaterally by the EU to products originating from these states. The generalised scheme of tariff preferences (GSP) is based on three fundamental rules: the preferences are general, non-reciprocal and non-discriminatory. This means that the EU offers low customs duties or duty exemptions to 178 countries and territories, granting special benefits to the least well developed 50 countries and to states which implement the labour and environmental protection standards. The GSP system may have a longer-term impact inasmuch as it makes the countries eligible for preferences more attractive as locations for inward processing, encouraging foreign direct investors who would like to export to the EU market in the future. In general, trade experts have found it difficult to identify another positive impact from the trade preferences on GSP exports, apart from the transfer of the revenue which comes with the duty-free import of goods.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The report, which I support, completes the brave step of rationalising and adapting the scheme of generalised tariff preferences (GSP) to changed economic and geopolitical circumstances, while also protecting their inherent incentives for development and cooperation, and therefore, ultimately, for stability and security. While, for many countries, GSP beneficiary status has been bypassed through free trade agreements with the EU, in other cases, being a GSP beneficiary was clearly an outdated legacy no longer in line with the goals of the system.

The sensitive issue of the so-called GSP+ countries remains, but this can be dealt with in the light of our experience of this reform, just as there will be ongoing changes to the enforcement of the provisions of the delegated acts, including during the five-year review. Likewise, it is desirable for all possible care to be taken in regional monitoring of the implications of the possible inclusion of parties to free trade agreements and countries with GSP status. I am sure that any shortcomings will be quickly identified, partly thanks to careful monitoring of thresholds and the competition posed by imports. Overall, this instrument has come out leaner and more transparent than before, and is certainly in step with economies undergoing relatively rapid change.

  Jan Březina (PPE), in writing. – (CS) The generalised scheme of preferences (GSP) should, first and foremost, be a tool for development and, in that context, I consider it right that the new GSP regime submitted by the Commission no longer covers high-income or upper middle-income countries. It therefore excludes most Latin American countries and countries such as Algeria, South Africa, Gabon, Namibia and most of the Caribbean islands. Meanwhile, economies as powerful as those of India, China, Indonesia and Thailand would continue to be eligible for the GSP, albeit temporarily. Accordingly, it seems unfair to make GDP per capita the sole eligibility criterion for the GSP, thereby penalising small countries despite the high levels of poverty they may face. The Commission should therefore, in my view, give serious consideration to using a combination of more indicators and criteria. The Commission should also, in my opinion, clearly identify the parties authorised to provide further information on monitoring mechanisms, introduce a transparent system of benchmarks, carry out a clear human rights impact assessment, adapting EU trade policies to protect those rights, and take greater account of the specific role of EU delegations.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – While I wholeheartedly applaud global efforts to lift developing countries out of poverty via the establishment of strong trade links, the difficulty with establishing a pan European model is that it denies individual Member States the ability to adapt markets and charge importation tariffs that meet their individual needs

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I welcome the fact that Parliament adopted the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences without distorting the original structure proposed by the Commission. I note that the trialogue with the Council and the Commission helped us to move in the same direction and meet Parliament’s objectives, particularly for the most sensitive issues, such as the clauses on the textile sector.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report because I believe the European Union should support developing countries which share a common need for development, which are at similar economic development levels, and which are not classified by the World Bank as high-income or medium/high-income or do not have a very high or high human development index. The generalised system of preferences will certainly contribute to these countries achieving higher levels of development. Moreover, this scheme will ensure greater consistency between internal and external EU policy.

  Françoise Castex (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this text, which reviews the scheme of generalised tariff preferences (GSP). The European Union has granted trade preferences to developing countries since 1971. These provisions are regularly adapted to take account of each country’s economic growth. Today’s vote is the first review of this system under the codecision procedure. In fact, we could barely have hoped for the compromise agreed with the Council, given the vastly differing positions of the Member States. For French Socialists, this text succeeds on two key issues: ensuring that the large emerging countries no longer benefit from preferential access to the EU market and facilitating exports from the poorest countries. This new trade regime will therefore enable us to provide better support to developing countries and it will be a step forward in our fight for fair trade as it will officially exclude the emerging countries almost entirely.

  Ole Christensen (S&D), in writing. – (DA) My reasons for voting in favour of the Fjellner report on tariff preferences for developing countries are set out below.

In order for these countries to benefit from what they grow or produce, this access is necessary. The slimming down to the 80 poorest countries has many positive aspects, as it bolsters the economies and competitiveness of those countries. At the same time, the agreement supports the implementation of those countries’ own strategies for sustainable development and combating poverty.

The Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament managed to have a longer transitional period instituted for those countries leaving the scheme. We attempted to obtain a majority in favour of a somewhat more flexible scheme that would take greater account of the inequality in the countries (the Gini coefficient) and other development criteria (the human development index) when deciding which countries to include in the scheme.

The agreement represents the best possible compromise, and it is important that negotiations on the agreement have been completed. When it comes to countries that are no longer covered by the scheme, negotiations are to be carried out directly between the EU and these countries. It is, furthermore, a positive thing that the scheme is flexible, so that countries can join if their poverty conditions deteriorate.

  George Sabin Cutaş (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the legislative resolution on applying a scheme of tariff preferences as I feel that this framework needed to be revised. Removing high-income and upper middle-income beneficiary states from the list, along with those which already have a preferential bilateral agreement with the EU, means that we can ensure that countries which have achieved a high level of development are not given an unfair advantage.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I think that the aim of this key trade instrument – the generalised scheme of tariff preferences – must be to enable developing countries to participate more fully in international trade, thereby generating additional export revenue to support income growth and the implementation of their own sustainable development and poverty reduction policy strategies.

  Marielle de Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) In order to allow the poorest countries to participate in global trade, the European Union has applied a scheme of generalised tariff preferences (GSP) since 1971. This mechanism allows products from less developed countries to enter the European market at lower prices by exempting them completely or partially from customs duties. However, the global economy has changed a great deal in the past 40 years. Some emerging countries that previously benefited from the GSP, such as Brazil, China and Russia, no longer face the same problems in terms of participating in trade. The new mechanism will concentrate on the countries that are most in need, so it is a step in the right direction. A second major advance is the establishment of an incentive arrangement known as ‘GSP+’. It will benefit the countries that work to ensure sustainable development and promote human rights.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this text, which seeks to make the customs benefits offered by the European Union more effective by focusing efforts on 80 developing countries rather than the 170 it covers today. The application of these preferential tariffs should help to promote the global trade, economic growth and social development of the countries that are most in need, while preventing other foreign companies from benefiting as a result and competing unfairly against European products on the internal market.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The European Parliament has endorsed the proposal for a regulation put forward in spring 2011 by the Commission to update the EU’s scheme of generalised tariff preferences (GSP) in order to reflect the changes that have taken place to the structure of global trade. The next GSP, which will enter into force on 1 January 2014, will no longer grant tariff preferences to countries classified as high-income or middle-income countries on the World Bank index. Consequently, countries whose per capita income has exceeded USD 4 000 for four years will no longer benefit from reduced or zero tariffs for exports to the EU: they include countries that produce and export oil (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, etc.). The review reduces from 176 to 75 the number of countries that can benefit from preferential access to EU markets. I welcome the adoption of this report, which I believe to be fair: the next GSP will exclude high-income countries and pay more attention to the most deprived countries. Those are the countries that we must help first and foremost.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D), in writing. – I voted in favour of the draft European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences because it improves the coherence and coordination of the Union’s aid for the development of the poorer countries in the world. I positively welcome the interconnection made between the concessions granted to those countries and the need for improvements, on their side, concerning human rights, labour rights and sustainability. This represents, in my view, the best way to guarantee the delivery of help to the people, by building up, at the same time, more trustworthy governance systems in their countries, which will result in a better future and more reliable partnership. Unfortunately, the suggestion made by the S&D Group to include more low-income countries in the generalised scheme of preferences (GSP) did not get enough support from other political groups. This report, nevertheless, is the result of a good compromise, which I am confident will manage to deliver a significant contribution to the development of those countries more in need.

  Göran Färm, Anna Hedh, Olle Ludvigsson, Jens Nilsson, Marita Ulvskog and Åsa Westlund (S&D), in writing. – (SV) We Swedish Social Democrats believe that it is right for the EU not to give trade preferences to wealthy countries like Saudi Arabia, Brazil and Russia. However, we do not believe that it is fair for GDP per capita to constitute the only condition for whether or not a country is to be included in the generalised scheme of tariff preferences (GSP). We do not consider the classification by the World Bank to be adequate. The EU should instead also take account of other factors indicating how vulnerable the countries are when classifications are made, such as diversification, integration into world trade and ranking on the United Nations Development Programme’s human development index. We support the fact that those countries covered by the ‘Everything But Arms’ (EBA) scheme, which is aimed at the 50 or so countries that the UN designates as the world’s least developed countries, are not affected by the amendment of the GSP.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Since 1971, the European Union has been awarding non-reciprocal trade preferences, in the form of reduced duties for goods imported into the European market from developing countries through the generalised system of preferences. This method is an integral part of the common commercial policy, in line with the general provisions governing EU external action. For this very reason, and because aid to developing countries in the form of lower tariffs should affect the maximum possible number of countries needing it, I advocate keeping the same calculation criteria for identifying beneficiaries.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In 1968, the United Nations conference on trade and development recommended the creation of a generalised system of preferences (GSP) under which countries considered more developed would support developing countries by granting trade preferences. The European Community was the first to implement a GSP scheme in 1971 and it has proved to be one of the key means of cooperation on poverty reduction relating to international trade. Around 176 countries have benefited from the GSP, but there is a need to revise it by introducing new rules, new conditions and more incentives. This report by Mr Fjellner concerns the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council for applying a new scheme of generalised tariff preferences. I voted for this proposal because, without jeopardising the EU’s economic interests, it supports developing countries that defend EU values by incentivising their exports. Although its scope as regards products covered has now been increased, the new programme (GSP+) includes tougher requirements, such as the 27 relating to respect for human rights and environmental protection.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) For decades, the EU has been guaranteeing developing countries the chance to export products to the EU without reciprocity. This was not motivated solely by development but also by self-interest, since it stabilised the prices of essential goods, particularly agricultural products and so-called ‘commodities’, in general. Developments have been taking place and distinctions made within this system, seeking to benefit the less developed countries more. However, all this has been jeopardised by submission to the rules of the World Trade Organisation, one of the institutional pillars of international level neoliberalism, and by the emergence of free trade as a means of colonising the economies of developing countries.

The new regulation now being proposed will see the EU move from a wider ranging system of trade preferences between industrialised countries or blocs to a more restrictive one. Many countries will be excluded from the non-reciprocal preferences system, which is not unconnected to unacceptable pressure and blackmail to force acceptance of free trade agreements, as is happening with Ecuador. On the other hand, in the interests of the EU powers, benefits are being expanded for some countries, which could have a negative impact on countries like Portugal, where sensitive sectors, such as textiles or clothing, carry significant weight. We voted against.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The European Union has granted trade preferences to developing countries through the generalised system of preferences (GSP) since 1971. This system is one of the key EU trade instruments assisting developing countries in their efforts to ensure core human and labour rights, reduce poverty and promote sustainable development and good governance in developing countries. Thanks to increased trade, many developing countries and export sectors have successfully integrated within the global marketplace. In order to ensure a better safeguarding of the EU’s financial and economic interests and to enhance legal certainty, stability and predictability, the administrative procedures for safeguard mechanisms are being improved. The new regulation is premised on enhanced transparency and predictability, including applicable procedures and rights of defence. I am confident that it will better safeguard the EU’s financial and economic interests and will enhance legal certainty and stability. It is important to bear in mind that preferential access to the EU market is one of several enablers that sustain development through trade. What the new GSP Regulation seeks to achieve is greater simplicity, predictability and better targeting of the EU GSP scheme so as to maximise its effectiveness; all of the proposed modalities are also in line with the United Nations’ priorities for combating global poverty.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I fully supported the review of the scheme of generalised tariff preferences, which was examined for the first time since 1971 under the codecision procedure. This text succeeds on two key issues that are particularly important for Social Democrats: ensuring that the large emerging countries no longer benefit from preferential access to the EU market and facilitating exports from the poorest countries. I am therefore pleased that this new trade regime will, in the long run, enable us to provide better support to developing countries as part of our fight for fair trade, as it officially excludes the emerging countries almost entirely from this scheme. I welcome this message to the ultra-liberals as it goes against the approach that promotes excessive competition, which must now give way to the sound and balanced development advocated by the Socialists.

  Brice Hortefeux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The scheme of generalised tariff preferences offers preferential duties, notably customs duties, for developing countries. This system, set up in 1971, is a necessary mechanism in an increasingly competitive global economic and trade environment. While Europe is in the midst of an incredibly dramatic crisis, some developing countries have been experiencing significant growth and become very competitive. That is why we need to update the scheme by focusing on the least developed countries and tightening up the eligibility criteria, e.g. compliance with 27 international conventions on human, labour and environmental rights. It is now up to the Commission to apply this tool and ensure a fair balance, in line with the realities on the ground, rather than focusing solely on a mechanical application of the criteria laid down in the different regimes (GSP, GSP+, Everything But Arms).

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported the report by Mr Fjellner reviewing the scheme of generalised tariff preferences (GSP). Through this trade agreement, the European Union will offer 80 countries and territories preferential access to the EU market in the form of reduced customs duties on the products they export to that market. It is an essential tool for our external and development policies. I also welcome the extension of the GSP+ criteria, which make trade benefits subject to the ratification of basic conventions on human, labour and environmental rights. This is an essential and effective means of promoting the European Union’s values.

  Sergej Kozlík (ALDE), in writing. – (SK) The European Union has granted non-reciprocal trade preferences in the form of reduced tariffs for goods from developing countries when entering the European market through the generalised scheme of tariff preferences since 1971. In 2009, the value of EU imports under this scheme amounted to around EUR 60 billion, representing 4% of total EU imports. New rules approved by the Lisbon Treaty under the ordinary legislative procedure should reduce the number of beneficiaries from 186 countries to 80. The so-called more advanced developed countries, which are currently the biggest beneficiaries, accounting for around 40% of preferential imports into the EU, will be removed. The new regulation will also include a set of safeguard and surveillance measures, and the procedures that trigger the safeguard clauses and decision-making procedures have been redefined. I fully support the proposal.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The scheme of generalised tariff preferences required clarification in order to improve the current situation and standardise the enforcement of these procedures, while also being sensitive to the particular characteristics of the individual Member States. As such, it is important to introduce assessment and monitoring mechanisms that allow the tariff preferences to be applied and adapted according to changed economic, social and technological circumstances. My vote in favour is therefore intended to offer encouragement to continue down this road, as well as not to lose sight of the changing conditions in our increasingly globalised markets. This way, it will be possible to avoid favouring or disadvantaging Member States, which could find themselves in really tough competition.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this resolution, which aims to concentrate the benefits of the GSP scheme in the poorest countries in the world.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Even though we must monitor the effects of these measures closely in future, I support Mr Fjellner’s proposal that the review of the GSP scheme should seek to extend benefits to poorer countries which remain in the scheme in order to increase the development potential.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this new generalised system of preferences (GSP) for imports from developing countries because it is a more balanced and more demanding scheme than the current one. The main improvements are halving the number of beneficiary countries to concentrate on the countries in the greatest need and toughening up the requirements for benefiting from GSP+, which is a more beneficial scheme. Despite these positives, I am bound to express here my opposition to easing the conditions for accessing GSP+, which will enable large economies like Pakistan, which are very competitive in some sectors, to access it – if they meet the other conditions relating to human rights and the rule of law – at the expense of poorer countries and to the cost of Europe’s own textile industry, particularly in Portugal.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – For the first time, this regulation will be subject to the ordinary legislative procedure, following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. Therefore, it will enable developing countries to participate more fully in international trade and thereby generate additional export revenue to support income growth and the implementation of their own sustainable development and poverty reduction policy strategies. Preferences will be withdrawn from some countries, thereby increasing the value of the preferences for those who remain in the scheme, a process which could be called ‘preference consolidation’. I voted in favour.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) As far back as 1964, there were loud calls from some developing countries for trade preferences to improve their economic situation. In 1968, after an agreement was reached, a generalised system of preferences (GSP) was introduced. The European Economic Community introduced the GSP in 1971 and other nations like the United States followed suit. The temporary granting of trade preferences sought to achieve the following goals: an increase in developing countries’ export revenues through diversification of the exported products, promotion of industrialisation and an acceleration of economic growth in the developing countries. Furthermore, the GSP was intended to ensure that the products favoured originated in developing countries. To date, the GSP represents one of the most important EU instruments in the area of trade and it is monitored by the European Commission. However, I am unable to vote in favour of the report because the amendments proposed do not seem to be fully thought out.

  Vital Moreira (S&D), in writing. – (PT) The delegation from the Portuguese Socialist Party (PS) voted for the new generalised system of preferences (GSP) for imports from developing countries since it is a more balanced and more demanding scheme than the current one because, first, it halves the number of beneficiary countries to concentrate on the countries in the greatest need and, second, it toughens up the requirements for benefiting from GSP+, which is a more beneficial scheme. This positive overall stance does not, however, mean we have abandoned the objections we have been expressing since the start to relaxing the conditions for accessing GSP+, which will enable large economies like Pakistan, which are very competitive in some sectors, to access it – if they meet the other conditions relating to human rights and the rule of law – at the expense of poorer countries and to the cost of Europe’s own textile industry. Although the special safeguard clause obtained by Parliament for textiles and clothing satisfactorily defends European industry, we believe, on principle, that European generosity towards third countries cannot come at the cost of the economies of the less competitive Member States.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) As this is the first time that the regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council applying a generalised system of preferences is being adopted using the ordinary legislative procedure, and in view of the major changes being proposed, I share the rapporteur’s aim of providing for a revision thereof five years after it comes into force and a limited duration of 10 years, rather than the unspecified duration proposed by the Commission. That will, in fact, be a significant improvement on the current situation, since this period is long enough to ensure stability and predictability for economic operators. As such, I voted for this report.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Since 1971, the European Union has been awarding non-reciprocal trade preferences, in the form of reduced duties for goods imported into the European market from developing countries through the generalised system of preferences (GSP). The latest scheme dates back to 2008 and is now due for review. For the first time, this regulation will be subject to the ordinary legislative procedure, following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. The purpose of this important trade instrument is to enable developing countries to participate more fully in international trade, thereby generating additional export revenue to support income growth and the implementation of their own sustainable development policy and poverty reduction strategies. I therefore voted for this report.

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I congratulate Mr Fjellner on his work. The adoption of this report, having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 207 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and having regard to the report of the Committee on International Trade and the opinion of the Committee on Development, represents Parliament’s desire to introduce several changes to the import scheme from developing countries, with the aim to ‘concentrate import preferences on those developing countries most in need’.

The product coverage should therefore be extended to some products of particular value to developing countries, while taking care to avoid eroding the preferences of the least developed countries on products essential for them. Furthermore, the proposed reform highlights two basic requirements: the need for a more targeted graduation system and further promotion of core human and labour rights, and principles of sustainable development.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – Against. Greens/EFA amendments related to adding vulnerability criterion, longer transition periods, deleting exclusion if country restricts raw materials exports, deleting frogs legs and nuclear machines from beneficiaries of GSP were all rejected.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Developing countries need to participate in international trade, since an increased presence would allow them to generate additional export revenue to support income growth and the implementation of sustainable development and poverty reduction strategies. This review must now extend the benefits to poorer areas above all others, increasing the development potential and incorporating products of particular value to developing countries.

  Tokia Saïfi (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The scheme of generalised tariff preferences (GSP) has existed in Europe since 1971 and its benefits have been clear for all to see. All that remained was to adapt it to the global economic situation: some countries that were classified as less advanced have become very competitive in recent years. The new GSP criteria mean that they will no longer be able to benefit from preferential tariffs, while the least developed countries will be able to profit more from them. That is why I voted for the amendments at this part-session. I also welcome the improvements to the follow-up and monitoring of the GSP+, under which the additional tariff preferences are now subject to 27 basic conventions on human, labour and environmental rights. This is an issue that I raised in my November 2011 report: trade can be a means of promoting the EU’s essential values if, and only if, the EU has the ability to ensure that they are respected. The review of the mechanism for withdrawing preferences takes the right approach. The adoption of this report will also allow the proposal to be finalised and enter into force by the end of the year.

  Matteo Salvini (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I voted against Mr Fjellner’s report, even though the Commission’s proposal is, without doubt, an improvement on the previous scheme of generalised tariff preferences, and despite the fact that the Council introduced a number of additional restrictions for the GSP+ scheme during negotiations with Parliament. Unfortunately, however, a country such as Pakistan – a serious threat to EU textile businesses, which continue to hold strong – would soon be able to benefit from the GSP+ scheme. I do not think that is a good thing. We ought to have further limited access to these trade preferences. That is why Lega Nord voted against.

  Marie-Thérèse Sanchez-Schmid (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Since 1971, as part of its common commercial policy, the European Union has offered preferential trade tariffs (GSP) to certain developing countries in order to stimulate their economic growth. However, some emerging countries are now competing with Europe on the global markets so those benefits are no longer justified. The updating of the GSP will reduce the number of countries benefiting from preferential access to EU markets from 176 to around 75. It will also reduce the total value of imports under the preferential scheme by some EUR 20 billion. We are also strengthening another special regime, known as the GSP+, which offers additional benefits but with conditions: the countries will have to prove that they comply with 27 international conventions on human rights and sustainable development. In adopting this proposal for a regulation, our aim is to help the countries that really need our help, encouraging them to adopt our values, but also to reinforce our trade defences against our direct competitors.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The Commission has proposed to revise the scheme of generalised tariff preferences, which has been in force in the EU since 1971, with regard to non-reciprocal trade preferences for goods that enter the EU market from developing countries. Despite the fact that the new preferences criteria will cut the number of beneficiaries by around 50%, I think this system does act as a real lever to increase the gross domestic product of developing countries and results in actions to deal with the problems in these countries, while also genuinely tackling poverty.

  Francisco Sosa Wagner (NI), in writing. – (ES) I completely abstained from the vote as I did not have time to review the amendments and the voting list. They were not available for review until the end of the day prior to the vote.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Since 1971, the European Union has been awarding non-reciprocal trade preferences, in the form of reduced duties for goods imported into the European market from developing countries through the generalised system of preferences (GSP). The purpose of this trade instrument is to enable developing countries to participate more fully in international trade, thereby generating additional export revenue to support income growth and the implementation of their own development policy and poverty reduction strategies. The proposed revision of this system provides for important changes, not least reducing beneficiaries to 80 countries, excluding countries whose annual income per capita exceeds USD 4 000 for three consecutive years, introducing a system of grading products by sector and extending the GSP+ to a greater number of countries. I support the new architecture that has been proposed, and I voted in favour in the European Parliament.

  Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE), in writing. – The European market with more than 500 million citizens is the biggest in the world, bigger than the USA or Japan. That gives us more political power and strengthens our position as a soft power in the world in negotiating with third countries under better conditions. Having said that, it is important for me to use this tool to better implement what we think is better for third countries – democracy, freedom of the press or greater separation of powers – while opening up our markets to their products. That, of course, should not be against our industry and agricultural activity, which should be protected to compete on an equal footing with third countries. All initiatives that go in the direction described above, which give more power to the EU to protect and defend our living standards in the rest of the world, should be backed.

  Viktor Uspaskich (ALDE), in writing. – (LT) I very much agree with the rapporteur’s proposal to promote aid for the poorest countries and, at the same time, tighten safeguard measures intended to protect the EU’s textile and clothing industry against cheap imports from third countries. This is long overdue and, as the rapporteur observes, it is the first time that the European Parliament has used the power conferred on it by the Treaty of Lisbon to legislate on the generalised scheme of tariff preferences. Lithuania’s textile industry, which employs 25 000 people, continues to rank among the cheapest manufacturers in the EU. The changes proposed in the report would help the Lithuanian textile industry to increase its competitiveness. Lithuanian textile manufacturers play an important role in our economy – they export more than 80% of their production. Nevertheless, in recent years, they have not exploited their full potential. The tradition of high-quality industrial production in Lithuania is linked to strategic transport and logistics infrastructure and this means that the Lithuanian sector could do better. I very much agree with my colleague from the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe that we need to update the tariff scheme so that it reflects the latest changes in the global economy, for example, by withdrawing preferences for EU imports from countries on the World Bank’s per capita income list (including Brazil, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Qatar).

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) Since 1971, the European Union has granted tariff preferences to certain developing countries to make it easier for them to export some of their products to the EU, without any reciprocal arrangements. More recently, the EU established a system known as the generalised scheme of tariff preferences (GSP+), under which the countries that commit to a certain level of respect for human, democratic and environmental rights obtain additional trade benefits. This system does not actually benefit the EU from a trade perspective, but it would be a political choice to destroy it in order to comply with WTO rules and another step closer to allowing market forces alone to prevail. Clearly, they cannot tolerate any more exceptions, even when the aim is to support the poorest countries on the planet. This new GSP+ scheme is therefore going to restrict the number of least developed countries (LDC) that benefit from it and it will no longer include the particularly fragile small island states, which is something that my Reunionese colleague, Younous Omarjee, strongly denounced. I therefore voted against this report in order to condemn this new hypocrisy of the European Union in the area of development.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) Adoption of this regulation will see the EU move from a wider-ranging system of trade preferences between industrialised countries or blocs to a more restrictive one. This means that many countries will be excluded from the non-reciprocal preferences system, which is not unconnected to unacceptable pressure and blackmail to force acceptance of free trade agreements. On the other hand, in the interests of the EU powers, benefits are being expanded for some countries, which could have a negative impact on countries like Portugal, where sensitive sectors, such as textiles or clothing, carry significant weight.

Report: Jean-Paul Gauzès (A7-0172/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report. Despite the austerity measures the Commission intends to implement, great progress has been made. Some of the significant achievements of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament in ensuring that austerity would not be as unjust or harsh as was being proposed include: only the Stability and Growth Pact being obligatory rather than the benchmark of 0.5% of the deficit; the inclusion of multiple clauses, under which social dialogue must be respected; the need for profound analysis of procedures relating to macro-economic imbalances; and the Commission’s obligation to verify the consequences of taxation.

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) As indicated by the recent development in the euro area, the increasing interdependence between European states as the effects of the recession deepen is the main challenge which the European Union needs to face up to in the short term. The possibility of economic and fiscal problems in one state having an extremely severe impact across the whole EU is a major vulnerability which must be resolved by means of a set of pragmatic, effective public policies. The current number one priority is to restore the credibility of monetary union, and several of the solutions proposed in these reports may make a crucial contribution to achieving this desired objective. At a time when the experience of recent years has shown the paramount importance of decisive measures which have been taken promptly, adopting procedures for supervising the financial stability of states facing economic problems is one of the solutions expected from the European authorities by the international markets and investors. The legislative package must be bolstered by the procedures put forward by MEPs, aimed at ensuring the stability and credibility which European states need, and preventing promptly the difficulties from potentially spreading to other economies. I voted in favour of this report.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report. Excessive national debt can have dramatic consequences, both within the countries concerned and for the other Member States of the European Union. In order to avoid serious economic and social consequences and ensure financial stability and economic growth in the euro area, there is a need for serious measures and I therefore agree that the ‘two-pack’ debated here should also be adopted alongside the ‘six-pack’. I believe that the Member States should consult with the Commission in advance on important economic or fiscal policy reforms to make it possible to assess the potential impact for the euro area as a whole. It is important to align the preparation of national budgets by setting a common timetable for all countries, which should ensure that countries drawing up budgets take the European recommendations and national reform programmes into account in a timely manner. Furthermore, a euro area member that is experiencing significant economic difficulties should present the Commission with a detailed borrowing plan.

  Erik Bánki (PPE), in writing. – (HU) I voted in favour of the two additional economic governance packages that are part of the system of economic governance because, in addition to further reinforcing the timely supervision of the draft budgets submitted by euro area Member States, in particular, by Member States in financial difficulty, they also allow for the operation of a pre-emptive crisis prevention mechanism. The packages intend to achieve this by requiring, among other things, reinforced information provision in order to ensure that Member States with financial stability issues and excessive deficit report on the development of their budget deficits in time. The aim of this mechanism is to prevent negative financial situations from rippling over to the entire European Union economy.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Commission proposals to complete the economic governance package are intended to ensure the conditions for enhanced supervision and protection of the Member States targeted with financial assistance and/or threatened with difficulties or instability. Following on from the financial crisis and the sovereign debt crisis that have debilitated Europe, this report learns lessons and proposes solutions for stability and growth based on preventative measures enabling early resolution of the problem instead of fixing already established problems. It stipulates that, when a Member State is experiencing grave difficulties, it should have enhanced supervision – which will depend on the severity of the financial difficulties and the assistance accorded to countries – and everything possible should be done to prevent contamination of other economies. Any countries failing to comply should also have the guarantee of legal protection and will have an adjustment programme that will be monitored by the Commission and other competent bodies. I voted for this report, since it is an element of reinforcing stability and confidence in euro area countries, which are pivotal to a sustainable recovery and to laying the foundations for growth in Europe.

  George Becali (NI), in writing. – (RO) The experiences which our countries have gone through between 2008 and now indicate to us that our rapporteur is right when he suggests that the states in the euro area require increased supervision. In addition, speed is of the essence and measures need to be adopted promptly. We are aware that the procedures in our institutions are lengthy and take up a great deal of time. This is why I voted in favour of responsibility being restored to the Commission and of the Council being able to repeal the decision by a simple majority vote within 10 days.

  Jan Březina (PPE), in writing. – (CS) I essentially approve of the Commission proposal that a Member State whose currency is the euro be subject to enhanced surveillance when it is experiencing – or is at risk of experiencing – severe financial disturbance. Such a state should be swiftly returned to a normal situation and the other euro area Member States should be protected against possible negative spillover effects. The decision-making procedure should be adapted. In order for action to be taken swiftly, it should be the Commission’s responsibility to take the necessary decisions, including placing a Member State under the enhanced surveillance procedure. The Council should be able to repeal such a decision by a simple majority vote within 10 days. I also agree with the proposal to create a system of legal protection applicable to a Member State which is at risk of being, in the near future, in a persistent state of default. The Commission should have the possibility, after consulting the Council, of deciding to place the Member State under a legal protection arrangement which would entail, in particular, the suspension of ‘close-out netting’ or ‘credit event’ provisions.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – Thus far, all responses to the eurozone crisis have only deeper entrenched afflicted Member States in the mire, spread the credit issues virally by inter-relating economies and co-managing bailouts and exacerbated the lack of manoeuvrability held by any one country to steer out of economic turmoil. I strongly opposed the ‘six-pack’ controls brought forward by the Commission and also vehemently reject the latest ‘two-pack’ response which seeks to strengthen EU control of Member State finances via intrusive surveillance. The ongoing economic problems are enabling the European project of federal integration to be forced along at a pace and are being exploited, if not extenuated, to this end. Whilst I agree that growth should be the focus to enable single currency members to climb out of fiscal crisis, I do not believe this can be done with the euro intact and believe the aim now should be to relinquish the single currency, dismantle the eurozone and release Member States to forge necessary and nation-specific courses of action to redevelop trade and industry and tackle unemployment.

  Antonio Cancian (PPE), in writing. – (IT) In order to achieve economic stability within the euro area, we have adopted the ‘two-pack’: two reports which, together with the ‘six-pack’ adopted last September, complement the package of European austerity and governance reforms.

I voted in favour of the report by Mr Gauzès, which I consider crucial for achieving genuine growth. It must be Europe that sparks this growth, not only in order to launch a finance facility for the industries that drive EU growth, such as infrastructure and research, but also in order to allow Member States to maintain their commitments. The instruments for growth are: forms of debt mutualisation which could take their lead, for example, from the European redemption fund proposed by the German Council of Economic Experts in November 2011; bonds issued by the EU financial institutions, for investment in infrastructure subject to a golden rule excluding them from deficit calculations; the creation of a European system of bank deposit insurance, avoiding ‘runs’ on euro area banks. This vote is an important step towards a true monetary, economic and political union.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report because I support the European economic governance – the so-called ‘six-pack’ – adopted by the European Parliament and the Council in 2011, and because I think the grave economic and social situation in which certain Member States find themselves could have been avoided had it been possible to trigger early and specifically guided action.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The consequences of the financial crisis in terms of financial stability and economic growth have been very serious, contributing to a severe deterioration of the public deficits and indebtedness of the Member States. Unfortunately, a growing number of Member States are needing bailouts, so there is an urgent need for enhanced supervision. It is a shame that this ‘two-pack’ was not adopted before, since prevention by means of early action specifically aimed at preventing a Member State’s indebtedness would have been preferable to correction with robust austerity measures, which can have serious consequences for economic growth and job creation.

We have to learn lessons from the financial and sovereign debt crisis we are facing and propose solutions. This proposal is another initiative to increase budgetary discipline, intended to complete the economic governance package, and stipulates that a Member State in difficulties should be targeted with enhanced supervision, thereby helping to ensure its quick progress towards normality. As the intensity of the economic supervision should be proportional and appropriate to the severity of the financial difficulties, there should be a guarantee of legal protection and Commission monitoring.

  Emer Costello (S&D), in writing. – I voted in favour of the ‘two-pack’ because I believe that to ensure the euro works for everyone, we do need better economic governance at European level, and a good compromise on this has been reached between the political groups, with which we can now negotiate with Council. We have to reduce our debts and deficits but one-sided fiscal consolidation will not end the crisis and must be combined with growth. I therefore welcome the support for a growth instrument mobilising 1% of GDP each year for infrastructure investment, and the emphasis on prioritising investments in education, health and areas that have growth and jobs potential. I welcome the support for a debt redemption fund and a eurobonds road map, the requirements to respect national practices and institutions for wage formation and the right to take collective action (the ‘Monti clause’), the role of the social partners and civil society, and on tackling bankers’ bonuses. I have set out my positions on the FTT on 23 May 2012 (A7-00352/2011) and on the CCCTB on 19 April 2012 (A7-0052/2012) and I refer to those explanations of votes in relation to the ‘two-pack’ resolutions.

  Andrea Cozzolino (S&D), in writing. – (IT) I decided to vote against the report by Mr Gauzès because, once again and for the umpteenth time, it employs a rationale that I did not and do not think is valid and that, as time has gone on, has played a crucial part in the worsening of Europe’s economic and social situation.

I have fought and I contest the theory that the underlying cause of the crisis is to be found in the high number of countries that have been unable to put their budgets in order. On the contrary, the facts demonstrate that this is a crisis of growth and of a lack of investment. Confronted with this reality, the recipe put to us once again is mistaken and will once again prove to be counterproductive. In the past, we have fought hard against this outlook, opposing and voting against the ‘six-pack’. Since then, faced with a deterioration in the economic and, above all, social situation, rather than championing a change of direction and a radical change of gear, we have been going backwards, casting out the economic analyses which, in reality and in contrast to those from the right which have put us in this situation, we know to be right and potentially capable of putting a stop to what is becoming an irresistibly slippery slope.

  George Sabin Cutaş (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this report in keeping with the group line and the political understanding reached between the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament and the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) to support both the Gauzès and Ferreira reports.

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This proposal which, together with the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on common provisions for monitoring and assessing draft budgetary plans and ensuring the correction of excessive deficit of the Member States in the euro area, constitutes what is known as the ‘two-pack’, enhances the previously adopted ‘economic governance package’. The purpose of this specific regulation is to ensure the conditions for enhanced supervision and protection of the Member States targeted with financial assistance and/or threatened with difficulties or instability, using preventative measures that enable resolution of the problem in advance. This is another step in the right direction. This represents more Europe and more integration; a course towards a common future. It is the path of shared economic and environmental growth and development, peace, prosperity and happiness, like the last 55 years. The vast majority of the European public do not seem to have grasped this reality, however, because of the times of economic, financial and fiscal crisis we are experiencing.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported the adoption of this measure, which strengthens the surveillance of countries in the euro area that are experiencing difficulties. The Commission and the governments of the euro area must be aware of the exact situation in neighbouring countries that are in crisis so that their financial assistance can be as tailored and effective as possible. Stronger surveillance is also a means of ensuring that the countries in question are properly implementing the reforms needed to stabilise their situation and to prevent any threat, because of their lack of responsibility, to the euro area economies as a whole.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), in writing. – (HU) As the Member of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) responsible for the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs on the report, I believe that the protracted economic and financial crisis has resulted in some Member States finding themselves in extremely difficult situations. In order to combat the imbalances that have developed, the European Union intends to introduce reinforced economic and budgetary control for these Member States, which will be able to ensure that the Member States concerned can solve their economic and budgetary problems. However, we must not forget that the new, stricter control procedures to be introduced could easily entail side effects that could put the economies, societies and labour markets of the Member States concerned in an impossible situation.

The application of the new procedures must always be subject to comprehensive consideration of the economic and social problems caused by the crisis. We must prevent existing problems from escalating even further and leading to even greater budgetary problems or causing a slowdown in the growth of the Member States affected and, by extension, the entire EU. The motions for amendments which I submitted in relation to the report, as well as my votes in Committee and plenary, were based on this consideration. After all, we cannot focus solely on the budgetary situations of countries; we must also take into account labour market and social implications, and must bear in mind all fundamental EU documents and all objectives of the EU, including the need to implement the targets for employment rates and for the fight against poverty set out in the Europe 2020 strategy.

Withdrawing funding from countries in difficult budgetary positions could result in the retention of the discrepancies between core and peripheral countries, and such a decision could impact the growth outlook of the entire EU. Any unfounded suspensions and sanctions are contrary to the fundamental values of the European Union and, in particular, the idea of solidarity. Member States should by no means be punished for macro-economic imbalances with withdrawals of funding, and sanctions should only be applied if the European Commission has ascertained through thorough case-by-case investigations that the Member State in question failed to fulfil its obligations. In the absence of a careful and comprehensive examination of the problems, the withdrawal of any amount of Community funding is unacceptable, as it punishes those Member State beneficiaries that hold the key to economic recovery and growing employment.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The economic and financial crisis has forced the Member States to adopt measures restricting consumption, cutting wages and postponing the retirement age. Some EU Member States have not managed to emerge from the crisis by these means alone and have had to request financial help from the European institutions to obtain the support of certain bodies, such as the European Financial Stability Facility, the International Monetary Fund and the European Central Bank. The crisis is an ‘octopus’, whose tentacles threaten to reach a number of European countries. After Ireland, Greece and Portugal, it went on to Spain and is now hovering over Italy. Measures urgently need to be created to check its advance, since we know that the consequences of one Member State’s indebtedness can have an impact on another, and even globally, because the corrective measures are slow acting. I voted for this report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the strengthening of economic and budgetary surveillance of Member States experiencing or threatened with serious difficulties with respect to their financial stability in the euro area, which sets out new procedures, such as enhanced powers for the Commission and the qualified majority rule.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report is part of the so-called ‘two-pack’, presumably, a complement to the previous ‘six-pack’, and concludes the legislative framework of what is known as economic governance. It sets out provisions for strengthening the ‘economic and budgetary surveillance of Member States experiencing or threatened with serious difficulties with respect to their financial stability in the euro area’.

What is incredible is how they admit to being in the process of transposing provisions from the recent fiscal compact to EU secondary legislation. It should be recalled that the fiscal compact still has not even been ratified and is, furthermore, a legal aberration, drafted outside the law of the EU itself, despite the fact that it encompasses the European institutions. The rapporteur believes that ‘it should be the Commission’s responsibility to take the necessary decisions, including placing a Member State under the enhanced surveillance procedure’. As with the other report in this ‘two-pack’, the intention is clear and out in the open: to bring the Member States even further under control, in such a way as to lead to the establishment of colonial style relations. Naturally, we voted against.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The financial crisis that has hit the world over the last three years has seriously damaged economic growth and financial stability and provoked a strong deterioration in the government deficit and debt position of the Member States. The serious economic and social consequences which are currently being experienced by many countries could have been avoided in the past by the adoption of effective measures. However, at that time, the European Union did not have the necessary instruments. This situation must be put right with a combination of six pieces of legislation from 2011 – the package on European economic governance – as well as two new pieces of legislation, the so-called ‘two-pack’. We need to strengthen the original legislation. I believe that preventive action is, in any case, preferable to taking corrective measures. A Member State with significant financial problems should be subject to enhanced surveillance, even if such problems are still only a threat. Surveillance must be commensurate to difficulties already encountered or impending and should take due account of the financial assistance received. We should ensure a smooth return to a normal situation for a country that is experiencing or threatened with severe financial disturbance. The consequences of excessive national debt can be frightening. I firmly believe it is important to be able to prevent a Member State with financial difficulties from transferring its problems to the rest of the euro area. To ensure financial stability and economic growth, the ‘six-pack’ should be amended accordingly.

  Carlo Fidanza (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of this resolution. I must say that I am very sad to see the negative repercussions of this social depression, if we can call it that, and I am firmly convinced that we must act promptly to avoid a worsening of the global economy. The Treaty requires economic matters to be seen as an issue of common interest, with policies inspired by the need for healthy finances that cannot compromise the functioning of the economic and monetary union. The Stability Pact itself highlights the need to create incentives for prudent budgets, obviously avoiding excessive public deficits and strengthening surveillance. This surveillance allows us to identify risks as well as possible and take responsibility promptly. As the Commission has said, the EU must take shared responsibility, which I think also involves risk sharing. That is the only way we will be able to ensure coordinated and well monitored budgets.

  Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE), in writing. – (HU) This report on the economic surveillance of euro area Member States experiencing serious difficulties with respect to their financial stability fits well into the common system of economic governance, as I truly believe that after the ‘six-pack’ on economic governance, the second economic governance package, which further elaborates on the practical aspects of fiscal discipline, is timely and essential for giving Europe a chance to initiate long-awaited growth. The crisis management experience of the past months has clearly revealed that without fiscal discipline, not only can we not talk about actual economic growth; we cannot even talk about actual economic performance. The report tabled before us foresees not only the fulfilment of minimum requirements but also financial assistance to Member States in difficulty through the European Stability Mechanism, and although the final vote was postponed in order to allow the commencement of the trialogue with the Council and the Commission on the text adopted at first reading, I supported the amended text just as I did at the Committee vote.

  Mathieu Grosch (PPE), in writing. – (DE) This report and the whole subject make it clear that a coordinated financial and economic policy is of great importance for the EU.

It is very important to reach agreement at first reading, in order to save valuable time. We need to make it clear to the citizens of Europe that we must all consider it important that the clear rules on budgetary discipline are respected, but also that initiatives are taken to promote growth.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I abstained on this report because, although the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament succeeded in removing the ‘golden rule’ and the 0.5% structural deficit limit, proposed by Mr Gauzès in his initial report, the widespread use of reverse qualified majority voting is an unacceptable risk: it gives the Commission too much power, allowing it to decide alone which countries should be subject to surveillance.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this document because excessive national debt can have dramatic consequences, both within the countries concerned and for the other Member States of the European Union. What is at risk is the euro area’s reputation, rather than its existence. The Commission’s proposal complements the package on European economic governance (the so-called ‘six-pack’) adopted by Parliament and the Council in 2011. The broad thrust of the proposed regulation is that a Member State whose currency is the euro should be subject to enhanced surveillance when it is experiencing, or is at risk of experiencing, severe financial disturbance. This should ensure its swift return to a normal situation and protect the other euro area Member States against possible negative spillover effects.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The two reports known as the ‘two-pack’ were put to the vote in plenary. I voted for both of them during the voting on 13 June 2012. The ‘two-pack’ is further progress in the area of budgetary surveillance. It complements the ‘six-pack’, a legislative package adopted by the European Parliament in September 2011 that contains measures to strengthen economic governance. The first report, by Jean-Paul Gauzès, relates to the strengthening of economic and budgetary surveillance of Member States experiencing or threatened with serious difficulties with respect to their financial stability in the euro area. It states that once a state is placed under protection, it cannot be declared to have defaulted. In addition, the country’s creditors must make themselves known to the Commission within two months. Loan interest rates will also be frozen.

  Sergej Kozlík (ALDE), in writing. – (SK) This draft regulation on the strengthening of economic and budgetary surveillance of Member States experiencing serious difficulties is set against the background of the financial crisis and the sovereign debt crisis now confronting the European Union. The Commission’s proposals complement the ‘six-pack’ on European economic governance adopted by Parliament and the Council in 2011. The broad thrust of the Commission proposal provides for a Member State, whose currency is the euro, to be subject to enhanced surveillance when it is experiencing – or is at risk of experiencing – severe financial disturbance. In order for action to be taken swiftly, it should be the Commission’s responsibility to take the necessary decisions, including placing a Member State under the enhanced surveillance procedure. The Council could repeal such a decision by a simple majority vote within 10 days. I supported the draft as amended by the EP.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The first anniversary of the Arab Spring was marked a few months ago. The nascent democracies of Morocco, Tunisia, Libya and Egypt are still struggling to find their own forms of democracy and the necessary legitimacy among their people. The difficulties faced by the economies of these countries require Parliament and, in general, the European Union, to adopt policies in line with our values of solidarity. In the past, I have spoken out against actions to help these countries by abolishing duties on certain agricultural products, as in the controversial issue of the EU-Morocco agreement. However, I am criticising the method, not the end goal. Accordingly, in this particular case, I voted in favour because I think that extending the geographic scope of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development’s operations is an important step. That, however, is contingent on us keeping in mind the real needs of these countries, providing a level of investment that does not have negative repercussions on the economies of the Member States.

  Marine Le Pen (NI), in writing. – (FR) The two proposals for regulations known as the ‘two-pack’ were adopted this morning in the European Parliament by a large majority.

The European Commission’s powers of budgetary surveillance of the Member States have been strengthened. That is called taking over. The national budgets will thus be examined by the European Commission and the other EU Member States and the structural reforms needed to consolidate the public accounts will have to be carried out.

Member States that do not cooperate with what Brussels decrees will be automatically fined. This is the end of the States’ budgetary sovereignty, the next logical step after losing their monetary sovereignty.

As Mr Barroso said, we now need to build the political union if we do not want to collapse. The tone has been set. The political coup d’état of the Brussels technocracy, with the complicity of Parliament and the European governments, is under way. The people, powerless to act, are going to witness the end of their freedom. Obviously, I am opposed to the adoption of these two proposals for regulations.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Drawing up measures for monitoring the economies and budgets of the states in the euro area facing financial turmoil is undoubtedly an important step as part of averting situations involving a serious, long-term, financially destabilising impact which automatically have an adverse ‘domino’ effect on other Member States, whether inside or outside the euro area. However, what I regret is that these measures ought to have been taken much earlier. As a result, situations could have been avoided or remedied in some Member States experiencing financial imbalance, such as Greece at the moment, which is going through a crisis, along with severe economic and budgetary difficulties, but which will be hard to resolve without having a strong impact on other countries too. At the same time, I think that stringent legislation with this aim in mind encourages dialogue between the various European institutions so that they can decide in a responsible, coherent manner on the most suitable means of financial aid to be provided to the states in trouble.

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE), in writing. – (RO) This regulation is appearing against the backdrop of the financial and sovereign debt crises which the European Union is currently facing. Several Member States (Portugal, Ireland, Greece and, this week, Spain too) have requested financial assistance. I support the Commission’s proposal which stipulates that a Member State which uses the euro as its currency must be subject to increased supervision when experiencing or at risk of experiencing severe financial upheaval. The situation needs to be quickly restored to normality and the other Member States in the euro area need to be protected against any negative spillover effects.

My country, Romania, is not part of the euro area yet, but its economy is closely bound to that of the countries which have adopted the single currency. Therefore, any imbalance in the euro area is also felt immediately on the Romanian markets. This is why I think that the countries which are not part of the euro area or are in the process of joining (Romania would like to join the single currency) must also be involved in the codecision process.

  Thomas Mann (PPE), in writing. – (DE) Last year, Parliament, the Commission and the Council agreed on the ‘six-pack’ in the conciliation procedure. This tightens up the rules in the Member States in favour of effective debt reduction and limitation of new debt. Today, this significant step is followed up by another: the ‘two-pack’. More effective coordination and control of national budgets provides a basis for avoiding economic imbalances. We do not need less Europe, we need more of it – in the interests of all the euro area countries. A uniform timetable must be developed for all budget planning which is harmonised with the European Semester. The fiscal pact, the ‘six-pack’ and the ‘two-pack’ belong directly together. They cannot be subject to variations in mood or opinion polls. The defamation of the necessary path of austerity, which was reached by consensus, and the glorification of a growth path is pure polemic. Only when budgets have been cleaned up and reforms implemented can we invest effectively for the medium and long term. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) has supported growth thinking for years, and this was and remains the basis of the Europe 2010 and Europe 2020 strategies. In other words, this is nothing new at all. We can only sensibly invest our citizens’ money in training, education, infrastructure and the fight against unemployment when we have a sound budgetary basis. We need growth with substance that is not financed on tick.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this resolution. The worsening financial situation worldwide caused a marked downturn in growth in the Union and serious budgetary problems for its Member States. But while coordinating the Member States’ economic and social policies may well be one solution to these problems, a certain number of principles must be observed in the process.

Coordination cannot focus solely on the Member States’ budgetary situation and must take into account investment in the labour market and in improving the social situation. State investment in training or research to make a country more competitive, an effective social protection system and social minima are all ways to fight poverty and maintain internal consumption – and thereby better resist crises – and should be viewed positively.

Coordination must be consistent with the democratic principles of the Union. Parliaments wherein sit elected representatives, whether the European Parliament or national parliaments, must be kept fully and regularly informed in the same way as the Commission or the Council.

Coordination cannot run counter to national and EU principles on social dialogue. Fundamental rights to collective bargaining and to strike action cannot be called into question by the structural reforms and job market reforms advocated by the Member States.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the ‘two-pack’. I agree with the text put forward by this House’s Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. Preventive checks on Member States’ budgets are necessary: it is right to demand greater austerity. This also applies to the redemption fund and the separate consideration of investments.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. – I abstained both on the referral back to Committee and on the final vote of this report. Although I am in favour of the so-called ‘two-pack’, I abstained due to concerns in relation to Amendment 26, which states that the Commission shall examine, and the Council shall address, the negative spillover effects generated by other Member States, which would include the field of taxation. It is also unclear whether or not Amendments 8, 49 and 54 are aimed at such taxation policy matters, which remain the competence of Member States.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) This report exacerbates the provisions of the ‘six-pack’ and the Treaty establishing the European Stability Mechanism that is currently being ratified. It gives the European Commission, an unelected body, the power to subject any Member State in the euro area to austerity plans and surveillance missions, which it alone will determine. The Council will only be able to repeal these decisions within 10 days and by qualified majority.

The text sets out the broad guidelines for the future adjustment programmes, too. They will also have to promote free competition, particularly in the area of public procurement. To cap it all, this text would apply to the countries that already receive ‘financial assistance’ and it therefore changes the conditions under which those countries could free themselves from the supervision of the troika.

As regards the ‘legal protection’ proposed, it would only come into effect in 2017 and would focus on reimbursing the countries’ debt interest without any legitimate grounds. I voted against this report and I condemn it.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) With the vote on this report and the report by Elisa Ferreira, Parliament is completing the European economic governance package, adopted at the end of 2011. This crisis that continues to afflict the whole of Europe requires the strengthening of economic and budgetary surveillance of Member States to safeguard the stability of Europe and, principally, the euro area. Approval of these rules strengthens the EU’s power of intervention, enabling it to intervene where necessary and making available to it adequate means for doing so.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (ES) I voted firmly against this report as it will exacerbate the conditions that were already imposed through the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union. It provides the Commission with the power to control whether or not euro area Member States comply with the austerity plans. The text also details the next austerity plans, which should promote free competition, especially with regard to public services.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The enhanced surveillance consists mainly of reporting on the financial situation of its financial institutions, on the carrying out of stress tests, and on providing further information on macro-economic imbalances. The risk of the Greek scenario will diminish to the maximum extent. I voted in favour.

  Gay Mitchell (PPE), in writing. – The Fine Gael MEPs abstained both on the referral back to Committee and on the final vote. Even though we are in favour of the ‘two-pack’, we had no choice but to abstain due to our concerns in relation to Amendment 26, which states that the Commission shall examine and the Council shall address the negative spillover effects generated by other Member States, including in the field of taxation. It is also not clear that Amendments 8, 49 and 54 are not aimed at such taxation policy matters, which remain the competence of Member States.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) What has already been said regarding the Ferreira report also applies in this case. New rules to limit debts in the euro area countries will achieve just as much as the old ones; in other words, nothing. Moreover, one cannot pass regulations telling a sovereign state how much debt it can have at any particular time. Of, course, it must also be liable for this debt – something that has been suspended since the euro crisis. These rules are designed solely as a basis for joint and several liability in the euro area and, consequently, they are to be rejected in their entirety. Nor is it the task of the EU or of other northern EU states to pass various measures associated with the ‘surveillance’ of budgets that could result in or have already resulted in civil war-like conditions in the southern Member States. We have to deal with the root causes of the problem, which means dissolving the euro in its present form and/or restricting it to the more stable countries. All the other countries could then reintroduce their original currencies and then decide on and implement those measures that, although they will undoubtedly be hard, offer the country in question a chance of recovery. The euro provides no possibility of recovery for the deficit countries. It is merely prolonging the agony and dragging healthy states down into the abyss with them.

  Claudio Morganti (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I voted against this report on surveillance of Member States experiencing financial difficulties because we cannot permit unrepresentative third-party institutions lacking any democratic legitimacy to even think about setting the Member States’ economic and financial policies, even including legal safeguards in this area.

The Commission should limit itself to pointing out which road to take and which objectives need to be achieved, while the various Member States must remain free with sovereign control over how to act, because there are major differences between them and Brussels cannot possibly have a solution that is right and fair for all of them. Moreover, this is another proposal on economic governance, which comes just a few months after similar measures on the same subject. We are continuing to up the dose in an attempt to save this ailing euro area, but I really do not think this can be the right prescription.

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE), in writing. – (ET) I supported the adoption of this report as I consider it important to improve supervision over countries suffering from financial difficulties. The rapporteur’s proposals to simplify supervisory procedures, giving the Commission a larger role in decision making, and to create a system of legal protection for Member States that are threatened by default or suspension of payments, are an important addition to the Commission’s proposals. I would point out, with regret, that Europe should have implemented these measures several years ago, as we would then have been able to avoid the problems that some countries are unfortunately experiencing. Better late than never, of course, and there is hope that with the implementation of this regulation and the European economic governance package (the package of six legislative proposals) approved by the European Parliament and Council in 2011, Europe will emerge from this economic crisis stronger than before.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report because I agree, for the most part, with the Commission proposal, which provides for a euro area Member State being the subject of enhanced supervision when affected – or threatened – by severe financial disturbances. These are measures to re-establish normality quickly and protect the other euro area Member States against potential negative consequences.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This proposal for a regulation on the economic and budgetary surveillance of Member States experiencing or threatened with serious difficulties with respect to their financial stability in the euro area comes against the backdrop of the financial crisis and sovereign debt crisis currently being faced by the European Union, taking lessons from it and proposing possible means of solving it. The package of six legislative acts needs to be strengthened to ensure, simultaneously, financial stability and economic growth in the euro area. As such, the intention is for euro area Member States to be the subject of enhanced supervision when affected – or threatened – by severe financial disturbances, and for a legal protection scheme to be created to apply to any Member State at risk of being, in the near future, in an enduring state of default or suspension of payments. Excessive national debt can have dramatic consequences, both within the countries concerned and for the other Member States of the European Union. Preventative action at an early stage is preferable to corrective measures that intervene in the process late; perhaps too late.

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Today in plenary, we adopted Mr Gauzès’s report on a plan to strengthen economic and budgetary surveillance of Member States experiencing or threatened with serious difficulties with respect to their financial stability in the euro area.

Mr Gauzès notes that the serious economic and social consequences being experienced today by certain Member States could have been avoided if early, targeted and preventive action could have been taken. At the time, however, the European Union did not have the necessary instruments, but this will now be put right with a combination of the package on European economic governance (the ‘six-pack’) and two new pieces of legislation (the ‘two-pack’), providing for a Member State whose currency is the euro to be subject to enhanced surveillance when it is experiencing – or at risk of experiencing – severe financial disturbance. It should be the Commission’s responsibility to take the necessary decisions, but the Council could repeal them by a simple majority vote within 10 days. The report also proposes the creation of a system of legal protection applicable to a Member State which is at risk of being in an enduring state of default or suspension of payments.

  Marie-Thérèse Sanchez-Schmid (PPE), in writing. – (FR) In 2008, a financial crisis in the United States led to a global economic crisis. Today, we must not allow Greece’s difficulties to ravage the euro area. Moreover, and most importantly, we must not allow the Greek crisis to happen again. We have the same currency. Our economies are much too closely linked for decisions to be taken unilaterally. We therefore need economic governance of the euro area. These reports lay down measures that strengthen the Commission’s powers as regards the surveillance of the national budgets and enhance democratic control by consolidating the role of the European Parliament. In addition, a new rule would empower the Commission to place a country on the verge of default under legal protection in order to give it more clarity, stability and predictability in tackling its problems. By adopting this proposal for a regulation, we are sending a clear signal to the Council. The time for short-term measures and last-chance meetings is over.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The economic and financial crisis that began in 2008 requires deeper reflection on the economic and social problems that it has caused. The procedures for budgetary and economic surveillance of Member States must take account of the marked downturn in growth in the Union and the serious budgetary problems for its Member States. By voting in favour, I therefore offer my support for the goals that the entire EU must pursue, not focusing solely on the budgetary situations of the Member States, but instead using this mechanism to drive investments in the labour market and public investment in training and research in order to boost Member States’ competitiveness, as well as consumer incentives to maintain a steady gross domestic product to better resist the crisis.

  Alda Sousa (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report is one of the famous ‘two-pack’, part of the economic governance package. The report being debated is the expression of the ideas behind an intergovernmental treaty enshrining an ideological dogma and makes anti-cyclical policy illegal, replacing it with a technical selection criterion that is controversial and very easily manipulated. That is why I voted against.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) How can we adopt a text that does not even attempt to resolve the capital flight in the banking sector and the financing of debt? Without that, Europe will never recover. It is true, however, that the text offers some progress, especially the section on eurobonds, thanks mainly to the campaigning of the European Socialists.

However, I noticed during the debates that the philosophy of blind austerity, of ‘finance is everything’, of an almost dehumanised economy is still firmly entrenched in the minds of many of my colleagues with different political leanings.

How much longer do we have to wait and how many more lives will be ruined before some people face up to their responsibilities and agree to combat speculation effectively, establish a tax on financial transactions and a ratings agency that is not controlled from afar by the multinationals, and protect pension funds?

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In November 2011, the European Commission tabled a proposal to the European Parliament and the Council with the goal of setting out measures to strengthen the economic and budgetary surveillance of euro area Member States experiencing or threatened with serious financial stability difficulties and/or receiving, or potentially in receipt of, outside financial assistance. I am voting for this report, since I consider enhanced supervision of the euro area countries necessary in order to prevent the financial stability difficulties of one Member State from contaminating the rest of the euro area and the EU as a whole. I believe the Member States should give the Commission and the Council advance warning of their plans to issue public debt, so that the European Commission will be able to coordinate better and work towards a more coordinated economic policy. Finally, I agree with the rapporteur on not suspending the Structural Funds in the period 2014-2020 if a Member State fails to comply with its adjustment programme, since there are other economic and financial mechanisms that should be adopted to this end.

  Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE), in writing. – I have voted in favour of this legislation as I am satisfied with the final text we achieved during the negotiations. It strengthens the economic governance framework of the EU and continues to frame in our legislation the utmost importance of fiscal discipline, and enhances surveillance for those countries experiencing financial assistance. I am satisfied also by the major role for the Commission and Parliament’s increased participation in the surveillance process.

  Dominique Vlasto (PPE), in writing. – (FR) At a time when Greece and Spain can no longer finance themselves adequately on the markets, their European partners must understand that they can no longer spend recklessly and that the control of their sovereignty and their future is now at stake. Our political family succeeded in ensuring that this common sense principle prevailed in this text, which endorses the new crucial deficit control objectives, contained in the Stability and Growth Pact. From now on, Member States in the euro area that do not abide by their commitment to limit debt to 60% of GDP and adopt reasonably balanced budgets will be subject to greater surveillance and a public accounts consolidation programme. In my view, this new method of supervising budgetary discipline and correcting deficits will be our saving grace in many respects. It will ensure a climate of financial stability that is essential for restoring confidence, which is the real driving force behind growth. Finally, it will prevent future generations from having to bear alone the brunt of a debt that they did not incur and give them the chance to control their own destinies.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. – (PL) The current economic crisis, which has had a huge effect not just on the EU, but also on the entire world economy, has been a major factor in slowing economic growth. The European Union is currently trying to tackle the difficult economic situation. However, the effects of these efforts vary depending on the Member State concerned. The biggest struggle with the crisis is so far being experienced by the peripheral countries of the EU, or what are known as the PIGS countries – Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain – as well as Ireland and also Cyprus, which is more and more often being mentioned in this connection.

The ever greater budget deficits and the growth in bond yields of particular Member States (Greek bonds have now reached a level of nearly 30%), as well as the problems facing the banks, have prompted these countries to ask the European institutions for financial assistance. These requests have made the authorities in Brussels decide to introduce greater economic and budgetary supervision of Member States which need financial assistance to help them fight the crisis. The ‘two-pack’, or legislation tightening the Commission’s supervision of national budgets, will mean the European Commission will have very great powers in setting these budgets.

In my opinion, the placing of ever greater powers in the hands of a single body may, in the long term, prove to be a very dangerous trend. I think that when budgets are controlled at national or even regional level, they are managed more effectively. Furthermore, the proposed measure is somewhat belated and will not deliver what is expected of it. That is why I am voting against the resolution.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) Like the Ferreira report on the other component of this ‘two-pack’, this report also proposes several amendments to setting out that, ‘in defining and implementing its policies and actions, the Union is to take into account requirements linked to the promotion of a high level of employment’. These intentions are nothing more than a dead letter when included in the logic of the policies of which this ‘two-pack’ is part: making ‘austerity policies’ permanent by cutting public investment and public services, cutting wages and benefits, and promoting privatisation. Those are the exact opposite of the growth in employment and the economy that is required. Moreover, the so-called ‘enhanced surveillance procedure’ is nothing more than an anti-democratic coup d’état against the democratically elected institutions of national sovereignty, which therefore lose the ability to make decisions on economic instruments as important as budgetary policy.

Report: Elisa Ferreira (A7-0173/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report because I am very much in favour of introducing a new chapter entitled ‘Establishment of a road map for enhanced economic policy coordination, a growth facility and a framework for enhanced debt issuance’. This chapter calls for the Commission to table a proposal for a counter-cyclical instrument of 1% of GDP to increase growth and to present a report establishing a road map towards euro area stability bonds. It also calls for the immediate establishment of a requirement for the Member States to report ex ante on their public debt issuance and sets out a proposal for a European redemption fund based on joint liability.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report. I agree that further Union mechanisms for the coordination and surveillance of Member States’ budgetary and economic policies need to be put in place. I agree that the Member States must comply with the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) and improve coordination of their fiscal policies. Member States should follow prudent fiscal policies in good times to build up the necessary buffer for bad times.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this report because I think that Member States’ budgetary decisions require additional monitoring. Consolidating economic governance in the EU, especially in the euro area, is vital at the moment. In this context, detecting and remedying macro-economic imbalances must be carried out promptly. I welcome a common budgetary timeline and rules-based budgetary frameworks being established. It is also important to have synchronised monitoring of policies, in keeping with the excessive deficit procedure, so as to consolidate budgetary discipline. I should also point out that budgetary surveillance must comply with the European Union’s overarching objectives. This means that consideration also needs to be given to providing suitable social protection, and greater importance has to be attached to the level of employment. I should stress that the EU’s budgetary policy must be in line with the Europe 2020 strategy so as to ensure smart, sustainable growth.

  George Becali (NI), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of the rapporteur’s proposal. A common budgetary timeline, rules and supervision are all needed.

  Jan Březina (PPE), in writing. – (CS) I am not an enthusiastic supporter of the idea that Member States should be obliged to submit reports to the Commission and the Eurogroup in advance concerning their plans for issuing government bonds. Under the approved proposal, the submission of reports is to be harmonised in terms of form and content and specified by the Commission in cooperation with the Member States, with the Commission having the main role and the last word. In my view, this measure would amount to substantial interference in national powers in the budgetary area. It would be a definite step towards budgetary union, and this would constitute qualitative change on such a scale that, in my opinion, it would require an amendment of the Treaties. In any case, I have doubts as to whether the Commission is the right body to supervise the issuing of government bonds. If this process is introduced, the supervisory role should be assigned to a body that can guarantee independence and unquestionable competence.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – This legislative proposal paves the way for an unprecedented shift of fiscal power centrally to Brussels, enabling the Commission to set budget thresholds, opening up the potential of euro area debt instruments, encouraging EU-wide taxation, bringing forth a financial transaction tax that would seriously damage the City of London and render Europe globally uncompetitive and forging binding rules on Member State budgets and EU bonds. No single EU citizen has voted for, this, no single EU citizen wants this and it is abhorrent that legislation, which, in effect, would render the eurozone a federal super state, has occurred above any democratic recourse to the hundreds of millions of people it would negatively affect.

  Antonio Cancian (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the ‘two-pack’, which, together with the ‘six-pack’, complements the austerity and governance package for economic stability. I also supported a number of important – I think vital – amendments on real and effective growth, which must begin in Europe in order to allow Member States to maintain their commitments to Europe. These measures for growth include: forms of debt mutualisation, a European redemption fund as proposed by the German Council of Economic Experts in November 2011; bonds issued by the EU financial institutions, for investments in infrastructure that would be subject to a golden rule excluding them from deficits; a European system of bank deposit insurance. This vote is an important step towards a monetary, economic and also political union.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report because I agree with the amendments to the text tabled in committee, which set out common provisions for monitoring and assessing draft budgetary plans and ensuring the correction of the excessive deficits of the Member States in the euro area.

  Daniel Caspary (PPE), in writing. – (DE) I would like to second what Thomas Ulmer said in explanation of his vote.

  Anna Maria Corazza Bildt (PPE), in writing. – (SV) We Swedish Conservatives and Christian Democrats voted today in favour of the proposal for a regulation concerning new rules for budgetary monitoring among the Member States in the euro area. The proposal contains many important tools for ensuring budgetary discipline among the Member States of the euro area, the importance of which has been highlighted, in particular, by the developments of recent years. During the process, proposals concerning common borrowing and an EU fund for investments corresponding to a percentage of GDP have been introduced, which will only lead to a further build-up of debt. We voted against these particular parts. The proposal from the Commission, on the other hand, concerns tools and frameworks on which it is important to take a decision, particularly given the current situation. We therefore voted in favour of the remaining parts of the proposal. We trust that those parts concerning increased debt, which do not belong here, will not come up again in Parliament’s final reading. We therefore voted in favour of the proposal for provisions for monitoring and assessing draft budgetary plans and ensuring the correction of excessive euro area Member State deficits.

  Emer Costello (S&D), in writing. – I voted in favour of the ‘two-pack’ because I believe that to ensure the euro works for everyone, we do need better economic governance at European level, and a good compromise on this has been reached between the political groups, with which we can now negotiate with Council. We have to reduce our debts and deficits but one-sided fiscal consolidation will not end the crisis and must be combined with growth. I therefore welcome the support for a growth instrument mobilising 1% of GDP each year for infrastructure investment, and the emphasis on prioritising investments in education, health and areas that have growth and jobs potential. I welcome the support for a debt redemption fund and a eurobonds road map, the requirements to respect national practices and institutions for wage formation and the right to take collective action (the ‘Monti clause’), the role of the social partners and civil society, and on tackling bankers’ bonuses. I have set out my positions on the FTT on 23 May 2012 (A7-00352/2011) and on the CCCTB on 19 April 2012 (A7-0052/2012) and I refer to those explanations of votes in relation to the ‘two-pack’ resolutions.

  Andrea Cozzolino (S&D), in writing. – (IT) I decided, albeit reluctantly, to vote against the report because I think it is totally insufficient and inadequate for dealing with the pressing and mounting problems that this social and economic crisis has forced upon us. I decided to vote against because I think the growth measures that the report introduces are completely insufficient. Without even considering that the golden rule, albeit in a minimalist and even innocuous form, was rejected, the other growth measures also do not seem much compared with the straitjacket of austerity and the blind respect of budgetary restraints.

The redemption fund, the groundwork for eurobonds and Heading 3 have been approved by a very narrow majority, due to the staunch opposition of conservatives, who, having obtained approval for austerity measures, have done everything to boycott all references to investment. That says a lot about what the Council’s attitude will be. We must find the courage to relaunch our ideas and initiatives with fresh vigour. If not, we will be complicit in the vacuity of the conservatives and their inability to improve Europe’s future prospects.

  Jürgen Creutzmann (ALDE), in writing. – (DE) The German Free Democratic Party (FDP) in the European Parliament has spoken out clearly in favour of the introduction of a debt redemption fund. However, participation in such a fund must be associated with clear and strict rules, such as were contained in the proposal made by the German Council of Economic Experts to the German Government in autumn 2011. Watering down the criteria for participation is neither productive nor effective. Linking the introduction of a debt redemption fund with the eurobonds project and the treatment of economic imbalances is unfair, and is rejected by the FDP in the European Parliament in the strongest possible terms.

  George Sabin Cutaş (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the Ferreira report, in keeping with the line followed by my political group, so that we should remain consistent with our vote on the ‘six-pack’. We support the same principles: we are against austerity and in favour of investment in human capital by creating new jobs. At the same time, I find it disappointing that the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) has decided to vote against the ‘golden rule’ proposed by my colleague, Elisa Ferreira, which would no longer have been used to calculate public investments to measure the deficit and debt of a country within the Stability and Growth Pact. This would have allowed states to invest more without being afraid of being penalised.

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report sets out measures ensuring greater coordination of the Member States’ budgetary policy. It therefore stresses the need for robust public finances and financial stability as a means of increasing price stability, and strong, sustainable growth if the EU’s sustainable growth and employment goals are to be achieved. I completely support the priority identified, which is ensuring that the economic policies of certain Member States will not negatively affect the others and that the Economic and Monetary Union runs smoothly. The report is positive overall and there is consensus about its importance for the euro area and the EU as a whole. I would only stress that some issues, such as European debt mutualisation and the specific measures for fostering investment and growth in Europe, while crucial, should be discussed in the documents produced for those ends and not in this report. The ‘two-pack’ adopted today represents one of the fundamental pillars of building economic and financial stability in Europe, founded on a new policy for generating prosperity and growth in the euro area and the European Union as a whole.

  Luigi Ciriaco De Mita (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The ongoing global crisis has made clear the lack of political involvement in supra-national economic governance, especially in the European Union. When, way back in 1988-1989, European leaders took the brave decision to begin convergence of the Member State economies with a view to the single currency, both by completing the internal market and by coordinating the Member States’ economies, it was made very clear, from a pro-EU point of view, that this objective could only be fully achieved by twinning the pillar of monetary governance, under an autonomous European Central Bank, with the pillar of economic governance exercised by Commission, Council and Parliament. Only the two pillars together could underpin the future of the European Union. However, this sharing of responsibilities has to be combined with the sharing of opportunities and economic results. Just as, at the national level, varying rates of regional economic growth are balanced out by single-state governance, including by joint participation in the public debt, the same should happen at European level in relations between Member States, which should evolve, making shared, cooperative and reciprocal destinies a reality. I think that this report and the amendments that have been adopted are in line with this view.

  Marielle de Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Several advances should be highlighted. The debt pooling objective has been clarified. With the redemption fund, initially proposed by the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, the States will transfer any debt amounts over 60% of GDP. These pooled sums, totalling EUR 2 300 billion, will be repaid over 25 years, allowing for the creation of eurobonds, which we have desired for many months.

Parliament has proposed establishing a growth instrument to mobilise 1% of Member States’ GDP over a period of 10 years, that is to say, around EUR 100 billion, to be invested in European infrastructure. Although some people talk about financial stability and fiscal consolidation and others talk about growth, we really need both. The Member States are massively in debt and the European Union therefore needs to invest in order to become competitive once again. It should go further, for example, by calling for European savings.

We ensured that these tools were effective by reintroducing the Community method. As with the ‘six-pack’, economic dialogue with the European Parliament has been established. That restores democratic legitimacy to the decisions which, for a long time, were taken between governments.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this text, drawn up the Socialist MEP Ms Ferreira because it supports the draft regulation establishing a golden rule for the Member States’ public finances.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), in writing. – (HU) As the Member of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) responsible for the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs on the report, I find it important to point out that the European Commission is expecting Member States to take steps which, if not taken with due caution, could lead to a downturn in economic growth and employment in these countries. We are living in difficult times, but we must not forget about such common goals as Europe 2020 or the EU employment and job creation strategy. Both the Commission and the Council treat employment and growth as priorities, since they are the key to enabling Europe to recover from the crisis while implementing strict fiscal measures. The responsibility to find a solution for managing the employment-related and social tensions caused by the crisis also lies with us here in Parliament.

Harmonisation and stricter control of the budgetary policies of euro area countries is essential to ensuring the long-term viability of the monetary union. However, as I already stressed in my opinion, it is also vital for Member States to be able to retain their budgetary sovereignty, which is one of the most important tools for Member State economic governance. It is exceptionally important for euro area accession to remain a clear goal for all Member States not using the euro, but the stricter budgetary control and coordination should apply to them only after their accession to the euro area. As regards the practice of budgetary monitoring, it must be emphasised that non-euro area countries, too, should be involved in the procedure. It is crucial that the reports be discussed at fora where all 27 Member States are represented; the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs would be a suitable choice for this role.

It is welcome that some Member States, including Hungary, have already incorporated a sovereign debt ceiling in their constitutions; the Hungarian Constitution states the following: ‘Parliament shall not adopt a State Budget Act that would result in sovereign debt exceeding half of GDP’.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report concerns the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on common provisions for monitoring and assessing draft budgetary plans and ensuring the correction of the excessive deficits of the Member States in the euro area. The Member States’ concern for fiscal discipline and correcting excessive deficits has been leading to reduced consumption and, as a result, to many companies going out of business, to the loss of tax revenues, to increased unemployment and, necessarily, to an upsurge in the numbers of newly poor. I voted for this report because, amongst its suggestions, enhanced supervision to monitor and assess the Member States’ plans to prevent excessive debt levels and contagion – because prevention is better than cure, not least because of the sluggish effects of the measures adopted – sits alongside the need to change the direction of the agenda, until now geared towards austerity, towards economic growth and job creation. The creation of eurobonds, the advocating of an ambitious investment plan in line with the Europe 2020 strategy, and the strengthening of the Community method will stimulate smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, so I welcome them.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report is part of the so-called ‘two-pack’, presumably a complement to the previous ‘six-pack’, and concludes the legislative framework of what is known as economic governance. It aims to control the Member States’ budgetary and economic policies, unacceptably pursuing the withering of sovereign national institutions.

This is an unusual and profoundly anti-democratic concentration of economic and political power in the EU institutions, particularly the Commission. It is being backed by the usual suspects: the right and the centre-left. With this report, the latter is once again making its now commonplace attempts to label with the word ‘growth’ policies and strategies that are the very antithesis of growth and, above all, the antithesis of any prospect for sovereign, just, or sustainable development. In this context, the proposals concerning stability bonds – following the pattern already proposed by the Commission and even taking the same name – and the redemption fund are more for propaganda purposes than proposals with any practical effect, or at least none that is not going even further with the Commission’s original proposal on obligations to be met by the Member States regarding their budgetary processes. In other words, the intention is to bring the Member States even further under control, in such a way as to lead to the establishment of relationships of dominance with a veritably colonial air.

  Carlo Fidanza (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of this regulation. The main reason for doing so was that, for the first time, we saw a legislative text that really lays the groundwork for new and essential mechanisms for securing sovereign debts and building towards growth. Here, contrary to the view of my group – the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) – I had no hesitation in voting in favour of eurobonds and the redemption fund. I voted in favour of the amendment on the golden rule, which would exclude investments from deficit calculations, and I regret that it was not carried. The way things are now, it is time to take urgent action: no more blind austerity; we have seen that it cannot work by itself. We need to mutualise debt while calling for austerity and, above all, we need to support growth before it is too late. The EU must take shared responsibility which, I think, also involves risk sharing.

  Christofer Fjellner, Gunnar Hökmark, Anna Ibrisagic and Alf Svensson (PPE), in writing. – (SV) We Swedish Conservatives and Christian Democrats voted today in favour of the proposal for a regulation concerning new rules for budgetary monitoring among the Member States in the euro area. The proposal contains many important tools for ensuring budgetary discipline among the Member States of the euro area, the importance of which has been highlighted, in particular, by the developments of recent years. During the process, proposals concerning common borrowing and an EU fund for investments corresponding to a percentage of GDP have been put forward, which will only lead to a further build-up of debt. We voted against these particular parts. The proposal from the Commission, on the other hand, concerns tools and frameworks on which it is important to take a decision, particularly given the current situation. We therefore voted in favour of the remaining parts of the proposal. We trust that those parts concerning increased debt, which do not belong here, will not come up again in Parliament’s final reading. We therefore voted in favour of the proposal for provisions for monitoring and assessing draft budgetary plans and ensuring the correction of excessive euro area Member State deficits.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union requires that Member States regard their economic policies as a matter of common concern, that their budgetary policies be guided by the need for sound public finances, and that their economic policies do not risk jeopardising the proper functioning of Economic and Monetary Union. The Treaty allows the adoption of specific measures in the euro area which go beyond the provisions applicable to all Member States in order to ensure the proper functioning of the Economic and Monetary Union. Setting up a common budgetary timeline for Member States whose currency is the euro should better synchronise the key steps in the preparation of national budgets, thus contributing to the effectiveness of the European Semester for budgetary policy coordination. Biased and unrealistic macro-economic and budgetary forecasts can considerably hamper the effectiveness of budgetary planning and consequently impair commitment to budgetary discipline. By contrast, forecasts from independent bodies can provide unbiased and realistic macro-economic forecasts. At the same time, closer monitoring should ensure early correction of any deviations indicative of the excessive deficits of the Member States. I also believe that with a gradually enhanced monitoring procedure, it will be possible to contribute to better budgetary outcomes to the benefit of all Member States whose currency is the euro.

  Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE), in writing. – (HU) This report concerning the fiscal discipline of euro area Member States with excessive deficit fits well into the common system of economic governance. I truly believe that after the ‘six-pack’ on economic governance, the second economic governance package, which further elaborates on the practical aspects of budgetary discipline, is timely and essential for giving Europe a chance to initiate its long awaited economic growth. The text discusses important details, including not only additional data provision and reporting obligations for Member States suffering from serious budgetary imbalances, but also positive technical assistance for these countries, such as ‘reinforced surveillance’ by the Commission and timely Commission recommendations for flawed draft budgets. I did not support the motions for amendments on individual stability bonds and on a redemption fund because, on the one hand, I did not consider them to be closely related to the subject of European fiscal discipline and, on the other, they proved to be exaggerated and not well enough elaborated on several points. The report tabled before us foresees the fulfilment of minimum requirements, and although the final vote was postponed in order to allow the commencement of the trialogue with the Council and the Commission on the text adopted at first reading, I supported the amended text just as I did at the Committee vote.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report by Elisa Ferreira because it incorporates proposals that were long rejected by the European conservatives, such as growth facilities and the implementation of a road map for the introduction of eurobonds, which are needed now more than ever to curb speculation. I regret, however, that due to the opposition of the conservatives and liberals, it was not possible to adopt an amendment allowing public investment expenditure to be excluded when calculating the debt and deficits of economies under pressure.

  Brice Hortefeux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) On Wednesday, 13 June, the Members of the European Parliament voted on the two reports known as the ‘two-pack’, which complement the package of six legislative acts aimed at strengthening economic governance. The text by Ms Ferreira, which gave rise to most debate, seeks to strengthen the Commission’s role in examining the budgets of the Member States. As a result, the Commission will be able to ask a Member State to present a new budgetary plan if its trajectory strays too far from the requirements of the Stability and Growth Pact. The adoption of both reports should allow us to provide broad guidelines for the two rapporteurs who will have to negotiate the regulations with the Member States and the Commission. Nevertheless, the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, using unseemly tactics, succeeded in incorporating amendments on the creation of a redemption fund for countries’ debt amounts above 60% of GDP. While the debate on debt pooling remains open, some Members have expressed their support for a mechanism that is unclear. The European Parliament must now impose a principle that, nevertheless, is far from having unanimous support in this House.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed this document because each of the Member States whose currency is the euro should consult the Commission and other Member States whose currency is the euro before the adoption of any major fiscal policy reform plans with potential spillover effects, in order to make it possible to assess the possible impact for the euro area as a whole. They should consider their budgetary plans to be of common concern and submit them to the Commission for monitoring purposes in advance of the plans becoming binding. The Commission should be in a position, if necessary, to adopt an opinion on the draft budgetary plan which the Member State and, in particular, budgetary authorities should be invited to take into account in the process of the budget law adoption. Member States whose currency is the euro and which are subject to an excessive deficit procedure should be monitored more closely to secure a full and timely correction of the excessive deficit. A closer monitoring should ensure early correction of any deviations from the Council recommendations to correct the excessive deficit.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The two reports known as the ‘two-pack’ were put to the vote in plenary. I voted for both of them during the voting on 13 June 2012. The ‘two-pack’ represents further progress in the area of budgetary surveillance. It complements the ‘six-pack’, a legislative package adopted by the European Parliament in September 2011 that contains measures to strengthen economic governance. The second report, by Elisa Ferreira, lays down common provisions for monitoring and assessing draft budgetary plans and ensuring the correction of excessive deficits of the Member States in the euro area. This report aims to make it compulsory for the 17 Member States to consult the Commission before taking any economic measures with potential spillover effects on their neighbouring States.

  Wolf Klinz (ALDE), in writing. – (DE) The German Free Democratic Party (FDP) in the European Parliament has spoken out clearly in favour of the introduction of a debt redemption fund. However, participation in such a fund must be associated with clear and strict rules, such as were contained in the proposal made by the German Council of Economic Experts to the German Government in autumn 2011. Watering down the criteria for participation is neither productive nor effective. Linking the introduction of a debt redemption fund with the eurobonds project and the treatment of economic imbalances is unfair, and is rejected by the FDP in the European Parliament in the strongest possible terms.

  Sergej Kozlík (ALDE), in writing. – (SK) In November 2011, the European Parliament and the Council formally adopted the legislative package aimed at reinforcing economic governance in the EU and the euro area. This package was made up of six proposals: Four of them deal with fiscal issues, including a reform of the Stability and Growth Pact, while two new regulations aim at detecting and addressing emerging macro-economic imbalances within the EU and the euro area. The Commission's proposal for a regulation sets out additional monitoring requirements for national budgetary policies, in particular, the provisions relating to the setting up of a common budgetary timeline, rules-based fiscal frameworks as well as the strengthened surveillance of Member States subject to an excessive deficit procedure. I voted in favour of the proposal.

  Alexander Graf Lambsdorff, Britta Reimers and Michael Theurer (ALDE), in writing. – (DE) The German Free Democratic Party (FDP) in the European Parliament has spoken out clearly in favour of the introduction of a debt redemption fund. However, participation in such a fund must be associated with clear and strict rules, such as were contained in the proposal made by the German Council of Economic Experts to the German Government in autumn 2011. Watering down the criteria for participation is neither productive nor effective. Linking the introduction of a debt redemption fund with the eurobonds project and the treatment of economic imbalances is unfair, and is rejected by the FDP in the European Parliament in the strongest possible terms.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report but consider the following amendment to be vital: ‘the Commission shall present a report establishing a road map towards euro area stability bonds. It shall also present a proposal for a euro area sustainable growth instrument aiming at mobilising approximately 1% of GDP per year over a period of ten years, including an increase in the capital of the EIB and project bonds, to be invested in European infrastructure including science and technology. The instrument shall aim at creating the necessary conditions for sustainable growth in order to ensure the proper functioning of economic and monetary union and to safeguard the stability of the euro and thereby the sustainable coordination of Member States’ budgetary discipline’.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. – Although I supported this report, I voted against Amendment 31, which contains references to a financial transaction tax and the CCCTB, since taxation matters remain the competence of the Member State.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) This report proposes that all of the Member States in the euro area be monitored by the European Commission. It makes all States with excessive deficits subject to enhanced surveillance by it. It requires all States to list for the Commission all of the provisions in their draft budgets. The Commission will be able to amend them. Its amendments will have to be adopted by the national parliaments or they will have to pay a fine. The text also includes many provisions of the budgetary pact that is currently being ratified. It thus requires the States to submit all investments to the Commission for validation and establish ‘automatic correction mechanisms’ if they do not comply with the budgetary adjustments envisaged by the Commission. In addition, the report establishes the ‘economic partnership programme’ provided for by the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance for all countries that are subject to an excessive deficit procedure. I voted against this barrier to democracy.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) With the vote on this report and the report by Jean Paul Gauzès, Parliament is completing the European economic governance package, adopted at the end of 2011. This crisis that continues to afflict the whole of Europe requires the strengthening of economic and budgetary surveillance of Member States to safeguard the stability of Europe and, principally, the euro area. Approval of these rules strengthens the EU’s power of intervention, enabling it to intervene where necessary and making available to it adequate means for doing so.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (ES) I voted against this report as it proposes that the Commission monitor euro area Member States. It places Member States with an excessive deficit problem under the increased surveillance of the Commission, obliging them to specify budgetary provisions, monitoring as such, and to modify them if the Commission does not agree. As it stands, countries will lose their national sovereignty. To my understanding, this is a fully-fledged coup that I cannot accept under any circumstances.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – This Commission proposal aims at setting up a common budgetary procedure and timeline for Member States and to go beyond the ‘six-pack’ by further monitoring Member States whose currency is the euro and that are in excessive deficit procedure (ex ante and ex post reinforced surveillance). In future, it will allow avoiding counterfeiting of accounting documents of EU Member states. I voted in favour.

  Gay Mitchell (PPE), in writing. – The Fine Gael MEPs voted in favour of this report. We agreed with our group and voted against Amendments 27 and 67. In Amendment 27, it is not clear that it is essential that a redemption fund be established. There are a number of ways in which sovereign debt instruments can be supported at EU level. Also, the formulation of debt issuance plans as proposed in Amendment 67 is not practical, as Member States’ debt issuance offices need to maintain discretion in choosing when to access markets. However, we voted against Amendment 31, as it contains references to the FTT and the CCCTB.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) The proposal for a regulation tabled by the Commission contains additional provisions regarding surveillance of the budgetary policy of the Member States and sets out a common budget timetable as well as stricter surveillance of the budgetary decisions of the Member States. This sounds good, but it is old wine in new bottles. The Stability and Growth Pact, which, moreover, was the condition on which Germany consented to the euro, had the same objective. So far, this has been breached more than 80 times. Why should things be any different with the new objectives? The wording alone, which states that ‘the enforcement of budgetary surveillance should always be subject to overarching objectives of the EU and, in particular, to the requirements of Article 9 TFEU related to the promotion of a high level of employment, the guarantee of adequate social protection’, expressly bears witness to the fact that, right from the outset, there has been no consideration of this whatsoever. The countries concerned will always find a reason why they should not meet the objectives. Moreover, the sanction mechanisms are entirely ineffectual. The regulation is therefore not worth the paper it is written on.

  Sławomir Witold Nitras (PPE), in writing. – (PL) The legislative proposals being put to the vote today are a continuation of the process of increasing the economic integration of the Member States in the euro area and represent a significant improvement in the system of economic governance. Tightening both budgetary supervision and the Commission’s role in this supervision, particularly in relation to the Member States included in the excessive deficit procedure, as well as harmonising and increasing the transparency of the process for adopting budgets in the Member States in the euro area, will help enhance the credibility of national fiscal policies, which will improve economic coordination in the euro area and secure it against further shocks which may come in the future. It should also be noted that the benefits resulting from implementation of the proposal under discussion will not be felt for some time. Therefore, we should not stop looking for short-term measures. One such measure is definitely the establishment of a redemption fund. Establishing such a mechanism would mean indirect mutualisation of the public debt of the Member States in the euro area, which, as a result, would reduce market pressure and make it easier to refinance the countries concerned. However, in view of the significance of its consequences, this idea needs to be formulated in greater detail and subjected to closer analysis.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I should like to salute the commitment and dedication that the rapporteur demonstrated in producing this report, seeking consensus amongst the 27, but not failing to protect the interests of her home country. The work she has done was necessary. Several of the measures proposed urgently need to be implemented and we all hope they will make a decisive contribution to improving the economic situation throughout the EU.

  Herbert Reul (PPE), in writing. – (DE) I and many of my colleagues in the German conservative group (CDU/CSU) of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) voted in favour of the ‘two-pack’ in order to ensure that the central issue of budgetary consolidation, and thus the stemming of the sovereign debt crisis, becomes binding on everyone, once and for all. However, we decisively reject paragraphs 27 and 67 because they are irresponsible. Eurobonds are not appropriate; on the contrary, they jeopardise budgetary discipline. Debt redemption funds and growth funds make equally little sense.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I think this regulation is a good idea because it sets out a number of additional monitoring requirements for national budgetary policies, proposes a common timeline and calls for closer monitoring of budgetary decisions of Member States subject to an excessive deficit procedure. Budgetary policy should be in line with the Europe 2020 strategy, whose goal is to overcome the crisis and drive the economy towards smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, combined with high employment, productivity and social cohesion.

  Petri Sarvamaa (PPE), in writing. – (FI) In order to prevent a future financial and economic crisis similar to the current one, we need a more coordinated policy in the euro area. To prevent imbalances in the public finances of the Member States, it is especially important to obtain adequate information in sufficient time on how budgets are being drafted. The fundamental idea that an independent agency outside the Member States (the European Commission) is needed to monitor budgets is understandable and acceptable, in the light of events in recent years.

The report by Ms Ferreira, which is part of the ‘two-pack’, tries to achieve this aim. However, some strange elements were incorporated into the fundamental idea during the Committee preparations for Ms Ferreira’s report. These include the call for the creation of a redemption fund (Amendment 27) and, in particular, the call for a growth fund, for which an investment of up to 1% of GDP (EUR 140 billion) over ten years is being proposed (Amendment 67). I voted against Amendments 27 and 67, but in favour of the report as a whole, because of its important basic aim to achieve more stringent financial discipline in the euro area. I was also confident about voting for the report as a whole because I do not believe that Amendments 27 and 67 have much chance of success in the trialogue negotiations between Parliament, the Council and the Commission.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) In total, the legislative package designed to strengthen EU and euro area economic governance, as adopted in November 2011 by Parliament and the Council, contains six proposals. Four of the proposals are on financial issues, while two relate to current macro-economic imbalances in the euro area. I voted in favour of measures on increasing surveillance of countries with a major budget deficit and the Commission’s request to step up the provisions on national budget policies. In addition, I would emphasise the need for these changes to be aligned with the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy, which is partly designed to help overcome the crisis in the EU and drive its economy towards smart, sustainable and inclusive growth.

  Alda Sousa (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The report makes timid statements of intent about a road map towards the hypothetical introduction of eurobonds. I support these aspects of the proposal but, with things moving at this rate, they will be clearly insufficient for providing an alternative to austerity-based adjustment programmes. I voted against for these reasons.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In November 2011, the European Commission tabled a proposal to the European Parliament and the Council with the goal of setting out measures to improving monitoring of budgetary policies in the euro area that complement the measures already set out in the European Semester, the multilateral supervision system for budgetary policies and the procedure for correcting Member States’ excessive deficits. I am voting for this report, since I think there is a need to improve conditions for price stability and promote increasing financial stability that will contribute to realising the EU’s growth and employment goals. I am in favour of setting a joint budgetary timetable for the euro area Member States that will lead to increased synergies, will facilitate the coordination of economic and financial policy, and will enable the European Commission to draft recommendations intended to eliminate existing macro-economic imbalances.

  Alexandra Thein (ALDE), in writing. – (DE) I was unable to vote in favour of the Ferreira report because of Amendments 68, 27 and 67. In its proposal to the German Government in autumn 2011, the German Council of Economic Experts demanded clear and strict rules on participation in a debt redemption fund (Amendment 67). Whatever one’s general position on such a debt redemption fund, which was not even foreseen in the Commission proposal, these participation criteria have been greatly watered down in the report that has now been adopted. Moreover, linking the introduction of a debt redemption fund with a road map for eurobonds or stability bonds and the treatment of economic imbalances is unfair and inappropriate.

  Marianne Thyssen (PPE), in writing. – (NL) The European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) is pleased that the ‘two-pack’ has been approved. We are hoping to get the negotiations with the Council off to a quick start now in order to finalise the dossier even before summer. My group is also satisfied that essential elements of the fiscal treaty have been included in the ‘two-pack’ and that the Growth and Stability Pact will remain in full force. Budgetary vigilance remains necessary in order that we can restore trust, but also in order that we do not leave our debts of today for tomorrow. Parliament will not only vote today on the strengthening of budgetary coordination; it will also send out a signal that it is time to make progress in the field of budgetary integration as well.

A debate on the merits of feasibility and timing of, and conditions for, instruments for joint debt issuance – eurobonds, temporary redemption fund or variants thereof – is in order. We welcome this debate if it is conducted seriously and if the proposals do not lead to more problems than they solve. Confidence will remain the keyword for the coming months and years, the required bridge between savings and growth. Persisting with a European strategy of confidence, i.e. a commitment to sound public finances, a healthy banking system, economic growth and employment and a socially just society: that is the best way out of the crisis.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the report on monitoring and assessing draft budgetary plans and ensuring the correction of the excessive deficits of the Member States in the euro area. In defining and implementing its policies and actions, the EU takes into account the requirements in terms of promoting a high level of employment, guaranteeing adequate social protection, combating social exclusion, as well as the requirements for a high level of education, vocational training and health protection. I think that proper attention must be paid to the EU’s strategy for economic growth and employment and how it is implemented by Member States via their national reform programmes. The medium-term fiscal plans contain an updated projection of multiannual expenditure as a percentage of GDP for public administrations and their main components, as well as for multiannual targets and commitments on expenditure, with the aim of achieving the objectives included in the EU strategy for economic growth and employment. It is essential that the common budgetary plan timeline is compatible with the Member States’ budgetary timeframes. Furthermore, strengthening economic governance should include closer and more timely involvement from the European Parliament and national parliaments.

  Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE), in writing. – I am very much pleased to say that I have voted in favour of this report. Besides reinforcing fiscal discipline and European coordination, it includes some ideas that I have pushed forward like making all Member States put in place independent fiscal councils to audit public budgetary execution, undertaking cost-benefit analysis on all reforms and investments projects. What is more, the European redemption fund has been adopted. This was the key issue for me, as it is a realistic instrument to mutualise part of the debt from Member States and make the euro an irreversible currency. To put in place the ERF is fundamental to solve the debt crisis.

  Thomas Ulmer (PPE), in writing. – (DE) I have voted in favour of the report for now, out of solidarity with my group. The final vote has yet to take place, and I will then vote against it if it has not by then been made unambiguously clear that a debt redemption fund and eurobonds will not be introduced by the back door. The current review must clearly show that the Member States’ own liability is not eroded. We cannot allow those who are prudent and conscientious to be penalised, while those with no discipline benefit from this. We need to deal with the roots of the problems that caused the crisis, which are debt and a lack of budgetary discipline or anarchic conditions in some countries, with taxes not being collected. As a result, the long-term future of the entire Union is in question.

  Johannes Cornelis van Baalen (ALDE), in writing. – Hans van Baalen of the Dutch People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) has abstained from the amended proposal and legislative resolution concerning the Ferreira report. He and his colleague Manders of VVD do not accept a redemption fund or an FTT.

  Josef Weidenholzer (S&D), in writing. – (DE) Neoliberal politics led us into the crisis. The problems associated with the financial crisis cannot be solved using the same methods that gave rise to them. We need a coordinated economic policy, with solidarity, which puts people at the centre, not the market. The Ferreira report, which contains both rules for setting up a debt redemption fund and a timetable for the introduction of eurobonds, is an important step towards a coordinated economic policy and to combat the macro-economic problems in Europe. Sustainable growth will only come about if we give up this single-minded policy of austerity.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. – (PL) Never before has the European Union had such acute economic and financial problems. A slowdown in the economy, rising unemployment and the ever greater budget deficits of some of the Member States (Greece currently has the biggest problem, but the signals coming from Spain continue to get worse) have prompted the European institutions to try, to a certain extent, to use the situation to increase their powers, which, in any case, are already considerable. I am thinking here of the European Commission. The proposal to monitor budgetary plans and ensure correction of excessive deficit in the Member States in the euro area is intended to do just this. It is sufficient to mention the ‘two-pack’. Countries which apply for financial assistance should, of course, be subjected to closer surveillance. However, the measure proposed by the Commission does not serve the cause of democracy, and is intended to lead to an ever greater dependence of the Member States on Brussels. I do not think such a measure will live up to expectations. That is why I am voting against the resolution.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The original Commission proposal follows on from the previous package – the ‘six-pack’ – and further strengthens economic governance. It is also an attempt by the European Commission to include the ideas of the fiscal compact in EU secondary legislation. First and foremost, this alone constitutes an enormous breach of Union law, since the fiscal compact was signed outside the EU legal system and is therefore not enshrined in its primary legislation. However, this ‘setback’ does not seem to concern the Commission or the majority in this House. The goal is to ensure compatibility between budgetary policy and procedures for preventing and correcting excessive macro-economic imbalances through closer monitoring of national reform programmes. In other words, what is being set out here is the continuation of so-called austerity policies with everything they imply – cutting public investment and public services, cutting wages and benefits, and promoting privatisation – beyond the establishment of mechanisms transferring to supranational institutions budgetary policy matters that should be the exclusive competence of the Member States and their sovereign bodies. The proposed debt mutualisation instruments are an attempt to obscure the obvious – and unacceptable – blackmail and violations of democracy included in this package.

Reports: Jean-Paul Gauzès (A7-0172/2012) and Elisa Ferreira (A7-0173/2012)

  Bastiaan Belder (EFD), in writing. – (NL) Unfortunately, the strengthening of budgetary surveillance by the Commission has proved necessary. I therefore support the Commission’s proposals. These should contribute to a timely correction of excessive deficits. However, I am opposed to the other elements that have been inserted in the Ferreira report: eurobonds, a redemption fund, a growth facility of 1% of gross domestic product and the financial transaction tax. That is the reason why I cannot agree with this report.

The Gauzès report confines itself to the actual topic in that it increases surveillance of Member States in financial difficulties. As far as this report is concerned, I object to the weakening of the involvement of the International Monetary Fund in determining the sustainability of public debt. That is an essential element and, for that reason, I will abstain from voting on this report.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) It is now time to restore the confidence of our citizens. It is absolutely crucial if the European Union is to survive. Although there are positive aspects in this ‘two-pack’, which complements the economic governance package, I abstained on both the Gauzès report and the Ferreira report. If we are not capable of explaining to the citizens the added value and justification for implementing these measures, I do not see how we are going to be able to emerge from the multidimensional crisis we are currently experiencing. Adding measures on top of measures without any agreement on the type of project we want to build together will get us nowhere. I therefore abstained more because I am sceptical about the type of action proposed, rather than because I completely disagree with the substance: I support some of the provisions in these reports, such as the idea of a redemption fund, a road map for eurobonds and enhanced coordination of budgets and national debt issuance.

  Kent Johansson, Marit Paulsen, Olle Schmidt and Cecilia Wikström (ALDE), in writing. – (SV) Europe is at an important crossroads. It is a question of deepening our cooperation – moving towards deeper political and economic integration or asking some countries to leave the euro area. We are convinced that the way out of the crisis is deeper political and economic cooperation. In order for this to happen, we need an economic policy that will lead to sound and stable government finances and greater economic growth. We therefore welcome the two legislative proposals, the ‘two-pack’, which will further tighten up economic surveillance in the euro area. The rules for budgetary surveillance need to be tightened up and complied with by those countries with large budgetary deficits and excessive public debt.

The Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe advocates the introduction of a redemption fund. We support this idea because this sort of fund could create appropriate conditions to allow those countries with a large amount of public debt to remain in the euro area. The fund must have strict terms and conditions and it must run for a limited period in order for it to work. It cannot therefore be compared with the introduction of eurobonds. The redemption fund could be an important part of the puzzle when it comes to solving the debt crisis in Europe and ought to be evaluated carefully.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – (ES) Abstention. Mr Gauzès and Ms Ferreira try to introduce key elements in their reports, but they do not modify the neoliberal structure that is killing the euro. In fact, it strengthens the Commission’s surveillance over those countries receiving international bailouts such as Spain. Under no circumstances can reports be supported that reinforce the already criticised fiscal compact and ‘six-pack’, and do not give rise to a real anti-cyclical policy and the effective protection of social rights. Essential aspects that we have been demanding for some time are included, however, such as the road map towards the eurobonds, aspects of collective bargaining, the assessment of the social impact of the adjustment plans, and the fact that countries with recapitalisation loans (such as Spain) are not directly bound to macro-economic adjustment plans. However, the positive aspects may be ‘too little, too late’ if the Council does not complement them with sufficient political ambition.

  Andreas Schwab (PPE), in writing. – (DE) I voted in favour of the Gauzès report and the Ferreira report because I believe that it is very important to regulate the fiscal pact for Europe and the euro area by means of secondary legislation.

Nonetheless, I do not consider it helpful for the Ferreira report to demand a debt redemption fund when, at the same time, the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs is working on a report that evaluates all the issues surrounding a better European response to speculation in the markets.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) This week, the European Parliament adopted two regulations known as the ‘two-pack’. These texts are part of the arsenal that is battering Europe today. They take the same approach as the European budgetary pact, which enshrines the golden rule, and the ‘six-pack’, the Treaty’s older brother, which, in principle, aims to integrate austerity into European law with the European Semester, which allows the Commission to monitor the national budgets. The first report, by Mr Gauzès (Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), French), aims to strengthen economic and budgetary surveillance of Member States experiencing or threatened with serious difficulties with respect to their financial stability in the euro area. The report by Ms Ferreira (Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, Portuguese) lays down common provisions for monitoring and assessing draft budgetary plans and ensuring the correction of excessive deficits of the Member States in the euro area. I regret that the Ferreira report was adopted by a large majority (501 votes to 138, with 36 abstentions), thanks to the support of the S&D Group and the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance. The few amendments on growth and eurobonds do not change the thinking behind it, which remains deeply austere and anti-democratic, despite the sprinkling of fine words such as growth and employment.

Report: Slavi Binev (A7-0142/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report because its goal is to extend the sphere of operations of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development into the countries located in the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean basin, as well as Jordan. This report is part of the response the European Union should be giving to the Arab Spring, in order to facilitate the region’s move towards democratically stable and reliable systems. The European Union’s goal of being a bastion of human rights should be applied in cases like this.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report. We need to respond to the events of the Arab Spring in the countries of the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean and their hopes of transition towards properly functioning democracy. I welcome the geographical extension of the work of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) to include these countries. I believe that projects financed by the EBRD in these countries will lay a strong foundation for open market economies. As the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean countries are very different from the former Eastern Bloc states where the EBRD has traditionally operated, I believe that before beginning work, the EBRD must carry out a strict country technical assessment. I agree that, while awaiting the entry into force of the amendment to the agreement establishing the EBRD on the inclusion of the countries of the Mediterranean, we should amend Article 18 of the agreement establishing the EBRD to allow the EBRD to carry out operations financed from Special Fund resources.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this report because I, too, support the extension of the geographic scope of the operations of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) to the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean. The main purpose of the EBRD is to contribute to progress and economic reconstruction. Therefore, the aim of this report is to support the transition to a market economy and promote the spirit of enterprise as well as private initiative in the relevant countries. The political and economic situation in the countries of the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean has led to a strategy being devised by the EBRD which is aimed at a multi-stage approach, adapted to the specific requirements of the relevant countries. I should point out that the Bank ought to contribute to the transition to energy efficiency and to an open, inclusive market economy, while also taking into account the social, civil and human rights situation. At the same time, I think that the principles of prudential banking, transparency and combating fraud should also be taken into account in EBRD activities.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) was created to support the development of market economies from Europe to Central Asia following the collapse en masse of the communist regimes. The EBRD currently continues to carry out actions facilitating the transition to market economies, and promoting private enterprise and entrepreneurial spirit in the Central and Eastern European countries, thereby contributing to their economic reconstruction. The intention now is to extend the EBRD’s activities to the countries of the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean. In view of the events of 2011 in Mediterranean partner countries, the Commission and the High Representative have presented the EU’s political and economic support for the region, which includes the possibility of expanding the EBRD’s area of operations to neighbouring countries in the South, making use of its extensive experience of promoting the transition to market economies. The European Parliament and the G8 group have also invited the EBRD to change its statutes so as to be able to participate in this financial assistance process. I voted for this report because I believe the EBRD’s experience can be put at the service of the transition of these Mediterranean countries, thereby promoting multi-party democracy, pluralism and market economics.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because in contributing to economic progress and reconstruction, the purpose of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) will be to foster the transition towards open market-oriented economies and to promote private and entrepreneurial initiative in the Central and Eastern European countries which are committed to and applying the principles of multi-party democracy, pluralism and market economics. The EBRD has accumulated unique experience in supporting public and financial sector reform, promoting small and medium-sized enterprises, and the privatisation of state companies in its current countries of operations. The events of 2011 in our partner Mediterranean countries call for a robust policy response from the European Union, signalling the strong political and economic support of the EU to the region that includes an option for extending the EBRD’s mandate to cover the countries of the Southern Neighbourhood, building on its experience over the last 20 years and fostering transition towards open market-oriented economies. The scope of the EBRD’s operations should be extended to the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean and the use of Special Funds should be allowed in potential recipient countries so that the EBRD can function more effectively. One of the main objectives targeted by this proposal is ‘to promote prosperity beyond the EU’.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Articles 1 and 2 of the statute of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) set it apart from other regional investment banks, due to its goals of providing assistance in the transition towards full democracy, underpinned by strong Western structures, through expansion of the private sector and the ordered conversion of centralised, state economies (including oligopolies) into mature and functioning market economies.

The countries of the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean tick many of the boxes for which the EBRD was established. For example, there is the importance of state industry in their economies, which acts as a brake on growth and often gives rise to inefficiency and corruption; a state of affairs which, by the way, has been systematically exploited by radical and Islamist political organisations. Since EU Member States are generally among the leading trade partners in the area, the benefits of reconfiguring the EBRD to support cooperation policies in the region is quite clear, particularly in terms of stabilisation, growing the middle classes and promoting a moderate, reform-driven culture. Accordingly, I voted in favour of this report.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – The report intends to extends the scope of the EBRD into the Middle East in the East and South Mediterranean area, costing billions during a period of economic hardship when, in fact, the EBRD should have been wound down once Central Europe was fully integrated within the EU.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for the Binev report on the proposal to amend the mandate of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) in order to extend its geographic scope to the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean. The European Union must support the pluralistic and democratic transition in that region as well as economic development and liberalisation in the wake of the hopes raised by the Arab Spring. The report underlines the need to adopt a calibrated approach that takes into account the specific characteristics of each country and territory.

  Antonio Cancian (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of Mr Binev’s report on the activities of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) because I support the proposals he has put forward. The EBRD was established off the back of the collapse of the Soviet bloc, with a view to helping Eastern European countries to recover after years of oppression. Now that many of these countries have become part of the great European family, it is the perfect time to look at other nearby areas.

Today, especially following the recent events that saw a political revolution on the southern shore of the Mediterranean, with the fall of many regimes that had dominated recent decades, the need to extend proper support to these countries has become clear. I think we need to step up our collaboration with those countries turning out to be strategic partners in trade and even politics, by encouraging and supporting initiatives stimulating the gradual move to efficient and inclusive market economies, thereby allowing these people to enjoy the fruits of progress that they have been denied for too long.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report because I agree with the amendments to the text tabled by the Commission for the agreement establishing the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) extending the geographic scope of EBRD operations to the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean.

  George Sabin Cutaş (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of the legislative resolution because I am pleased with the outcome of the trialogue conducted with the Commission and Council. Parliament has amended the proposal tabled by the Commission so that it includes aspects concerning the effective implementation of the principles of international law in relation to corporate liability, employees’ rights and access to information about the environmental impact of the projects funded by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). As shadow rapporteur for my political group in Parliament, the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, I also introduced the requirement for the bank to expand its scope of action to finance projects which are socially just and environmentally sound, and in keeping with the spirit of the Millennium Development Goals.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The European Union would like to support the efforts of the countries in the Southern Mediterranean as the region makes the transition to a market economy and pluralist democratic society. Extending the area of activity of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) to the region means putting into practice this support offered by the EU and the international community for the hopes encouraged by the Arab Spring. I think that the EBRD’s support is conducive to projects whose aims include promoting sustainable development, eliminating poverty, protecting the environment and human rights, not to mention encouraging the private sector, with a focus on developing the entrepreneurial spirit among young people.

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Last November, my report on the review of the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) – unanimously adopted by this House – stated that it ‘welcomes the work carried out by the European Investment Bank [...] and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) [...]; supports the modification of the EBRD’s statutes in order for the Southern neighbourhood partners also to be eligible for its assistance and wishes to ensure that the EIB and the EBRD [...] are brought into a fruitful relationship based on cooperation, not driven by competition’. Moreover, my first report on the Review of the ENP – Southern Dimension, of 7 April 2011 – also unanimously adopted – invited the EBRD to change its statutes in order also to participate in financial assistance for these countries, as evidenced by Recital 1a of the resolution adopted today. I would add that, as Chair of the Delegation for relations with the Mashreq countries, I have also been an advocate of increasing the EBRD’s area of operations in various forums, inside and outside the EU. It was therefore with enormous personal satisfaction, and with the pleasure of having contributed actively and positively to realising this increase in the EBRD’s area of operations to the countries of the South, including Jordan, that I voted for this report.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported the adoption of this text, which authorises our European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) to help our Mediterranean neighbours to rebuild their economies, and thus their democracies. The EBRD, like what it did in Eastern Europe after the collapse of communism, will, in fact, allow the European Union to promote economies that are more open, more liberal and, consequently, more effective, accompanied by political and democratic advances. These are values at the heart of our European project.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report is intended to expand the area of operation of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) to cover the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean. It should be remembered that, when it was created in 1990, the geographical area in which the EBRD operated only encompassed the ex-Soviet bloc. However, in view of the recent developments resulting from the Arab Spring, the EU has taken the view that the EBRD should also start covering that area. I would therefore congratulate the rapporteur on his work. I entirely support his position on pursuing socially inclusive energy-efficiency projects, provided that their cornerstone is respect for human rights.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), created in 1991, was the first EU financial institution to be created to support economic development in Europe following the break-up of the Soviet Union. Essentially, the EBRD supports the development of the local sector: small and medium-sized enterprises, individuals, towns, regional cooperation, innovation, job creation, energy, environmental projects, etc. This report by Slavi Binev concerns the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on amendments to the agreement establishing the EBRD extending the geographic scope of EBRD operations to the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean. Initially intended to support countries in Central and Eastern Europe, following the so-called ‘Arab Spring’, the intention now is to expand its geographic area of influence to the countries of the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean, including Jordan, so as to support these countries’ transition to open market economies and promote private enterprise. I support and welcome this expansion, as I already mentioned when the proposal to increase the EBRD’s share capital from EUR 20 billion to EUR 30 billion was adopted.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The goal of this Commission proposal is to extend the sphere of operations of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) into the countries of the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean, as well as Jordan, so as to provide these countries with financial assistance. Since its establishment in 1990, the EBRD has assisted the Central and Eastern European countries in their transition towards open market-oriented economies and the promotion of private enterprise and entrepreneurial spirit. As such, the EBRD was an instrument serving one purpose: expanding and consolidating capitalist production relationships into Europe.

Now, following the Arab Spring, an unequivocal response from the EU is being demanded. The Commission has tabled this proposal, which constitutes part of the demanded political response. We advocate the establishment of cooperative relationships with the countries of the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean, and measures to aid their development. These could include facilitating access to sources of funding that could support development boosting investment. However, we are not unaware of the more general context – clear from this report – of EU attempts to use the EBRD to interfere politically and economically in these countries, and to clear the way towards new and promising markets for European multinationals.

  Monika Flašíková Benová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) was established in 1990 to support the development of market economies from Central Europe to Central Asia following the widespread collapse of communist regimes. The European Union, together with the European Investment Bank (EIB) and all EU Member States at that time, were founding members. In response to the 2011 events in the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean region, in March 2011, the Commission and the High Representative presented a joint communication signalling the EU’s strong political and economic support for the region that included an option for extending the EBRD’s mandate to cover the countries of the Southern Neighbourhood. In its resolution of April 2011 on the review of the European Neighbourhood Policy – Southern Dimension, the European Parliament invited the EBRD to change its statute in order to participate in the financial assistance process. As the Board of Governors of the EBRD voted in favour of the necessary amendments to the agreement establishing the EBRD, this will enable it to expand the EBRD’s region of operations to the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean. In carrying out its activities in the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean region, the EBRD should be encouraged to continue its close engagement with the EU and to develop a close cooperation with the EIB and other European and international public financing institutions.

  Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour because I think that extending the mandate of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development could aid development in the region and reduce migration to Europe from the countries concerned.

  Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE), in writing. – (HU) I voted in favour of the report because, similarly to its past role in Central and Eastern European countries, the EBRD’s renewed role could now be a decisive influence in the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean region. At that time, the aim of the bank was to facilitate the transition to a market economy after the collapse of communism, giving the countries concerned a chance for economic development and a new start. Today, its task is similar, as it now focuses on supporting countries which, after revolutionary sentiments and the fall of a regime, made similar commitments to the principles of multi-party democracy, pluralism and market economy. At the same time, the report is correct in pointing out that since there are major differences between the countries of the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean region and Central and Eastern European countries in terms of their economic and political situations, the EBRD should follow a new approach and a new methodology which take sufficient account of the characteristics of the region. In respect of its new field of activities and methodology, the bank should be encouraged, in particular, to apply appropriate control to ensure that in addition to supporting the private sector, its activities also contribute, in line with Community policies and the Millennium Development Goals, to social justice, sustainable development, the eradication of poverty, the comprehensive protection of human rights and the implementation of international laws on environmental protection.

  Brice Hortefeux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, initially created to support the development of the market economies of Central Europe and Central Asia after the collapse of the communist regimes, has since had its mandate extended to the countries of the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean in order to support them during their transition to market economies and democracy. As a colegislator, the European Parliament was invited to give its opinion on the extension of the EBRD’s mandate. The Members thus voted in favour of a phased approach adapted to the special situation of the countries of the Mediterranean region. As a result, the EU representatives in the governing bodies of the EBRD should encourage the bank to take measures to promote social inclusion and energy efficiency as well as civic and human rights. Since the events of the Arab Spring, the EU has put in place a whole series of measures to support the economic and political reforms in the Eastern and Southern Mediterranean countries, where the situation is still fragile. This is therefore a new initiative that should be welcomed.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour because, in May 2011, the G8 leaders launched the Deauville Partnership to help the countries of the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean in their transition towards free, democratic and tolerant societies and called on the EBRD to extend its geographic scope in order to leverage its experience and support the transition of those countries to embrace the principles of multi-party democracy, pluralism and market economy. Bearing in mind the fragility of the economies of the new countries and the social inequalities which were one of the root causes of the turmoil of the Arab Spring, the representatives of the Union in the governing bodies of the EBRD should encourage the EBRD to broaden its focus on private sector development, in order also to contribute, through its financing, to the achievement of socially and environmentally sustainable societies, as elaborated in the relevant Millennium Development Goals. In particular, the representatives of the Union in the governing bodies of the EBRD should encourage the EBRD’s contribution to the transition towards energy-efficient, socially inclusive, open market economies, while taking into account the social, poverty, civil and human rights context.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) This report provides for the extension of the agreement establishing the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) to the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean. This extension reflects the European Union’s strong support for the transition in those countries towards market economies and pluralistic societies. That transition was encouraged by the Arab Spring. I supported this report, which was adopted by the European Parliament by a large majority.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Adopting a new, EU-level economic governance model is an essential step for lifting the entire continent from the mire of this crisis. Proposals like the ‘two-pack’, designed both to provide support and to ensure careful surveillance, offer real answers during the difficult period that we, together with 500 million other EU citizens, are going through at the moment. I voted in favour of this report because I think that legal protection for countries at risk of default is needed like never before. Furthermore, it works hand in hand with the proposal for economic surveillance, which must not be seen as a tout court restriction, but as a way to protect the economic and social interests of the entire European Union. Lastly, these initiatives cannot resolve the situation on their own. They must be accompanied by new, decisive EU-wide measures. Above all, we need to adopt policies that no longer signify austerity, but usher in growth and development, such as combating youth unemployment, which is a critical problem faced by our society and a barrier to genuine development.

  Bogusław Liberadzki (S&D), in writing. – (PL) Extending the geographical scope of European Bank for Reconstruction and Development operations is usually done for important economic and social reasons. We have just such a case here – support for democratic change in the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean. Extending the geographical scope of EBRD operations to this region will help create new opportunities for investment and development by offering assistance in selecting development strategy as well as by the provision of cofinancing. In spite of the crisis, the Union is in an incomparably better situation than the countries of this region. The help which is given, if it lives up to expectations, will also create new and better economic opportunities for the Union and will increase Europe’s popularity in the countries concerned.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The upshot of the events which gave rise to the Arab Spring has been not only to bring democracy to the states in the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean, but also to provide the opportunity to initiate a dialogue and long-term cooperation with the European Union’s organisations, which cannot but benefit the relevant countries, with a view to their rapid, sustainable reconstruction. This is why including these countries within the operational scope of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) will definitely facilitate the transition to an open market economy, as well as encourage cooperation with European Union Member States in various economic sectors, including the energy sector, which is of paramount importance in the current global context. On the other hand, I am concerned about the possible consequences which might result from extending the geographic scope of the EBRD’s operations, in particular, concerning disruption caused by various actions carried out by these states either fraudulently or with a lack of transparency, as the transition process from a closed communist regime to an open, democratic system is not easy or without its risks.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I welcome this report. The EBRD’s expansion to the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean is an expression of the Union’s and the international community’s support for the hopes, encouraged by the Arab Spring, of a transition in that region towards market economies and pluralistic democratic societies.

  Barbara Matera (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of extending the scope of the activities of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development to the countries of the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean, such as Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia and Jordon. These countries are crucially important in the preparation of investment projects to create inclusive markets for people and investment schemes for energy development and eco-sustainability, which will set a good example for other Arab countries.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour. The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development should be encouraged to undertake a tailored approach in each country, taking into consideration factors such as the revolutionary context, the role of extremist forces and the role of the military and the monarchic political structures.

  Erminia Mazzoni (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) was created to assist Eastern and Central European countries of the former Soviet Union in the transition to a market economy in the wake of the collapse of the communist regimes. In contrast to other international multilateral banks, which require the mediation of national governments, the EBRD can invest directly in shareholdings, merchant banking and venture capital. Extending the EBRD’s mandate to the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean is, without doubt, in line with the events in that area in late 2011, commonly known as the Arab Spring. The EU cannot withdraw its support for the difficult transition under way and must use its own financial instruments to promote economic and social growth among the populations concerned.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The events and social convulsions that recently affected the African and Asian countries of the Mediterranean basin mean those countries need EU support. Adequate support for these countries is crucial, since they play an important role, not just politically, but also commercially. I therefore voted for this report aimed at expanding the activities of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development to the countries of the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (ES) This report proposes to extend the geographical scope of European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) operations to the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean to provide these areas with financial assistance after the ‘Arab Spring’. Since its establishment, the EBRD has assisted countries in their transition towards market economies. I have abstained from the vote on this report because, although I agree with financial assistance for countries on the Mediterranean shoreline, I do not agree with the transition of these countries towards market economies, without also considering the democratic deficits and the social and environmental impact of projects financed by the EBRD, which focus on promoting market liberalism.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The objective of this proposed regulation is to extend the geographic scope of operations for the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) to the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean. The aim is to incorporate countries that are located on the Southern and Eastern shoreline of the Mediterranean and Jordan as well, as the country is closely related to the countries on the shoreline. I voted in favour.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) The task of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) has so far been to provide the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and those in the Commonwealth of Independent States with financial support as they move towards a free market economy with private and entrepreneurial activity, focusing on the promotion of competition, privatisation and entrepreneurship. Consequently, capital has been used mainly to support banks, industrial enterprises and businesses, particularly start-ups. The financing is used to support the obtaining of cofinancing and direct foreign investment and to mobilise domestic capital. The investment is mainly in private enterprises, generally jointly with business partners. In addition, the bank provides technical partnership and cooperates with international financial institutions and with international and national organisations. I did not vote in favour of the report because I am of the view that the existing activities have already provided great incentives for fraud and expansion of the geographic scope of EBRD operations would therefore not be appropriate.

  Claudio Morganti (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of this proposal, which aims to extend the activities of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) to some Mediterranean countries. The EBRD was originally created to aid the development and conversion of Eastern European countries which were leaving behind decades of the socialist economic model. It has to be said that it did quite well in this area, achieving satisfying results. Over the years, the scope of the EBRD’s activities has expanded quite significantly, covering many central Asian countries, right up to Mongolia.

It therefore seems more than sensible for the EBRD to be able to work in a number of countries much closer to home, where support could result in development and, meanwhile, act as a brake on future waves of migration. Of course, action needs to be accompanied by specific guarantees of transparency and of respect for well-defined rules, which are essential, particularly in this area, which is yet to be fully stabilised.

Lastly, the EBRD’s capital will not increase, with funds instead being reallocated from other areas that are much further from Europe and from our interests. That was a non-negotiable condition of our support of this initiative.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour. The EU actively seeks to help the countries of the Arab Spring maintain the direction and dynamics of economic and social reforms. Following the extension of the EBRD’s mandate to operate in the Mediterranean countries, we will have another instrument with which the EU will contribute to the realisation of these societies’ expectations. The experience gained by the EBRD while working in the transition period in Eastern European and Central Asian countries is valuable and can be adapted by establishing priority areas of action and the main risk. Particular attention should be paid to transparency, sustainability, promoting equal opportunities and reducing social exclusion.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. – (DE) The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) was originally set up as a response to the great political and economic changes in Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Since 1991, two years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the EBRD has assumed the task of supporting the transition to democratic pluralism and a market economy in Central and Eastern Europe and the successor states to the former Soviet Union. The EBRD finances investment projects in the private and public sectors. There are certainly serious points for criticism in some of the major countries where the bank does its work – for example, in Russia and Ukraine, but also in Hungary – and we must push for emphasis to be put on the mandate to promote democracy that is laid down in the statutes of the EBRD. It has not been possible to exclude existing incentives for fraud and corruption in its existing operations, which is why I did not vote in favour of expanding the geographic scope of EBRD operations.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The role of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) is to incentivise renewed economic and trade activities by rebuilding infrastructure and services where necessary. The EU must beware of the events in the countries of the Southern Mediterranean, which have historically been hugely important trade partners. These cross-border areas need fresh incentives for economic and socio-political growth in the wake of the Arab Spring. Europe’s interests are served by backing and assisting reconstruction and growth, by rebuilding the socio-economic fabric to help stimulate investment and prevent illegal immigration. That is why I approve of extending the geographic scope of the EBRD to the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Putting the experience of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development at the service of the transition of Mediterranean countries, thereby promoting multi-party democracy, pluralism and market economics, seems like a solution for the EU to contribute to progress and economic reconstruction in those countries. I voted for this report for that reason.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In this report, the Commission throws its weight behind extending the geographic scope of the operations of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) to the countries of the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean, so as to encourage the region’s countries to move towards market economies and pluralistic societies. First of all, the idea is for the EBRD to foster the transition towards open, market-oriented economies and to promote private enterprise and entrepreneurial spirit in the Central and Eastern European countries which are committed to and applying the principles of multi-party democracy, pluralism and market economics. It also advocates more intervention in the areas of energy efficiency, of the struggle against poverty and of human rights protection, so as to increase social cohesion. I therefore voted for this report.

  Jean Roatta (PPE), in writing. – (FR) On 30 September 2011, the Board of Governors of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) voted in favour of the necessary amendments to the agreement establishing the EBRD to enable it to expand its region of operations to the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean. The report by Mr Binev explains that, in response to the political and economic situation in the countries of the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean, the EBRD has developed a phased approach to the start of its activities. This report gives the European Union much more room for manoeuvre in its cooperation with the countries surrounding the Mediterranean. In fact, the EU representatives in the EBRD should encourage the bank to contribute to the transition towards open market economies by promoting social inclusion and energy efficiency, while taking into account the social, poverty, civil and human rights context. My work at European level has exactly the same goal: that of helping and supporting the Mediterranean countries during their democratic transitions following the wave of revolutions associated with the Arab Spring and during their political and economic transitions.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – Against. The EU should be doing all within its power to support the promotion of democratic and economic change in North Africa but doing so through the outdated EBRD is the wrong approach to take. There are a number of institutions better placed to support change in the region, whether at European level – for example, the European Investment Bank (EIB) – or at international level – for example, the World Bank. We should be focusing on maximising the efficiency of our support through these existing institutions rather than creating multiple structures, which undermine the effectiveness of our aid. The EBRD is a fossil of a bygone era. It lacks any form of democratic scrutiny, unlike the EIB and the World Bank. It also has a record of supporting unsustainable projects in the countries in which it works, with recent evidence showing its support for projects promoting fossil fuels is increasing. For these reasons, the Greens opposed changing the mandate and believe EU governments should also rethink the proposals.

  Marie-Thérèse Sanchez-Schmid (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The extension of the mandate of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) to the Mediterranean is, in my view, our response to the geostrategic revolution that has taken place in that region since 2011 and the Arab Spring. The EBRD was set up in 1991 after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Soviet bloc, and its mandate has always been to support countries in their transition to market economies and democracies with a view to ensuring stability and security at the Union’s borders. Here, we need to take into account the upheaval in the Mediterranean countries in 2011 and help them to ensure lasting and safe transitions, like those experienced by the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. I therefore believe that it is absolutely essential, in adopting this report, to follow the example of the G8 and that of the EBRD’s 61 shareholders, who are all in favour of this extension to a new South. This new mandate will have economic, security and diplomatic benefits for both sides of the Mediterranean and will consolidate the EU’s role as a leading partner in the Mediterranean basin.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council to extend the geographic scope of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development’s operations to the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean. The reason I did so was because I am in favour of opening up markets via the promotion of private and entrepreneurial initiative in the Central and Eastern European countries which are committed to and applying the principles of multi-party democracy.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The objective of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) is ‘to foster the transition towards open market-oriented economies and to promote private and entrepreneurial initiative in the Central and Eastern European countries which are committed to and applying the principles of multi-party democracy, pluralism and market economics’. I am voting for this report, since I believe the EBRD should start operating in the countries of the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean, in the same way as it currently does in Central and Eastern European countries. The intention is to support the efforts of more countries in their transition to open and market-oriented economies, and to promote private enterprise and entrepreneurship. I think expanding the EBRD’s regional activities symbolises European Union support for countries’ transition to a more democratic and pluralistic economy. However, we believe that, prior to any intervention, the EBRD should carry out a detailed technical evaluation of the extant economic and political conditions in the country in question, so as to maximise the financial aid it will make available.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the decision on amendments to the agreement establishing the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) extending the geographic scope of EBRD operations to the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean. Since its establishment in 1991, the EBRD has assisted Central and Eastern European countries in their transition to an open market economy and in promoting private initiative and the entrepreneurial spirit. In response to the economic and political situation in the countries of the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean, the EBRD has devised a gradual approach to initiating its activities, which will take into account the region’s specific features. This is why the geographic scope of the EBRD should also include the countries of the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean in order to promote similar objectives. EU representatives in the management bodies of the EBRD should encourage the EBRD to extend its activity for developing the private sector in order to contribute as well, through the financing it grants, to achieving a socially and environmentally sustainable society. The EBRD must be encouraged to contribute to the transition to an open market economy which is energy-efficient and socially inclusive, while also taking into account the social, civil and human rights situation.

  Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE), in writing. – Speaking as a European and Mediterranean Member of the European Parliament, the extension of the geographic scope of the EBRD to the southern and eastern part of the Mediterranean is more than welcome. Given the work that has been done by the EBRD and the need to enhance economically this geostrategically important part of the south and east of the continent, continuing the work should be a priority for everyone, as it is for me. Giving the opportunity to those countries to better reach the socio-economic levels that we have achieved in the western part of Europe will also bring more stability to Europe as a whole and, last but not least, more coherence to our Mediterranean policy.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) Extending the financial support instruments established to help the countries of Eastern Europe to the countries of the Southern Mediterranean may seem like a good idea. However, in this instance, doing so for the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) can only be cause for concern. The approach of that financial institution is very clear: ‘transition towards open market economies and the promotion of private and entrepreneurial initiative’. We have seen the economic and social results of that approach in the countries of Eastern Europe, including those countries that are now EU Member States. That is the approach that we want to impose on the Southern countries, but I have persistently spoken out against it, using the example of Tunisia in particular. Forcing those countries to adopt ultraliberal approaches that have proved to be so pernicious in our Member States is the best way to shatter the hope generated by the what are known as the Arab Spring revolutions, which were driven by social demands. That is why I voted against this report.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The recent social turmoil that has affected the African and Asian countries on the Mediterranean have made it necessary for the European Union to provide proper support to those countries that play an important role in terms of political stability as well as trade. Accordingly, I voted in favour of Mr Binev’s report, which proposes to extend the activities of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development to Mediterranean countries, such as Jordan, allowing local populations to enjoy benefits that have long been denied them.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The goal of this Commission proposal is to extend the sphere of operations of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development to the countries of the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean, as well as Jordan, so as to provide these countries with financial assistance following the so-called Arab Spring, and it states that this means a ‘strong political and economic support of the EU to the region’. We argue that this support should be given within a framework of solidarity, the objectives of which should be the independent and sovereign development of the supported countries, and not EU political interference in those countries. As such, we do not support the report’s premises advocating detailed analysis of the political and economic conditions of the country in question, ‘including possible transition gaps in that country’s commitment to the principles of multi-party democracy, pluralism and market economics’.

Motion for a resolution: B7-0303/2012

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report because it stresses that the EU budget is an investment budget with a strong leverage effect, given that 94% of its appropriations are dedicated to stimulating economic growth and jobs, making it a very strong tool for increasing strategic investment with European added value and putting the European economy back on track. The EU budget now plays an even more crucial role, since it makes a major contribution to national budgets for recovery from problems, on the path to consolidation.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report. It will be impossible to meet either the EU’s political goals or the Europe 2020 strategy, which is supposed to help the Union recover from the crisis and create jobs, without adequate financing from the EU budget. It is very important for the EU budget to show an appropriate balance between revenue from genuine own resources and expenditure and I therefore believe that the European Parliament is not prepared to give its consent to the next MFF regulation without political agreement on reform of the own-resources system. I welcome the proposals to enhance budgetary flexibility across headings, as well as between financial years within the MFF, and thus ensure that budgetary resources can be appropriately aligned with evolving circumstances and EU priorities. I believe that before the Council formally submits its proposals, the European Parliament and the Council should negotiate their political positions.

  Bastiaan Belder (EFD), in writing. – (NL) The Commission is proposing to increase the EU budget for the 2014-2020 period compared to the current budgetary framework, in view of the crisis, among other factors. Moreover, Parliament wants to have its own resources so that it is less dependent on Member State contributions. These measures are based on two misconceptions. Economic growth is not for sale. In addition, Parliament thinks that money does not need to be earned before it can be spent. Economic growth can only be facilitated by creating the right conditions.

A healthy economic structure and reforms are indispensable. As long as they are missing, EU measures will not encourage growth sustainably. In the Council, moreover, there is a chasm between net contributors and net recipients, who also call themselves the Cohesion Group, which, I understand, the President of the Commission, Mr Barroso, has joined. I would ask the Commission to adopt a more neutral position in this matter.

Incidentally, this raises the question of whether the EU is capable of dealing responsibly with new economic powers and budgetary matters. A Union that claims to be representing its citizens is unreliable if it proposes to increase the EU budget at a time of drastic cuts in the capitals.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The European Union’s budget is an investment budget; let us all be clear on that. The Union is not in deficit: the budget plays – or should play – a vital role in implementing this investment strategy that we strongly advocate. I therefore supported this resolution on the EU’s own resources because, in the budget negotiations on the next multiannual financial framework (MFF), it is extremely important for Parliament to speak with a strong, united voice on the new system of own resources that is to be established. We stress here that Parliament will not give its consent to the MFF unless there is agreement on own resources, with an end to rebates and other correction mechanisms, in order to ensure a more transparent, fair and sustainable budget. We are determined to make the EU budget an instrument for investment and growth, and we are prepared to make full use of our power of codecision to that end.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this European Parliament resolution because, pursuant to Article 311 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the Union must provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies, and its budget is to be financed wholly from own resources. The European Parliament has repeatedly called for the creation of new and genuine own resources. Pursuant to Article 312(2) TFEU, the Council is required to adopt a regulation laying down the multiannual financial framework (MFF), acting unanimously, after obtaining the consent of Parliament. The European Union budget’s appropriations are dedicated to stimulating economic growth and creating jobs as well as promoting the EU’s role as a global actor. However, it needs to be stressed that the European Union budget is an investment budget with a strong leverage effect. Despite its limited size, the EU budget pools resources, acts as a catalyst and provides economies of scale and cross-border effects to achieve commonly agreed EU political objectives. Furthermore, the EU budget represents a very strong tool to increase strategic investment with European added value and put the European economy back on track, generating growth and employment while aiming to foster economic and social cohesion throughout the Union.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – It is astonishing that while Brussels creates legislation to bind Member States’ spending to tight austerity measures, the call from the Commission is for an ever increasing budget. Nobody is as nonsensical to presume that an increasing EU budget will toll heavily upon national deficits, adding to the very government spending Brussels is demanding be reduced by cutting public sector jobs and services. As a result, people’s lives are deteriorating, in some Member States at an astonishing rate, while the EU builds up financial buffers to be able to swoop in and hand out golden envelopes to struggling nations and by doing so, coerce the general population to perceive the EU as not only a good institution, but a vital one. The raft of legislation being written up in Brussels at the moment is perpetuating the financial crisis for the sake of a Brussels power grab. Whoever has the money has the power. What about slashing the EU budget and, in doing so, cutting the vast contributions made by Member States? To afford the EU’s dreams of becoming a super state and world power, the ability to raise revenue must also be ascribed, despite under the treaties, the EU budget is obligated to be ‘financed wholly from own resources’.

  Anna Maria Corazza Bildt and Anna Ibrisagic (PPE), in writing. – (SV) We Swedish Conservatives today voted against the joint resolution on the multiannual financial framework and own resources. In the resolution, Parliament expresses its support for a financial transaction tax, a new EU VAT and new own resources for the EU as one of the cornerstones for the financing of the next long-term budget. Own resources involve the taxation of citizens. If the EU is granted the right to set taxes, the balance of power between the Member States and the EU will change. We do not want to transfer Sweden’s right of taxation to a majority in the Council and the European Parliament. The EU can meet its commitments, fulfil its new areas of responsibility and, at the same time, create the conditions for jobs and growth by prioritising. More money for the EU in the form of own resources, transaction taxes and new VAT is not a strategy that will help Europe out of the crisis, nor is it the right way to finance the EU’s next long-term budget.

  Emer Costello (S&D), in writing. – One of the main conclusions of the 2010 National Economic and Social Council (NESC) report ‘Re-finding Success in Europe’ was that Europe’s success in achieving its core goals was of ‘critical importance’ to Ireland’s sustainable economic and social development. In short, when Europe succeeds, Ireland succeeds. We have to ensure that the EU budget gives us the means to achieve the targets set in the EU 2020 strategy, such as raising the employment rate to 75% and reducing the numbers at risk of poverty by 20 million. The EU budget currently equals just 1% of Member States’ GNI. Those who argue it should be frozen or reduced, and who oppose efforts to introduce new revenue streams, should spell out which EU policies they would cut – CAP, regional aid, education support, development aid, etc.? The treaties state that the EU budget must be ‘financed wholly from own resources’. There are very important issues, including for Ireland, to be addressed but the proposed reforms of the current system, such as by introducing a FTT, could help reduce Member States’ contributions from 75% to 40% by 2020, saving Ireland approximately EUR 500 million annually. These proposals deserve serious consideration.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I think that the European Union budget must strike an appropriate balance between own resources relating to the multiannual financial framework and expenditure as required by the Treaty, thereby supporting the consolidation efforts made by Member States.

  Cornelis de Jong (GUE/NGL), in writing. – I cannot support the resolution on the multiannual financial framework and own resources as it gives credence to the austerity agenda in the Member States. Furthermore, I cannot support its call for an increase in the EU’s own resources, which are aimed at reducing the share of Member State-based contributions, as this will diminish the democratic accountability of the EU as well as the redistributive nature of the financing system.

My decision was, consequently, to vote against the resolution. However, I support Parliament’s role in the process and my vote does not in any way constitute support for the Council’s proposal.

  Luigi Ciriaco De Mita (PPE), in writing. – (IT) A local authority has the utmost political autonomy when it achieves total control on tax matters, and therefore has total economic and financial control over deciding its budget. Unfortunately, the serious delay in achieving this level of autonomy is particularly clear with regard to the agreement on the multiannual financial framework. During this very process, European and pro-European ambitions and responsibilities clash with the selfishness of the Member States, resulting in increased national and nationalist sentiment. It is regrettable that the political mentality that always made the common European interest a priority has been lost, replaced by an accountant’s mentality where what is given to the European budget and what is received nationally under ‘community’ policies are continually set off against one another. The EU will only reach its full political potential by boosting its powers on budgets and taxing genuine own resources, including through eurobonds and a financial transaction tax, and boosting its resources, so that they are suited to meet the challenges and political objectives that it aims to pursue and achieve. It seems to me that this joint resolution is heading in that direction.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Today, the European Parliament stated that it was not prepared to give its consent to the next regulation on the multiannual financial framework (2014-2020) ‘without political agreement on reform of the own resources system, putting an end to existing rebates and other correction mechanisms and leading to more transparency, fairness and sustainability’. That is, in essence, the warning we have sent to the Council with the adoption of a resolution on the EU’s multiannual financial framework and own resources. I fully support that message. I also reiterated my call for a robust EU budget for the 2014-2020 period. We must not forget that the EU budget is an investment budget with a strong leverage effect, given that 94% of its appropriations are dedicated to stimulating economic growth and jobs and the Union’s role as a global actor. The EU budget plays, and must continue to play, a strategic role, in parallel with the budgetary consolidation measures currently imposed on national budgets.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of this resolution as I think that the European Union needs a substantial budget for the 2014-2020 period, befitting the increasingly ambitious objectives which it is also assuming and, in particular, given the Europe 2020 strategy. Against the backdrop of the economic and financial crisis, the European Union is increasingly in need of investment and inclusive social policies. This is why it is important that the next financial framework makes an important contribution to these objectives and, in particular, provides a suitable budget for the cohesion policy. At the same time, the European Union must readjust its budget towards attracting more own resources, especially by introducing a financial transaction tax.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the resolution on the multiannual financial framework and own resources because I believe it is only with a robust EU budget that Europe will be able to overcome the crisis and achieve its growth and jobs targets. I think an agreement on the upcoming multiannual financial framework 2014-2020 also needs to provide for a reform of the own resources system that includes a proposal on the financial transaction tax.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Taking the current financial, economic and social situation in the EU into due consideration, it is increasingly necessary that the institutions respond with responsibility and moderation to the requirements of the extremely serious situation we are experiencing, and that they employ rigorous budgetary management procedures with a view to making savings. It is important to note, however, that the EU budget has an important leverage effect on the European economy, since 94% of its appropriations are used to stimulate the economy and create jobs, so it is essential to the much-needed relaunch of the European economy, in parallel with the Member States’ budgetary consolidation. It is also essential to make better use of EU funds by achieving more efficient management and less wastage.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This motion for a resolution was tabled by the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance and the Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left, following the statements by the representatives of the Council and the Commission pursuant to Rule 110(2) of the Rules of Procedure, and concerns the multiannual financial framework (MFF) and own resources. On 8 June 2011, in line with the Europe 2020 strategy, the European Parliament adopted a resolution entitled Investing in the future: a new multiannual financial framework (MFF) for a competitive, sustainable and inclusive Europe. Part IV, entitled ‘Organisation and structure of the financial framework: A structure to reflect priorities’, mentions the structure of the next MFF, which should ‘facilitate both planning continuity and flexibility within and between headings, and avoid the failures of the current MFF, particularly with regard to shortfalls in subheading 1a ‘Competitiveness for Growth and Employment’, subheading 3b ‘Citizenship’ and heading 4 ‘External relations’’. I voted for this motion for a resolution since it uses various directives and initiatives, such as the ‘six-pack’ and the ‘two-pack’, to orient the next MFF towards growth and jobs, and proposes a genuine system of own resources by creating a financial transaction tax.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This resolution insists that ‘political positions agreed by the European Council be negotiated between Parliament and the Council [...] before the Council formally submits its proposals with a view to obtaining Parliament’s consent on the [multiannual financial framework] regulation’. This is how Parliament normally does things: proving it is still alive, but then resigning itself to its also normal role of simply echoing what the Council says. It also legitimises the barbaric so-called austerity measures implemented in several countries, such as Portugal, against which we are struggling. It reiterates its faith in the neoliberal Europe 2020 strategy, which we reject and are fighting. It supports and reiterates the political priorities of the European Parliament report on the financial perspective 2014-2020, against which we voted. It praises the EU budget and its priorities, which we rejected and to which we proposed alternatives. It advocates a 40% cut in the Member States’ contributions based on their gross national income by 2020, which we consider unacceptable because it jeopardises the budget’s redistributive role. These constitute more than enough reason to vote against.

  Mikael Gustafsson (GUE/NGL), in writing. – I cannot support the resolution on the multiannual financial framework and own resources as it gives credence to the austerity agenda in the Member States. Furthermore, I cannot support its call for an increase in the EU’s own resources, which is aimed at reducing the share of Member State-based contributions, as this will diminish the democratic accountability of the EU as well as the redistributive nature of the financing system. My decision was consequently to vote against the resolution. However, I support Parliament’s role in the process and my vote is not in any way a support for the Council’s proposal.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) In the context of the negotiations on the next multiannual financial framework (MFF) 2014-2020, as a Member of the European Parliament, I joined with my colleagues to send a strong message to the Council: Parliament is not prepared to give its consent to the next MFF regulation without political agreement on reform of the own resources system. Of course, Parliament’s room for manoeuvre in this area is very restricted. To meet the challenges of economic recovery, however, it is crucial for the European Union to equip itself with a solid budget, which implies, in particular, a 5% increase in the Community budget in respect of the 2013 amount. We also call on the Council to respect Parliament’s codecision powers for sectoral policies.

  Anna Hedh, Olle Ludvigsson, Jens Nilsson, Marita Ulvskog and Åsa Westlund (S&D), in writing. – (SV) We believe that the EU budget needs to have sufficient resources to be able to finance the commitments that have been decided upon. At the same time, we would like to emphasise that the EU ought, as far as possible, to have an attitude of restraint and provide these resources by means of redistribution within the existing EU budget. We would prefer to see the agricultural budget reduced in favour of the priorities of research and development, conversion to green energy, regional development, etc. set out in the Europe 2020 strategy.

We also believe that it is very important to improve the efficiency of the EU’s administrative expenditure, and one way of doing this is to increase the transparency of the process for distributing and using this expenditure.

We are open to a reform of the current rebate system – which is enormously complicated – if this reform contributes to greater transparency and provided that Sweden is not disadvantaged. We do not believe that this should be made conditional upon approval of a new long-term budget, however. Neither do we believe that new own resources should be introduced. However, a change in this system does not give the EU a direct right of taxation; the Treaty does not provide for any such competence for the Union. Any change to the own resources system also requires the approval of all Member States in order for it to enter into force.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The EU needs a solid budget to attain its political and economic objectives. I supported the resolution on the multiannual financial framework, adopted by 541 votes for, 100 against and 36 abstentions. In this resolution, Parliament insists that the 2014-2020 budgetary framework provides enhanced budgetary flexibility in order to ensure that budgetary resources can be properly aligned with evolving circumstances and priorities. I therefore voted against the resolutions proposed at the same time by the European Conservatives and Reformists (EDR) and the Europe of Freedom and Democracy Group (EFD), which did not meet this objective.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted against this resolution as I do not believe that an FTT should be used for own resources.

  Barbara Matera (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The EU budget is a powerful tool for increasing European strategic investments that can boost growth and employment, as well as give impetus to the Union’s economic development and social cohesion. In order for that to be possible, we need adequate appropriations for the period 2014-2020 and to uphold, during negotiations with the Council, the guidelines set out at the SURE Committee meeting of last June. The new multiannual financial framework (MFF) will have to be flexible as time goes on, so that it can be used to respond quickly to unexpected crises and to channel resources where they are most needed.

I do not think Parliament should approve the MFF without a proper political agreement on the introduction of a budget funding system based on own resources, as per the Treaty of Lisbon. Otherwise, how would we explain to the people of Europe that the institutions do not respect the content of the Treaties?

  Marisa Matias (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this resolution because we cannot allow Europe’s governments to freeze Parliament completely out of the negotiations for the financial perspective 2014-2020. In this unprecedented crisis, when it is essential to reaffirm solidarity, the European Council is singing from the same austerity hymn sheet. In this resolution, Parliament advocates its full right to participate in negotiations; it demands an increased European budget, which should help the countries in greatest difficulties and should create more and better jobs. Parliament reiterates its desire to do away with the major Member States’ under-the-table deals, putting an end to the ‘correction mechanisms’ and ‘rebates’ of the United Kingdom and others. We need a financial transaction tax that obliges those who caused the crisis to start paying for it. What we do not need is austerity, euphemistically called ‘budgetary consolidation’ in this resolution. What we do not need is to reduce the Member States’ contributions to the European budget. What we need is more Europe; more solidarity.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of this resolution. The EU’s budget must show an appropriate balance between revenue from genuine own resources and expenditure as required by the Treaty. It is right not to approve the regulation that sets the next multiannual financial framework in the absence of a political agreement on reform of the own resources system, putting an end to existing rebates and other correction mechanisms and leading to more transparency, fairness and sustainability.

  Kyriakos Mavronikolas (S&D), in writing. – (EL) The EU needs a strong budget if it is to attain its political objectives. The long-term budget should be flexible enough to deal with the new challenges and contributions from national funds should be replaced by other forms of financing. The framework of the 2014-2020 budget should provide ‘enhanced budgetary flexibility both within and across headings, as well as between financial years within the MFF, in order to ensure that budgetary resources can be appropriately aligned with evolving circumstances and priorities’. The lack of flexibility in the current system has made it extremely difficult to deal with new challenges. The smaller the budget, the greater the need for reallocation of resources to address unforeseen events.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. – I voted in favour of the final text of this report. However, I abstained on Paragraph 3 – split votes 3, 4 & 5 – which refer to proposals by the Commission on the issue of an EU own resources system, including a financial transaction tax (FTT) and a new EU VAT system, since taxation policy matters are a Member State competence.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) It has always been the EU’s goal to achieve the best possible living conditions for its 500 million citizens. Achieving that requires an innovative budget concerned with the new realities of globalisation. Following the crisis, Europe’s governments, businesses and families are more sensitive to how their money is spent. The European Union must do the same through the multiannual financial framework 2014-2020, carefully choosing where to cut and where to invest for future growth.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – EU budget does not fulfil its intended purpose as an investment budget with a strong leverage effect; under 45% of the budgeted spend falls under heading 1, sustainable growth, with the remainder being earmarked for other purposes which have little to do with strategic investment in Europe. The EU 2020 strategy has been set as a substantial objective to support sustainable growth, competitiveness and employment in Europe and was approved by the 27 Member States, but the failure of the Lisbon Strategy on which it is based does not lend any credibility for the EU 2020 strategy.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) We do not need an inflated EU budget, particularly not one funded by EU taxpayers, which is completely lacking in any awareness of the need for austerity measures, which will bring about a further increase in the Brussels bureaucracy and which will rob the net contributors of their last pennies. In the countries that are fighting to avoid state bankruptcy, the people are having to make great sacrifices. The citizens of the net contributors, too, have had to tighten their belts as a result of having had to finance the various pointless excessive rescue efforts from their national budgets. In this difficult situation, the multiannual financial framework proposed is obscene. While potential savings remain ignored, I can only reject the multiannual financial framework in the strongest possible terms.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) At present, the structure of the European Union budget is particularly complicated. I therefore agree entirely that it should be simplified as much as possible. It is also crucial to abandon exceptions that have come about for historical reasons because, with the change in both the size of the EU and the degree of integration, they are basically no longer relevant. It is important for the instruments introduced recently to be universal. For instance, the tax on financial transactions will only achieve its goals if it is applied throughout the European Union. On the other hand, any clauses must be based on objective criteria. For example, when determining the cost of collecting own resources, the increased customs administration costs faced by Member States with external EU borders should be taken into account.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. – (DE) It is unacceptable for the European Union to demand that each of its Member States reduce its deficits and spending, while at the same time proposing an increased budget. While the Member States are instructed to make cuts in every area and to lower their budget deficits accordingly, the European Commission wants to increase the 2013 budget by 6.8%. There is no question that this must be rejected. Even if a lot of money is supposed to flow back into the countries through programmes to promote growth and new infrastructure projects, the Commission’s plans do not exactly show it to be willing to make cuts. I can quite understand the criticism levelled by some countries, those that are absolutely against this, who say that their own contribution to the EU budget is too high. We all have to make cuts and keep our budgets in order, and it is therefore unacceptable for the EU bureaucracy to become even more inflated and for even more spending to arise. Calling for budget increases in this difficult situation is not beneficial, which is why I, too, voted against the multiannual financial framework.

  Wojciech Michał Olejniczak (S&D), in writing. – (PL) In fighting to overcome the financial crisis, the European Union should show solidarity in the way it invests, and the costs of this investment should be borne collectively. These two factors are inextricably linked. The fact that the resolution stresses the investment-oriented nature of the EU budget is extremely important. Despite the fact that the EU budget constitutes barely 2% of all public spending in the Union’s 27 Member States, it translates into significant levels of development within the Union (94% of the money from the EU budget is used for stimulating economic growth) and a stronger position at world level.

I also welcome the fact that Parliament is trying hard to allocate the appropriate resources to pay for cohesion policy – policy which is crucial from the point of view of our country – and infrastructure projects. On the other hand, it is also important that the costs of running the EU are borne collectively. Therefore, it is important that the resolution has emphasised the need for a sustainable budget by reforming the own resources system, ending all ‘rebates’ and exceptions, and increasing the flexibility and transparency of the way money is spent. In view of these aspects of the resolution, I decided to vote for its adoption. I welcome the fact that the European Parliament has united to issue an unequivocal statement on the European Union budget.

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE), in writing. – (ET) I supported the joint resolution by five groups in the European Parliament on the multiannual financial framework and own resources, considering the need for a more transparent and flexible financial framework and genuine new own resources. I therefore also supported proposals that emphasised the need to create new own resources, for instance, a financial transaction tax, in order to develop the European economy and our common welfare. It is altogether fair and necessary to introduce this tax, given that the financial sector, which was one of the main causes of the financial crisis, has received significant state support to overcome the effects of the financial crisis but has not contributed enough towards that objective itself. I believe that it is extremely important and elementary that the objectives and policy areas of the multiannual financial framework should be agreed upon before resources are allocated to them. The European Parliament and Council should also hold negotiations regarding all matters connected with the multiannual financial framework in order to achieve a comprehensive agreement.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this motion for a resolution because I, too, believe the goals and policies of the multiannual financial framework (MFF) should be agreed before figures are assigned to them, and that Parliament and the Council should hold fully fledged negotiations on all MFF-related issues prior to assigning figures and making final adjustments to the entire MFF package.

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The resolution adopted today proposes a flexible multiannual budget to tackle new challenges and the replacement of national contributions with other types of resources to fund the Union’s budget. The lack of flexibility in the current system makes it very difficult to react quickly to new challenges. The lower the budget, the greater the need to be able to redistribute resources to deal with unexpected events.

According to the Treaties, the EU budget should be completely funded by own resources. This House believes that reforming the current system and adding new sources of funding, such as a financial transaction tax or a new EU VAT regime, would reduce the share of Member States’ gross national income-based contributions to the EU budget from 75% to 40% by 2020. We are not prepared to approve the regulation that sets the next multiannual financial framework in the absence of a political agreement on reform of the own resources system, putting an end to existing rebates and other correction mechanisms.

  Robert Rochefort (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The European Union needs a solid budget to attain its political and economic objectives. By voting in favour of this resolution, this is the message I would like to send to the Council, which will shortly debate the EU 2014-2020 draft budgetary framework. In my view, there should be enhanced budgetary flexibility, both within and across headings, as well as between financial years. That would mean that budgetary resources can be appropriately aligned with the evolving circumstances and priorities. Furthermore, the EU budget should be financed by alternative sources of income from, in particular, a proportion of the revenues from a tax on financial transactions or even a European VAT. As the text of the resolution says, without political agreement on the own resources of the EU budget, Parliament is not prepared to give its consent to the next multiannual financial framework (MFF) regulation. Finally, what I would particularly like to see is for the Council to recognise fully the role of Parliament as codecider in these negotiations and to act accordingly. Parliament is determined to make its voice heard and the Council should be ready for this.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – (ES) I voted in favour. Daniel Cohn-Bendit has made it clear that without an increase in the EU budget and its own resources, none of the speeches on political sovereignty have any worth. The current banking, economic and political crisis requires an even more European approach, but a democratic Europe that can apply policies to reactivate the economy. It is therefore essential that the EU budget reflects the true willingness of political, fiscal and banking union. We, the Group of the Greens, request that the EU budgets have their own line of funding through elements such as taxes on financial transactions, on carbon and on mobile telephony. Through these three taxes, the EU’s own resources would increase by EUR 40 billion or EUR 50 billion and policies for growth and job creation could therefore be implemented.

  Kârlis Ðadurskis (PPE), in writing. – The EP adopted resolution on the multiannual financial framework and own resources sends a clear signal to the EU leaders before their first discussion of the 2014-2020 budgetary plan. The EU budget is a very strong and strategic tool to put the European economy back on track and to meet the political ambitions of the EU; however, the budgetary consolidation measures currently imposed on national budgets must be taken into account. Therefore, I welcome the proposals on the reform of the own-resources system as they are aimed at reducing the share of Member States’ GNI-based contributions to the EU budget from 75% to 40% by 2020, thereby contributing to the consolidation efforts of Member States. The next long-term budget should as well provide greater flexibility to cope adequately with evolving challenges and priorities amongst the financial years within the MFF.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The Europe 2020 strategy was primarily created to promote sustainable growth, competitiveness and employment in Europe, and was adopted in order to deal with the current economic and financial crisis that Europe has been suffering since 2008. In order to achieve optimal results for sustainable growth and development on the ground, solidarity and cohesion, priority should be given to the improvement of synergies between all funds of the EU budget that have an impact on economic development. By voting in favour, I therefore voice the need to harmonise the use of funds assigned to the Europe 2020 strategy, so that it is transparent and ensures coherence between its objectives and the funds allotted to it at national and EU level. This means that it must strike a good balance between revenues and expenditure, while leaving space for flexible management given the unpredictability of how the world might change.

  Søren Bo Søndergaard (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (DA) I voted against the motion for a resolution on the multiannual financial framework and own resources as the report supports the slash and burn policies in the Member States of the EU that hit ordinary workers. What is more, I do not support the EU budget being funded by own resources by means of an EU levy on goods (VAT) or a tax on financial transactions. Own resources would limit the democratic control of the EU’s budgets and limit the redistribution of resources from rich to poor regions. I support a version of a tax on financial transactions – the so-called Robin Hood tax – where the income goes to the Member States to support the funding of welfare and to combating climate change and poverty in developing countries. I also support Parliament’s role in the process, and my vote in no way represents support for the Council’s proposal.

  Alda Sousa (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this resolution because we cannot allow Europe’s governments to freeze Parliament completely out of the negotiations for the financial perspective 2014-2020. In this unprecedented crisis, when it is essential to reaffirm solidarity, the European Council is singing from the same austerity hymn sheet. In this resolution, Parliament advocates its full right to participate in negotiations; it demands an increased European budget, which should help the countries in greatest difficulties and should create more and better jobs. Parliament reiterates its desire to do away with the major Member States’ under-the-table deals, putting an end to the ‘correction mechanisms’ and ‘rebates’ of the United Kingdom and others. We need a financial transaction tax that obliges those who caused the crisis to start paying for it. What we do not need is austerity, euphemistically called ‘budgetary consolidation’ in this resolution. What we do not need is to reduce the Member States’ contributions to the European budget. What we need is more Europe; more solidarity.

  Alf Svensson (PPE), in writing. – (SV) The EU budget should be used for something that can provide European added value. That is one of the cornerstones of the work on the budget, and it is also this that should guide the distribution of the common funds that are available to the Union. So far so good. Unfortunately, the resolution also contains passages that I am unable to support to the same degree. They concern the welcoming of the financial transaction tax, which I am certain will be damaging for Sweden and Europe, and new own resources for the EU. Far too often, own resources mean a tax that is to be paid directly into the EU budget. More money for the EU in the form of own resources is not automatically an approach that will help Europe out of trouble and difficulties. Neither does it seem reasonable, in the context of the EU budget, to disregard the difficult economic considerations and problems of – very many – individual nations. Despite what I see as very problematic wordings, I chose to vote in favour of the resolution.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this resolution because I believe the European Union budget 2014-2020 is still demonstrating its rigour. The overall amount proposed for the next seven years is EUR 1.025 trillion, or 1.05% of the EU’s gross national income (GNI), in commitment appropriations, and EUR 972.2 billion, 1% of the EU’s GNI, in appropriations. It is important to stress that the budget is geared towards realising the Europe 2020 strategy, and that around 94% of financial appropriations are geared towards supporting growth and jobs, in particular, the EUR 336 billion spent on cohesion policy and the EUR 80 billion spent on research and innovation. The EUR 50 billion Connecting Europe Facility will be extremely important in financing cross-border projects in the energy, transport and information technology sectors, while the EUR 19 billion for the Erasmus for All proposal demonstrates that the European Union is concerned about the future for new generations. Finally, I should like to re-emphasise how important it is that the new own resources – VAT and financial transaction tax – be approved, which will enable a 40% reduction in the Member States’ contributions to the European budget by 2020.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the European Parliament resolution on the multiannual financial framework and own resources. I voted for paragraph 3, which states that Parliament insists that the EU budget should strike an appropriate balance between own resources and expenditure as required by the Treaty. The next multiannual financial framework (MFF) cannot be adopted without political agreement on reform of the own resources system, putting an end to existing rebates and the other correction mechanisms and leading to greater transparency, fairness and sustainability. We welcome the legislative proposals drafted by the Commission on 29 June 2011 on the reform of the own resources system, including the proposal on a financial transaction tax (FTT) and a new EU VAT as own resources. These measures are aimed at reducing the share of Member States’ GDP-based contributions to the EU budget to 40% by 2020, thereby contributing to the consolidation efforts made by Member States. I voted against Amendment 4, which removes from the text the section which insists on the principle of unity as part of the EU budget, stressing that all EU policies and programmes should be included in the MFF with appropriate funding, thereby contributing to transparency, predictability and accountability.

  Rafał Trzaskowski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) Parliament’s emphasis on the principle of ‘nothing is decided until everything is decided’ is a response to the Council’s attempts to make decisions about the EU’s long-term budget in a way which challenges Parliament’s prerogatives. In the case of Poland – because Parliament is well-disposed to Poland – it is simply dangerous.

  Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. – Economic recovery and investment in jobs and growth must be the priority for the next multiannual financial framework. The EU budget needs sufficient resources if the EU 2020 strategy is to succeed. If Europe is to emerge from the crisis, the main focus should be job creation, and smart and sustainable growth as well as economic and social cohesion. I also believe that the EU budget needs a degree of flexibility in order to deal with unexpected situations and I reiterate the call made in this resolution to increase flexibility in the next MFF. However, I was not able to give my full support to this resolution due to two issues. Firstly, although I fully support an FTT, I do not think we should be committing this revenue to EU own resources at this stage. Secondly, I cannot support scrapping the UK rebate without a firm promise that there will be serious reform of the common agricultural policy. For these reasons, I decided to vote against the resolution as a whole.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) The multiannual financial framework, also known as ‘financial perspectives’, sets a medium-term programme for the Union’s main budgetary priorities. In that sense, it is a key element. However, this motion for a resolution on the multiannual financial framework (MFF) stresses that ‘the EU budget needs to play a strategic role, in parallel with the budgetary consolidation measures currently imposed on national budgets’ (B7-0303/2012, paragraph 1), thus legitimising austerity measures. Even though the austerity policies imposed by the European Union have been undermining economies and social structures, the text submitted to the vote of Parliament dares to claim that ‘94% [of EU appropriations] are dedicated to stimulating economic growth and jobs and the EU’s role as a global actor’ (ibid). Worse still, even though the Council is constantly checkmating the European Parliament in budgetary powers, this text merely asks for ‘the political positions agreed by the European Council [to] be negotiated between Parliament and the Council’ (paragraph 5). I therefore voted against this resolution, which supports the austerity policies that destroy the peoples of Europe.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – EU funding should be reformed by creating a TFF and a European VAT. If reforms are carried out, the contributions of Member States could be reduced by between 40 and 75%. The EP stated its position on its resolution 8 June 2011 and called for efforts against freezing or reducing the budget and asked to identify clear priorities or political projects which could be dispensed with altogether, despite its European added value to overcome the current crisis (EU budget is needed to create growth vs. austerity).

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The point of the European Union is to provide an ‘added value’ for its 500 million citizens. To achieve this, it needs an innovative budget that is in line with the new reality of globalisation and that meets the challenges of today by creating opportunities for tomorrow. In the wake of the crisis, European governments, businesses and families are being very careful as to how they spend their money. As such, the European Union is required to do the same through the multiannual financial framework 2014-2020, taking a close look at where to make cuts and where to invest in order to drive future growth.

  Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD), in writing. – (PL) During this very serious crisis, the European Union needs to improve the tools which are of most importance for the Union’s function. This is why it is so important to increase spending on cohesion policy in the new budget for 2014-2020. Cohesion policy enables us to maintain the emphasis on partnership and investment in the EU budget. The increased amounts allocated in this budget will be a positive stimulus for the EU economies and a clear signal that the EU has stopped treating the central and western parts of Europe differently. The budget should be financed by Member States’ contributions and the proceeds of a financial transaction tax. I do not agree with the introduction of an EU climate tax or to the proposals for a rise in the price of greenhouse gas emission quotas established for industrial entities. During a crisis, placing an additional burden on industry is like walking a tightrope across a precipice blindfolded.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This resolution is founded on the goal of demanding that ‘political positions agreed by the European Council be negotiated between Parliament and the Council [...] before the Council formally submits its proposals with a view to obtaining Parliament’s consent on the [multiannual financial framework] regulation’. While this position may be important, we are bound to disagree with establishing as its basis the report by the Special Committee on Policy Challenges and Budgetary Resources for a Sustainable European Union after 2013 – which proposed freezing the EU budget until 2020 – and with reforming the own-resources system with a view to reducing national contributions to the EU budget, to legitimising ‘budgetary consolidation’, otherwise known as austerity policies, and to recommending the Europe 2020 strategy as one of the ways out of the crisis.

Motion for a resolution: B7-0278/2012

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) According to the European Commission, ‘The European Union has a small budget, but with a big impact for Europe’s citizens. The Commission’s proposal for a multiannual budget for 2014-2020 responds to today’s concerns and tomorrow’s needs. It focuses on priority funding at the EU level that provides true added value’. I voted against this resolution since, unlike the rapporteur, I believe the EU budget meets its initial objective of contributing to greater economic growth and job creation. Moreover, I am in favour of the proposals for own resources tabled by the European Commission, particularly the financial transaction tax and revenue from VAT.

Motion for a resolution: B7-0279/2012

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In the multiannual financial framework, the sums allocated to the individual development of the regions – cohesion policy – have decreased, but the overall sums going into economic, social and territorial cohesion have increased, owing to the Connecting Europe Facility. By contrast, the sums allocated to the common agricultural policy – Agriculture and Rural Development – have decreased, demonstrating that the European Union is not investing in the first-sector economy. I agree with the rapporteur that the EU budget is an investment budget with a strong leverage effect and can represent a very strong tool to increase strategic investments with European added value consistent with an approach aimed at creating growth and jobs. However, I voted against this motion for a resolution because I disagree with the rapporteur about own resources. I take a positive view of the proposals on the financial transaction tax and a new EU own resource from VAT.

Motion for a resolution: B7-0297/2012

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this resolution concerning EU-Japan negotiations because I do not think there are sufficient reasons for the Commission to consider the opening of negotiations valid, simply on the basis of a report containing both parties’ levels of ambition. I agree with the position of the majority of the Members of the European Parliament, which does not give assent to opening negotiations, since the Commission’s assessment exercise for this process is not sufficient. As such, I propose that the Council does not authorise the opening of trade negotiations until the European Parliament has stated its formal position on the proposed negotiating mandate, on the basis of a report by the committee responsible, which would constitute the EU respecting the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution. At the 20th EU-Japan Summit held on 28 May 2011 in Brussels, the decision was made to start bilateral discussions with a view to defining the scope and level of ambition of negotiations on the EU-Japan Free Trade Agreement (FTA). I welcome the European Parliament’s position that the Council should not authorise the opening of negotiations until Parliament has stated its position on the proposed negotiating mandate on the basis of a report from the committee responsible.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this European Parliament resolution because the Council and the Commission have noted that Japan’s capacity to remove regulatory barriers to trade is a precondition for launching negotiations on the EU-Japan trade agreement, thus fostering closer economic integration between the two strategic trading partners. Furthermore, at the 20th EU-Japan Summit held in May 2011 in Brussels, the summit leaders decided that the two sides would start discussions with a view to defining the scope and level of ambition of such negotiations. A scoping group was set up to assess the shared understanding on the scope and level of ambition of the potential trade negotiations between these two economic partners, Japan and the European Union. While expressing its intention of strengthening its economic integration so that economic relations, which could be beneficial to both parties, are as close as possible, the European Parliament therefore proposes asking the Council not to authorise the opening of negotiations until Parliament has stated its position on the proposed negotiating mandate on the basis of a report from the committee responsible.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The 20th EU-Japan Summit in Brussels, on 28 May 2011, gave the green light to launching discussions with a view to defining the scope and level of ambition of such negotiations on the EU-Japan trade agreement. However, the EU must remain firm and obtain the removal of regulatory barriers to trade, without which we will find ourselves back in the same kind of negotiations as we had over the EU-Korea agreement. A group was given the task of assessing the shared understanding on the scope and level of ambition of the potential trade negotiations between Japan and the EU. Until the European Parliament has stated its position on the proposed negotiating mandate, we do not wish the Council to open negotiations. Too much is at stake for European industry not to remain extremely vigilant over the safeguard clauses that must be provided in this type of agreement.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – I do not support any EU trade negotiation with third countries which result in the annulment of national BITs and restrict all Member States to EU negotiated terms and conditions for trade. It is important for competitiveness for countries to be able to establish unique and idiomatic trade deals and not relinquish sovereign trade decisions under EU proposals. I therefore could not vote against any call to postpone such negotiations.

  George Sabin Cutaş (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the resolution on trade negotiations between the European Union and Japan. Like many of my colleagues, I think that no negotiations on a free trade agreement should be initiated as long as Japan is reluctant to make concessions on non-tariff barriers. Prior to authorising the start of negotiations, the Council must therefore respect Parliament’s role as colegislator on international trade and wait for the latter’s formal position on the negotiating mandate.

  Marielle de Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) While the European Union seems to want to conclude increasing numbers of trade agreements with its trading partners, some countries are not as enthusiastic about entering into negotiations. This is the case with Japan, which is not yet prepared to remove non-tariff barriers to its public procurement markets, pharmaceutical products and automotive industry. It would therefore be premature for the European Union to enter into trade negotiations with Japan today. Consequently, the Council should not be too hasty in giving a mandate to the Commission to begin these negotiations. Account must also be taken of the opinion of Parliament on current trade barriers in Japan before launching official negotiations.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Japanese authorities have proved to be slow in coming to the table and there have been frequent doubts about their desire to reach a lasting agreement with the European Union in the short term. I consider this future agreement very important for both parties, so I think the EU should do everything it can to promote concrete progress in this regard. I also believe Parliament cannot be frozen out of this process and its opinion thereon cannot be ignored.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This motion for a resolution, tabled following a Commission statement, concerns EU-Japan negotiations on a free trade agreement (FTA). The excellent relations between the EU and Japan are very important for both parties. Indeed, at EUR 49 billion, Japan is the EU’s sixth largest trading partner, while the EU, at EUR 69 billion, is Japan’s third largest trading partner. Considering the EU’s balance of trade deficit, it is essential that Japan lift many of the obstacles it imposes on European imports, particularly non-tariff barriers, the failure to open up public procurement to EU companies that harms our small and medium-sized enterprises, and protectionism towards the Japanese automotive industry. If there is no progress on negotiations, or if the results are not satisfactory, they should be broken off. I voted to establish a new FTA, but it is crucial that the final result be beneficial to both parties and not favour just one; that is, Japan.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The European Parliament has been even more in favour of the European Commission opening trade negotiations on establishing a free trade agreement with Japan than the Commission itself is. In view of the repeated requests, the European Commission has, in turn, requested that Japan meet certain conditions for opening up the market, even before starting the negotiations.

At the end of May, in Brussels, representatives of the EU and Japan reached an initial definition of the scope and reach of the negotiations. The Commission is now preparing to propose a mandate for the Council giving the green light for these negotiations. This resolution just calls on the Council not to adopt a position on a negotiating mandate before Parliament has set out its own position. However, it is not hard to imagine what that position will be. Over time, it will become clearer what interests and contradictions are at play in this process. In this case, however, unlike with other countries, the interests of the EU powers and their economic interest groups – such as the German automotive industry – could find in Japan an undesirable competitor rather than good market opportunities. This factor will certainly have a bearing on how the process unfolds.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) ?In 2009, the EU and Japan represented together more than a quarter of global GDP and more than 20% of global trade. Japan and the EU are significant investors in each other’s economies with a combined volume of foreign direct investment worth EUR 200 billion in 2009. The EU and Japan are facing common challenges, such as the political and economic rise of China, economic slowdown in the aftermath of the global financial crisis, decreasing demographics, and a pressing need to access raw materials and energy sources, as well as ensuring the price stability thereof. Open and fair trade is a powerful tool to create more growth and societal well-being. Although the EU and Japan generally have low tariffs on goods, bilateral trade volumes between the EU and Japan lag behind the bulk of the EU's trade exchanges with its other main trading partners. I believe it is important to strengthen trade relations between the EU and Japan and to remove non-tariff barriers to trade and investment, including numerous restrictive rules and regulatory measures for EU companies in accessing the Japanese market. I also believe that an EU-Japan free trade agreement would not only yield benefits in terms of an increase in the bilateral trade in goods and services, but would also foster cooperation in terms of the EU’s horizontal priorities.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) On 31 May, the European Union and Japan concluded a scoping exercise for a future trade agreement. A number of preconditions for the opening of negotiations had already been required last year by the European Union from Japan. In this context, Parliament, by this resolution, requests from the Council a deadline for assessing whether these conditions have been met before giving a negotiating mandate to the Commission. These conditions largely related to the removal of a certain number of non-tariff barriers and the opening of its public procurement to European companies. This resolution was supported by 517 votes in Parliament and I welcome that.

  Bogusław Liberadzki (S&D), in writing. – (PL) I welcome the fact that trade negotiations have been started with Japan, one of the world’s biggest economies. Japan is in an exceptional economic situation: public debt is almost twice as high as GDP, but this is almost exclusively internal debt. In the past, Japan has reached a high level of economic development. Currently, Japan is a region of moderate growth, but has very well-developed tools for protecting access to its internal market. A good feature of this agreement is that the EU wants the principle of reciprocity and has specified strategically important areas of cooperation. This is a case in which we have given a precise definition of our objectives and of areas for trade cooperation and the tools to be used, and have taken great care over upholding the Union’s interests. These are important reasons for voting in favour, with the expectation that this matter will come back to Parliament again in September.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I supported this resolution but want to put on record that a good and ambitious FTA with Japan could be a win-win for both parties.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) In view of the conditions clearly set out in the resolution, I agree with the decision not to authorise the opening of trade negotiations until Parliament has stated its position on the proposed negotiating mandate, on the basis of a report by the committee responsible. I voted in favour.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In 2010, the total amount of bilateral trade between the EU and Japan, the third largest economy in the world in GDP terms, was worth EUR 120 billion. Japan is the EU’s sixth largest trading partner and the EU Japan’s third largest trading partner. There is, however, significant untapped trade potential. As such, EU-Japan trade relations need to be stepped up by focusing on the removal of non-tariff barriers to trade and investment, including numerous restrictive rules and regulatory measures for EU companies in accessing the Japanese market. This means the EU-Japan free trade agreement has great potential for benefiting both economies. That is why the EU should, at the proper time, give the Commission any conditions that it feels need to be included in the agreement being negotiated.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – European Parliament asks the Council not to authorise the opening of trade negotiations until Parliament has stated its position on the proposed negotiating mandate, on the basis of a report by the committee responsible. I am in favour.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) In principle, it is a good idea to want to discuss trade negotiations with a strong export power such as Japan and to conclude an agreement on this. Both sides will profit from such negotiations or from the agreement. However, some Members are now complaining that Japan’s duty is too high and they therefore want to defer the negotiations, although it was decided more than a year ago (on 28 May 2011) that we wanted to or should start negotiations. It is not acceptable that some now want to delay this promising ‘cooperation’ even further. It is up to each country to create duties and to specify how high that duty will be. There are duties in the EU, too, which I imagine do not suit everybody. The EU wants to force things upon the countries of Europe, but Japan is not in Europe. It is unacceptable to want to impose rules on a country such as Japan, telling it how high it may set its duty. The EU should not exceed its powers and force things upon a non-EU country. I am therefore advocating that these negotiations be started immediately, in order to expand and increase trade between the EU and Japan for the benefit of both sides. Although I am fundamentally in favour of this agreement, I voted against this motion because it provides for a further postponement of the negotiations.

  Vital Moreira (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I abstained from the vote on the motion calling on the Council not to authorise the opening of trade negotiations with Japan because it seems to me that it could be counterproductive and could run counter to Parliament’s own interests. Indeed, if the Commission has already announced that it is going to request the Council’s mandate, the most likely outcome is that the Council will ignore Parliament’s request, not least because there is a political commitment in that regard. If that happens, as well as being disregarded by the Council, Parliament will lose the opportunity that it had to tell the Commission in advance about the substantive conditions that Parliament thinks should be included in the negotiating mandate, which would then give it the authority to react if these conditions are not respected, including to threaten to withhold its final consent from the treaty.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) At the 20th EU-Japan Summit, which took place in Brussels on 28 May 2011, the summit leaders decided that the two parties would start talks to set out the scope and level of ambition of these negotiations. To that end, a group was created to define the scope, so as to assess the shared understanding on the scope and level of ambition of potential EU-Japan trade negotiations. As such, I voted for this resolution, which calls on the Council not to authorise the opening of trade negotiations until Parliament has stated its position on the proposed negotiating mandate, on the basis of a report by the committee responsible.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This motion for a resolution concerns the EU-Japan trade negotiations, with a view to closer economic integration of these two strategic partners. Following the 20th EU-Japan Summit, which took place in Brussels on 28 May 2011, the summit leaders decided that the two parties would start talks to set out the scope and level of ambition of these negotiations, which essentially concern Japan’s scrapping of regulatory barriers to trade. Since these negotiations could constitute an excellent window of opportunity for the EU, I voted in favour.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. As expected, the resolution passed as proposed by the PPE/S&D/Greens/GUE with a solid majority of 517 : 74 : 89. Only ALDE and the ECR voted against or abstained. All ALDE/ECR amendments were rejected by the same margin of some 500+ votes. Hence, the resolution only contains the call for the Council not to approve any negotiation mandate to the Commission regarding a free trade agreement with Japan until Parliament has stated its position. The Commission’s proposal for a negotiation mandate to the Council is expected to be issued around 25 June. The Committee on International Trade will draw up a content resolution reacting to the Commission’s proposal for a mandate, to be ready for plenary in October.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The EU’s desire for a multicentric network of relationships is driving the formation of new partnerships in the East. The new global economic order requires Europe to bolster both its multilateral and bilateral approaches. Bearing that in mind, we need to create the best possible conditions for developing new strategic arrangements with Japan. Negotiations are the main way to stimulate our economy, showing how the crisis can be overcome with fair, intelligent trade. The removal by Japan of regulatory barriers to trade is a precondition for launching negotiations on the trade agreement, thus fostering closer economic integration between the two partners.

  Tokia Saïfi (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Japan has been identified by the Commission as one of the EU’s strategic partners. High-level discussions between the EU and Japan have been in place since the beginning of the 1990s but have not, to date, yielded conclusive results. The sectors identified as being of common interest for the Commission and the Japanese authorities are sensitive for European industry and for French industry. That is why I voted in favour of this resolution, which calls on the Council not to authorise the opening of negotiations until Parliament has stated its position on the Commission’s proposed negotiating mandate. I believe that Parliament must have the right to scrutinise the content of these negotiations.

  Matteo Salvini (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of this resolution. Parliament must be able to influence the mandate it will receive from the Commission to negotiate with Japan. I also believe that a free trade agreement with Japan is impossible and harmful to our economy. We risk ending up with an agreement like the one signed with South Korea, which would cause major damage to Europe’s car industry.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The existing bilateral relations between the Union and Japan are part of a network of international relationships designed to grow our internal market and which, in my view, need to be maintained or even stepped up in the light of the economic stagnation the EU is currently suffering. I therefore voted in favour, but wish to call attention to the need to protect small and medium-sized enterprises in Europe, given the economic and financial crisis ongoing since 2008, so that the importance of this network does not wane as our economy recovers.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Removing barriers to trade is an essential condition for the success of any trade relationship between the two partners and is particularly important at the start of EU-Japan trade negotiations. It was agreed at the Brussels Summit on 28 May 2011 to start talks with a view to trade negotiations. Parliament is now, with my support, requesting that the Council does not start those talks until Parliament has given its position as regards that mandate.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the report on EU trade negotiations with Japan. Japan’s capacity to remove regulatory barriers to trade is a precondition for launching negotiations on the EU-Japan trade agreement, thereby fostering closer economic integration between the two strategic trading partners. During the 20th EU-Japan Summit held on 28 May 2011 in Brussels, the summit leaders decided that the two sides would start discussions with a view to defining the scope and level of ambition of these negotiations. I welcome the fact that a group has been set up to assess the shared understanding on the scope and level of ambition of the potential trade negotiations between Japan and the EU. I call on the Council not to authorise the opening of trade negotiations until Parliament has stated its position on the proposed negotiating mandate, based on a report drafted by the relevant committee.

  Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE), in writing. – From an economic point of view, in general, I have always defended the idea that deepening trade relations with third parties gives more economic opportunities to everyone. If Japan produces certain car components more efficiently that we do in Europe, we should give them the chance to distribute these in Europe so that we, as customers, may benefit. Nonetheless, all this should be based on equal opportunities for both sides, in other words, to the European companies and their skilled workers as well.

  Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa (PPE), in writing. – (PL) I voted in favour of the European Parliament resolution on EU trade negotiations with Japan. I think that for the time being, the Council should not authorise the opening of trade negotiations until Parliament has stated its position on the proposed negotiating mandate on the basis of a report by the Committee on International Trade. This would be pursuant to Rule 90(2) of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure.

Japan’s capacity to remove regulatory barriers to trade is a precondition for launching negotiations on the EU-Japan trade agreement, because this would facilitate closer economic integration between the two strategic trading partners. The report on the state of ongoing work on the scoping exercise reveals the existence of numerous problems, particularly concerning the scope of public procurement for railways, as well as in other areas. Unfortunately, this shows there is a lack of conformity with one of the provisions of last year’s joint resolution – a resolution which points to the need to eliminate non-tariff barriers.

It should also be stressed that a temporary deferral of authorisation for negotiations until Parliament has stated its position on the subject in the form of a report by the Committee on International Trade would be helpful from an institutional point of view because this would strengthen the position of the often marginalised European Parliament.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – The EP does not authorise the opening of the trade negotiations with Japan until the responsible committee will state its position. A scoping group was set up in order to share understanding on the scope and level of ambition of the future trade agreement between Japan and the EU. Japan shall show more engagement on removing regulatory barriers to trade.

Motion for a resolution: RC-B7-0277/2012

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report because, following the democratic elections that were held, the president and prime minister elected by universal suffrage were obliged to flee the country by a coup d’état. I believe that the EU should send a clear signal of zero tolerance as regards attacks on democracy. The EU should intervene to demobilise the military and re-establish democracy; this should be done in cooperation with international partners.

  Pino Arlacchi (S&D), in writing. – I support this resolution because we must condemn the coup d’état in Guinea-Bissau and ask for the immediate restoration of constitutional order. The arbitrary arrests and harassment of activists and politicians protesting against the government established by the coup leaders are unacceptable. I also would like to underline that the political crisis is diverting attention away from the needs of the population and precipitating a humanitarian crisis. We must bear in mind that Guinea-Bissau’s economy is one of the poorest and most dependent in the region, with international aid accounting for 80% of the State budget.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report on the resolution to end the illegal rule of the junta in Guinea-Bissau and prevent a possible humanitarian crisis. We need to stop the usurpation of power by the military junta in Guinea-Bissau, the main transit country for cocaine from Latin America, which may contribute to an intensification of the transit of drugs to Europe. The Council should consider the EU’s possible involvement in conflict resolution by returning a mission under the European security and defence policy, which would provide the reinstated administration with support in the area of the rule of law as soon as the legitimate authorities regain the legitimate power that was unlawfully taken away from them. I believe that the EU should cooperate with regional and international organisations and help civilians facing shortages of food and medical assistance.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) On 12 April 2012, members of the Guinea-Bissau armed forces seized power, detaining the interim president and the prime minister. This illegitimate military coup d’état occurred on the eve of the campaign for the second round of the presidential elections and has been widely condemned by the international community. Guinea-Bissau has been experiencing political instability for several decades, leading the country into a profound political, governance and humanitarian crisis. This resolution, for which I voted, vehemently condemns the illegitimate seizure of power by the Guinea-Bissau armed forces and calls for the immediate re-establishment of the constitutional order and the rule of law. It demands the immediate freeing of all citizens, some of whom are public officials, held by the rebel soldiers and absolute respect for their physical integrity, as well as calling for an end to violence, pillaging and intimidation. It supports the EU’s desire to cooperate with the Economic Community of West African States, as well as its regional and international partners, on instituting an effective partnership that contributes to the pacification and long-term stabilisation of Guinea Bissau.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – While I wholly support a call for democracy in Guinea Bissau and also condemn the recent military coup, I do not permit the European Union as a wholly undemocratic and largely unelected body to be the arbiter of such judgments on the global stage.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) On 12 April of this year, a military force illegitimately seized power by force in the Republic of Guinea-Bissau, on the eve of the second round of the presidential elections. This deepened the political crisis that the country was experiencing, leading to a profound crisis of governance, with severe social, economic and humanitarian consequences for the public. I utterly condemn this illegal seizure of power by the military, which has plunged the country and its institutions into unprecedented instability, thereby jeopardising the democratic rule of law. I also condemn the military’s interference in politics and in the freedom of the people of Guinea-Bissau to choose their legitimate representatives. It is crucial that the European Union, the United Nations and the entire international community coordinate their efforts to restore normality in Guinea-Bissau, thereby enabling the restoration of the constitutional order, the rule of law, the fundamental freedoms and rights of Guinea-Bissau’s people, and the country’s democratic and sustainable development. The dispute must, insofar as is possible, be resolved peacefully with the fewest possible consequences for the public well-being, without breaching their guarantees and freedoms.

  Marielle de Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Since the military coup of 12 April, the opposition in Guinea-Bissau is still facing violent repression. Our first responsibility must be to call for calm and dialogue. However, the main leaders in Guinea also have the responsibility to do their utmost to prevent a new outbreak of violence in a country which has suffered from this only too much since its independence. Since the start of events, the international community, Europe, of course, and also the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), have spoken with a single voice. They have taken action by taking sanctions against the transitional government, set up by the former junta without the participation of the former party in power, and against those individuals supporting actions which threaten peace, security and stability in Guinea-Bissau. This pressure must continue and the planned measures must be implemented. We must not, under any circumstances, relax in our efforts until the situation is stabilised. It is the responsibility of the UN, the African Union and the European Union to act tirelessly to restore calm and dialogue.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) On 12 April, soldiers in Guinea-Bissau conducted a military coup d’état that removed the president and prime minister from office. This joint motion for a resolution on the military coup d’état in Guinea-Bissau was tabled following a statement by the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, replacing those tabled by the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), the European Conservatives and Reformists Group, the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, the Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left and the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance. First of all, I should like to express my solidarity with the suffering people of Guinea-Bissau, which has lived for years tormented by the social and political instability that periodically plunges the country into civil war. The international community, and the European Union in particular, cannot remain indifferent to the situation being experienced in this country where soldiers deprive the people’s legitimate representatives of office, perpetrate clear human rights violations, and allow looting and drug trafficking. Given that the EU has a partnership agreement with Guinea-Bissau, I call on the European authorities to do everything they can towards the swift restoration of democratic legality, the freeing of political prisoners, the return to office of elected officials and the resumption of the electoral process that was under way.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The resolution vehemently condemns the military coup d’état in Guinea-Bissau, and suggests important principles and guidelines for overcoming the current situation: rejecting any attempt to legitimise the coup d’état. It advocates the re-establishment of the constitutional order and the conclusion of the electoral process interrupted by the coup d’état, as well as respect for the physical integrity of all public officials and other citizens being detained and arbitrarily persecuted, their release and an end to violence, pillaging and intimidation.

In addition to all this, we are also pleased that the paragraph we proposed on rejecting ‘any outside attempts to exploit the present situation and hence to undermine the sovereignty of Guinea-Bissau’s people and the territorial integrity and independence of Guinea-Bissau’ has been included. However, we repudiate the other groups’ insistence on including in the resolution certain points that could conflict with this principle, specifically by paving the way for outside intervention in the country. The call for urgent aid measures to tackle the humanitarian situation in the country is also important. Any mission to the country under the aegis of the Community of Portuguese-Speaking Countries (CPLP) or any other organisation should have a clear and precise mandate from the UN of supporting the country’s sovereign institutions, whilst respecting the sovereign will of these institutions, international law and the UN Charter.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) As a result of the military coup d’état of 12th April, the interim President, Raimundo Pereira, and the Prime Minister, Carlos Gomes Júnior, were dismissed, and the National Assembly was dissolved. Looting, human rights violations, arbitrary detention and the violent suppression of peaceful protests are taking place in Guinea-Bissau. The political crisis is diverting attention away from the needs of the population and accelerating the humanitarian crisis. Reports from non-governmental organisations working on the ground are alarming, according to which the illegal government composed of those who carried out the coup continues, with increasing intensity, to violate human rights, in particular, by suppressing civil liberties such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of movement and freedom of association. I consider the arbitrary detention, imprisonment and cases of harassment of activists and politicians who protest against the government of self-appointed putschists to be equally deserving of condemnation. I firmly believe that it is essential that the perpetrators of human rights violations be punished for their actions, and that those responsible for violations of the constitutional order be brought to face justice. In this context, I consider the sanctions adopted by the European Union to be justified, and it is no less important that the UN Security Council carries out its threats if the constitutional order is not restored. I am of the opinion that it is important that the fight against impunity and support for the socio-economic development of Guinea-Bissau become priorities in a long-term strategy that takes into account the context and situation at the regional level.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour because all persons involved are urged to immediately stop their violent illegal actions and the army’s pledge to abide by Guinea-Bissau’s constitution is recalled. As we know, on 12 April 2012, members of the armed forces forcibly seized power in Guinea-Bissau and held both the interim President, Raimundo Pereira, and the Prime Minister, Carlos Gomes Júnior. This illegitimate action occurred the day before the beginning of the electoral campaign for the second round of the presidential elections in Guinea-Bissau. The military coup was widely condemned by the international community. Guinea-Bissau must therefore immediately reinstate the constitutional order and the rule of law and conclude the electoral process, including legitimate elections, so as to enable the people of Guinea-Bissau to decide on their future by free and fair elections. Fundamental freedoms need to be fully restored and guaranteed, including freedom of expression and the press, freedom of assembly and association and freedom of movement. All international partners need to continue to closely monitor the situation in Guinea-Bissau and need to be prepared to review the appropriateness of the measures adopted, including the need for them to be increased, while doing their utmost to avoid any negative effects on the population.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Parliament has condemned by a large majority and with a great degree of firmness the military coup in Guinea-Bissau on 12 April 2012 before the second round of presidential elections, and I welcome this. Democracy and the rule of law must be re-established immediately so that this country can decide on its future at the ballot box. By the same token, I regret the continuity of the self-proclaimed government and support the decision of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) to impose sanctions, given that negotiations have not proved sufficient for a return to the rule of law.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this resolution, which demands the immediate reinstatement of the constitutional order and the rule of law and the conclusion of the electoral process, including the legislative elections, so as to enable the people of Guinea-Bissau to decide on their future by free and fair elections.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) It is important to vote in favour of this resolution, in order to urge all those involved to immediately stop their violent and illegal actions and recall the army’s pledge to abide by Guinea-Bissau’s constitution. It is also crucial for the international community to exert all the necessary influence and to provide all the support required to ensure there is a thorough investigation of these unlawful actions and that those responsible are brought to justice.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The EU has an obligation to condemn the actions of the soldiers in Guinea-Bissau, demanding the restoration of the democratically elected bodies and the restarting of the electoral process that was under way.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (ES) I voted in favour of this resolution. In April this year, a military coup took place in Guinea-Bissau. This resolution condemns the coup and demands the immediate reinstatement of the constitutional order and the rule of law and the conclusion of the electoral process, including the legislative elections, so as to enable the people of Guinea-Bissau to decide on their future by means of free and fair elections. The resolution also demands the full restoration and guarantee of fundamental freedoms, including freedom of expression and the press, freedom of assembly and association, and freedom of movement.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – Nothing surprising, it is another ‘coup d’état militaire’. But coups d’état can be proper and improper. This one is improper.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) Guinea-Bissau, which is situated in West Africa, is one of the world’s poorest countries. On 12 April 2012, the day the election campaign was to begin in the country, there was a military coup in which both interim President Raimundo Pereira and Prime Minister Carlos Gomes Júnior were removed from office and arrested. This was a severe blow for the population because the country’s instability, which had already endured for decades, became even worse. In addition, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) imposed sanctions on the state, which are likely to cause further damage to the already fragile economy for a long period to come. Nonetheless, these sanctions might be a way to stop the methods that the military is using against the population and which infringe their human rights. I voted in favour of the resolution because I feel that the EU must also do all it can to allow political stability to return to Guinea-Bissau in order to avert humanitarian disasters in the medium term that would, in turn, be the start of significant migration.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this resolution on Guinea-Bissau, from which I would stress the call for the international community immediately to take concrete and suitable steps because of the humanitarian situation in Guinea-Bissau. In particular, we should remember the internally displaced persons and refugees, the risk of epidemics, and the threat to the food security and health of the people of Guinea-Bissau.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The crisis currently being experienced in Guinea-Bissau is the result of the seizure of power in Guinea-Bissau and the subsequent detention of the interim president, Raimundo Pereira, and the prime minister, Carlos Gomes Júnior. As is well known, Guinea-Bissau’s military leaders have repeatedly and unacceptably interfered in the country’s political life and this interference has had an extremely negative impact on the process of establishing democracy and the rule of law, as well as on the security of the population and economic development. The EU condemns this unconstitutional seizure of power by the Guinea-Bissau Armed Forces and calls on the international community to exert all the influence required to overcome this situation without, naturally, any outside attempts to exploit the present situation and hence to undermine the sovereignty of Guinea-Bissau’s people and the territorial integrity and independence of Guinea-Bissau. In fact, it is crucial that the international community and the EU strengthen their commitment if Guinea-Bissau is to become a democratic and stable state.

  Robert Rochefort (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The values that we defend impel us to condemn strongly the political situation in Guinea-Bissau and the military coup by which the military leaders of the putsch seized power from and imprisoned the interim president and the prime minister. We are calling for the complete restoration of fundamental freedoms, particularly the freedom of expression, the freedom of the press, and the freedom of assembly and of movement. We are calling for a consensus to be found to restore the country to political stability, which is crucial for this region in the world and also for very much further afield. Guinea-Bissau is a hub for drug trafficking to the European market. Finally, on the insistence of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the international community, we are calling for an immediate return to constitutional order and the rule of law and the holding of free elections.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. The European Parliament urges the authorities to fully restore and guarantee fundamental freedoms, including freedom of expression and the press, freedom of assembly and association and freedom of movement; it asks for an end to the persecution and harassment of all deposed government officials and those who peacefully call for the restoration of the rule of law. Much consensus in the position on the issue.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) All possible efforts need to be made to help Guinea-Bissau, which has seen six changes of president in 13 years, without any successfully completing their term of office, due to the conflict between civilian and military authorities. The institutional framework needs to be amended and respected in order to resolve the current situation. The country is already one of the poorest in the world, but sees its situation worsen by the day because it is an important hub for the trafficking of drugs between Latin America and Europe which undermines its political stability.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) On 12 April 2012, members of the armed forces forcibly seized power in Guinea-Bissau and held both the interim president, Raimundo Pereira, and the prime minister, Carlos Gomes Júnior. This illegitimate action occurred the day before the beginning of the electoral campaign for the second round of the presidential elections in Guinea-Bissau and the military coup was widely condemned by the international community. I join in condemning the unconstitutional seizure of power by the armed forces of Guinea-Bissau on 12 April 2012. I reject the establishment of the self-styled ‘Military Command’, ‘Transitional National Council’ and ‘Transitional Government’ and do not recognise the self-appointed military and transitional institutions, while also urging the international community to act likewise. Furthermore, I join in calling for an end to violence and the intimidation of political leaders and civil society.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Parliament has today condemned the military coup d’état in Guinea-Bissau that took place on 12 April, calling for the freeing of all citizens held by the rebel soldiers and respect for their physical integrity. I voted for this European Parliament resolution condemning the violent repression of peaceful demonstrations, urging all those involved to cease immediately their illegal and violent acts, and also calling for order to be re-established, specifically by concluding the electoral process.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – The EP takes this resolution to attract attention to the necessity of UN involvement in the process of mobilisation of the country; to urge the EU to send a new supporting mission to reform the security sector in the country; and, overall, to bear in mind that poverty is one of its biggest problems so it keeps needing humanitarian aid.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This resolution strongly condemns the military coup d’état in Guinea-Bissau. It sets out a series of important principles and guidelines to help overcome the current situation, such as rejecting any attempt to legitimise the coup d’état and recognise any self-proclaimed ‘Military Command’, ‘Transitional National Council’ and ‘Transitional Government’; advocating the reinstatement of the constitutional order and the conclusion of the electoral process interrupted by the coup d’état; as well as respecting the physical integrity of all public officials and other citizens being detained and arbitrarily persecuted, their release and an end to violence, pillaging and intimidation. We are pleased that the paragraph we proposed on rejecting ‘any outside attempts to exploit the present situation and hence to undermine the sovereignty of Guinea-Bissau’s people and the territorial integrity and independence of Guinea-Bissau’ has been included. We repudiate the other groups’ insistence on including in the resolution certain points that could conflict with this principle, specifically by paving the way for outside intervention in the country under the common security and defence policy. Any mission to the country under the aegis of the Community of Portuguese-Speaking Countries (CPLP) or any other organisation should have a clear and precise mandate from the UN of supporting the country’s sovereign institutions, whilst respecting the sovereign will of these institutions, international law and the UN Charter.

Motion for a resolution: RC-B7-0281/2012

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report and would express my extreme concern about the escalation of hostilities between Sudan and South Sudan due to unresolved post-separation issues, including the sharing of economic resources, such as oil. The European Union should work closely with regional and global actors to ensure the smooth implementation of the UN Resolution on the demand for an end to Sudan-South Sudan hostilities, and to get on track for a comprehensive solution that resolves the two countries’ separation problems.

  Pino Arlacchi (S&D), in writing. – I support this resolution because the escalation of tensions between Sudan and South Sudan have recently brought the two countries to the brink of war and it is important to condemn all acts of violence committed against civilians. Unfortunately, decades of mutual distrust prevent either side from making gestures towards de-escalating the situation and pursuing serious negotiations. With this resolution, we call on Sudan and South Sudan to end hostilities and demonstrate political will to resolve their post-secession issues based on the road map endorsed in the UN Security Council Resolution 2046 of 2 May 2012. I also would like to underline that there can be no military solution to the conflict in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile. For this reason, it is absolutely urgent to seek a political and negotiated solution, based on respect for diversity in unity.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report on the objective of the EU mediating to end military action between Sudan and South Sudan. I agree that the EU must strengthen its global role as settler of conflicts and mediator, particularly in a region of Africa noted for the high probability of territorial conflicts. The EU can thus increase the visibility and effectiveness of its action in the eyes of international partners, and the EU’s involvement in the conflict between Sudan and South Sudan is undoubtedly a positive step, presenting it as a reliable strategic leader in the region. We must create the conditions for two prosperous countries which respect the principles of international and humanitarian law.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – The ongoing political crisis and border conflict between Sudan and the newly formed South Sudan is costing many lives. It is urgent that global powers seek that these problems be rectified and the populations protected, while, in the meantime, it is essential to enable humanitarian access to displaced peoples. However, I do not permit the European Union, as a wholly undemocratic and largely unelected body, to act as a voice on behalf of the UK in foreign affairs issues.

  Marielle de Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The Republic of South Sudan has only been in existence for 10 months, but has been at war with its neighbour in the North for eight months. More than 150 000 persons have been displaced, the fighting and bombing are relentless, and these two countries are wasting their resources in a conflict which merely adds to the tension in this region. It is time for Khartoum and Juba to comply with the resolutions of the African Union and the United Nations, put an end to hostilities and resume negotiations. The two new countries had pledged to settle the issues which had remained outstanding: the demarcation of the remaining 20% of the borders to be mapped out and the sharing of oil resources. It is in the interest of both the North and the South to reach an agreement. However, neither party should rely on the silence of the international community in the face of the humanitarian tragedy which is currently looming. If talks do not resume quickly between Khartoum and Juba, the United Nations will have to bring pressure to bear and take sanctions. China has decided to face up to its responsibilities. That is the right line to take. However, it is very important for the European Union to continue to affirm its position and its political presence, because our balanced position is the right one.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The region today occupied by the states of Sudan and South Sudan has already been aflame for many years, constituting a genuine humanitarian disaster. The outbreak of conflict between the two states raises fears of a return to the same level of violence and assaults on their peoples’ freedom, democracy and human rights. The European Union should be at the forefront of efforts to avoid a similar outcome and should encourage both states to bear in mind the interests of their respective peoples and to reconcile, so as to ensure their survival and peace, which has been as hard to come by as it has been longed-for. On the initiative of a Member from my party, the European Parliament awarded the 2007 Sakharov Prize to Salih Mahmoud Osman, who demonstrated at first hand the tragedy experienced in Darfur and throughout the country. Perhaps he will be informed that we can receive him again and hear again what he has to say about what is happening there. We know the consequences that prolonged Western silence has had for the Sudanese people. We should now give them renewed attention and greater capacity for action.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This joint motion for a resolution on the situation in Sudan and South Sudan was tabled following a statement by the Vice-President of the Commission, Catherine Ashton, replacing motions for resolutions tabled by various political groups. For years, these peoples have been living through a civil war that has killed thousands upon thousands and devastated the country. The European Union, seeking to contribute to establishing peace in this oil-rich region, supported the two countries’ independence process. However, it has not been possible to establish peace and much less to create conditions for starting the process of transition to democracy. The EU remains committed to the peace process and has mobilised EUR 285 million in special funds to support South Sudan. Nevertheless, human rights violations come one after another, with South Sudan bombing Sudan. Despite the African Union (AU) Peace and Security Council having called for both sides to withdraw their troops, this recommendation has not been taken up. I urge the parties to accept the road map for Sudan and South Sudan approved by the AU Peace and Security Council and adopted by the UN Security Council in Resolution No 2046, of 2 May 2012.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) We have warned from the start of the dangers represented by a referendum in South Sudan; that should be remembered. It was fostered by the EU, including the majority in this Parliament, the US and the UN We warned that support for destroying the country’s unity could escalate the confrontation and the climate of destabilisation between the two parties, potentially affecting the entire region.

Unfortunately, reality has borne out this warning, with the return of the conflict between north and south over defining borders. The US, the EU and Israel have exploited the conflict that has been going on since 2005, and which has exacerbated poverty, social injustice, ethnic and religious differences – between the Arab/Muslim north and the African/Christian south – and they have pushed these peoples towards secession for reasons relating to their own geostrategic interests and to taking advantage of the south’s considerable oil and sundry mineral resources. We advocate a peaceful political solution to the conflict, free of external interference, whilst supporting dialogue between the parties and mutually acceptable solutions to the problems of defining borders and sharing oil revenues. ‘Additional peacekeeping forces’ and ‘a continued UN presence’, as this resolution advocates, might not constitute the necessary contribution to a genuine peace and unity process for this region.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) On 29 June 2011, the agreement between the government of the Sudan and the government of South Sudan on border security and the joint political and security mechanism was concluded. This contains a commitment to create a safe demilitarised border zone. Decades of mutual mistrust prevent both parties from making a gesture towards a relaxation of the situation and engaging in negotiations. However, I am pleased that Sudan and South Sudan are striving to end the violence and demonstrate the political will to resolve the problems that have remained unresolved since the secession of South Sudan. On the other hand, all acts of violence committed against the civilian population, which are contrary to international humanitarian law and human rights legislation, are deplorable. I think it is important to stress that all stakeholders should strive to protect human rights, including the rights of women and people in vulnerable groups, and that those who have committed serious violations of these rights, including sexual violence, should be held to account. From my perspective, long-term stability in the region requires a new, unified, comprehensive international strategy, in which the EU would play a role alongside other global and regional actors, which would focus not only on issues between Sudan and South Sudan and the situation in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile, but also on the long overdue reform process in Sudan.

  Brice Hortefeux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The situation in Sudan and South Sudan remains alarming. I have already, on several occasions, questioned the High Representative and the European External Action Service (EEAS) on their intentions and the practical actions that could be carried out to put an end to the hostilities between the two States. Since South Sudan’s accession to independence in July 2011, relations between the two countries have got progressively worse, giving rise to a serious humanitarian crisis distressing the civilian population, which finds itself in a permanent and untenable climate of insecurity. Parliament observes with concern these recent developments and calls on the two States to respect the road map approved by the United Nations Security Council on 2 May 2012, and indeed they have, in fact, promised to do so. The humanitarian crisis affecting this region and the resulting insecurity and violence are unacceptable and contribute to making the region as a whole even more unstable. I therefore call on the EU to implement, through firm and practical action, the ‘global approach’ adopted by the Foreign Affairs Council on 20 June 2011.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour because Sudan and South Sudan are urged to show their political and practical willingness to pursue the path of peace by addressing the security concerns of both sides through meaningful negotiations within the framework of the joint political and security mechanism, starting with the creation of a safe, demilitarised border zone and unconditional withdrawal of all their armed forces to their side of the border, in accordance with previously adopted agreements. Territorial boundaries of states must not be altered by force and any territorial disputes must be settled exclusively by mutually agreed, peaceful, political means. The document strongly condemns all acts of violence committed against civilians in violation of international humanitarian law and human rights law. The long-term stability in the region requires a new, unified, comprehensive international strategy, in which the EU would play a role alongside other global and regional actors, which would focus not only on North-South issues and the situation in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile, but also on the long overdue reform process in Sudan and the deepening of democratic reforms in South Sudan.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Currently, relations between Sudan and South Sudan are plagued by unresolved issues concerning the definitive demarcation of the borders that are to separate them, and these issues are giving rise to violent conflict. In this context, Parliament’s resolution calls on Sudan and South Sudan to demonstrate political will to resolve their issues. There is therefore the recommendation that there is an agreement by the end of August on economic issues including the use of oil, the demarcation of borders and humanitarian access. I have lent my support to this proposal, and I welcome it.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this resolution, which expresses its deep concern at the humanitarian situation created by the fighting between Sudan and South Sudan, and the continued fighting in the states of Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile in Sudan, and strongly condemns all acts of violence committed against civilians in violation of international humanitarian law and human rights law.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The European Union must continue to put pressure on Sudan and South Sudan to show their political and practical willingness to pursue the path of peace by addressing the security concerns of both sides through meaningful negotiations within the framework of the joint political and security mechanism, starting with the creation of a safe, demilitarised border zone and unconditional withdrawal of all their armed forces to their side of the border, in accordance with previously adopted agreements, including the agreement on the border monitoring support mission of 30 July 2011.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Any armed conflict should be duly condemned by the EU. In this specific case, there is already open conflict, with obvious consequences affecting populations, particularly the least protected, such as women, older people and children. A solution needs to be found quickly to bring an end to this conflict.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The EU should work closely with regional and global players to ensure smooth implementation of the UN SC resolution on Sudan and South Sudan demanding the end of hostilities and paving the way for comprehensive resolution of the outstanding post separation issues between the two countries.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) It is not only differing views on ownership and affiliation that made Abyei the disputed subject of a civil war that lasted for decades; there are also religious differences, in other words, the Muslim North versus the Christian and nature-based religions of the South Sudanese, who were forced together by the haphazard borders drawn up by former colonial powers. The referendum should never have been allowed to be steamrollered through until the status of the Abyei electorate had been decided and a solution had been found in respect of the disputed oil reserves. Similarly, we must not forget the equally disputed regions of Blue Nile and South Kordofan with the Nuba mountains. The present motion for a resolution is a step in the right direction. I therefore voted in favour of it.

  Mariya Nedelcheva (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I welcome the vote on this resolution because Parliament has expressed its desire for the Union to remain proactive in the peaceful resolution of the tensions between Sudan and South Sudan. We have in our hands powerful instruments of external action and it is our duty to mobilise all these forces to reach a peaceful solution to this conflict.

The resolution focuses on the immediate cessation of hostilities, the activation of a joint border verification and monitoring mechanism and the deployment of international observers, the establishment of a global political dialogue between the two parties and the condemnation of all violations of human rights, especially in the regions of Abyei, Southern Kordofan and the Blue Nile.

It is precisely in issues such as these where the Union can make a difference and demonstrate the effectiveness of its response to crises as much at the level of prevention as of political assistance to conflict resolution and also monitoring. We must show courage in order for these texts and declarations to become action on the ground.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this resolution, which calls for the international community to honour its funding commitments to the region and, in particular, to address severe shortages of food aid, emergency shelter and protection, paying particular attention to the food security situation and to putting in place measures should the situation worsen.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) South Sudan officially became an independent state on 1 January 2012. However, the lack of agreement on transitional economic arrangements between the two countries, including on the use of oil, has led to Khartoum seizing South Sudanese oil and South Sudan deciding to stop oil production, and has contributed significantly to the present crisis. It is therefore extremely important that these two countries start demonstrating their political will to follow the path of peace, resolving both sides’ security issues within the framework of the joint political and security mechanism, starting with the creation of a demilitarised safe zone running the length of the border and with the unconditional withdrawal of all their armed forces. With the objective of ensuring long-term security in the region, there is a need for a new and unified comprehensive international strategy, in which the EU plays a role alongside other global and regional actors, particularly through funding intended for the region, so as to address severe shortages of food aid, emergency shelter and protection.

  Robert Rochefort (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Even though the Election Observation Mission led by Ms Nedelcheva welcomed, at the time, the holding of a referendum in South Sudan (which enabled this region of Africa to win its independence), it should be mentioned that the current situation is very different today. It could be said that the independence process, which initially ran democratically and peacefully, has since seized up: after the referendum, there has been heightened tension and a resurgence of violence between the two States. The situation between the two countries, particularly in relation to humanitarian concerns and the transit of oil extracted in South Sudan, is still a concern. We must condemn this situation, and urge Sudan and South Sudan to cease fighting, to come to an economic agreement, in particular, on the use of the oil, and to authorise humanitarian access to the populations suffering from the conflict. The two States must protect human rights in their respective territories. I fully support the idea that the solution to this conflict must be a peaceful one, and I endorse the points contained in this resolution, which I supported.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. We call on the governments of Sudan and South Sudan to stop military clashes and to resolve their differences according to the CPA agreement. We welcome the fact that Sudan and South Sudan have both agreed to the road map and confirmed their commitment to an immediate cessation of hostilities, which is an important first step in the right direction. And we urge Sudan and South Sudan to show their political and practical willingness to pursue the path of peace by addressing the security concerns of both sides through meaningful negotiations within the framework of the joint political and security mechanism, starting with the unconditional withdrawal of their armed forces to their side of the border, in accordance with previously adopted agreements, including the agreement on the border monitoring support mission of 30 July 2011.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The United Nations must provide guidelines for the cessation of internal hostilities in Sudan, thus demonstrating the political will to resolve the current problems. The European Union’s task is to assist in the achievement of democratic governance that respects human rights and economic prosperity, which can only be realised through mutual trust and an environment suited to stable and sustainable economic growth.

  Horst Schnellhardt (PPE), in writing. – (DE) I voted in favour of the resolution because it is intolerable that new conflicts have now broken out in Sudan – a country that has already been plagued by blood and violence for decades – following the successful conclusion of the peace treaty and the referendum on independence set out therein. The two sides must immediately bring the violence to an end in order to prevent an escalation of the conflict and must urgently settle the outstanding political and economic issues of the treaty in order to contribute to a peaceful solution to the conflict and to stability and security in the region.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The recent clashes between Sudan and South Sudan in the Heglig area, over oil and poorly defined geographical borders, are the worst since South Sudan achieved independence last July. The conflict has still failed to resolve the issue over the price that landlocked South Sudan should pay to export crude oil using Sudan’s pipelines and infrastructure. In view of the foregoing and considering both warring parties’ desire to reach a solution, I voted in favour of the withdrawal of South Sudanese forces from the contested Abyei area and urge the Sudanese Government to do the same, while showing their political and practical willingness to pursue the path of peace. I also call on the EU to continue to work closely with its international partners to ensure that these conflicts do not aggravate the already precarious situation in these countries, in the name of the human rights that we, the EU, have always held dear.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The independence of the Republic of South Sudan, declared on 9 July 2011 following a referendum in the country, has not brought the desired end to tensions between the two countries. The conflicts that continue to occur, on both sides, are having a drastic effect on the possibility of establishing genuine rule of law. Despite the road map adopted by the African Union and the UN for the two countries, the latest clashes in the oil-rich town of Heglig have reawakened old fears, since both parties claim sovereignty over this territory. Both countries have high poverty levels and the worst development indexes in the world. An agreement between the two peoples needs to be reached if their well-being is to be looked after. The EU should work with African partners, the African Union and the UN on this. However, the authorities in Sudan and South Sudan should show themselves open to dialogue and completely abandon the use of force.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – All the authors strongly urge that Sudan and South Sudan have to reach an agreement on the unsolved transitional political and economic arrangements between the two countries, including on the use of oil; it reiterates that a precondition for achieving peace and stability in the region is to solve the issues of border demarcation. Moreover, all the authors strongly condemn all acts of violence committed against civilians in violation of international humanitarian law and human rights law. All parties urge to promote and protect human rights, including those of women and people belonging to vulnerable groups and to comply with their obligations under international law, including international humanitarian and international human rights law, and calls for those responsible for serious violations of such law, including sexual violence, to be held accountable.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. – (PL) The peace agreement reached in 2005 between northern and southern Sudan has not brought an end to the armed conflict which has been going on there for many years. The current further escalation of violence along the border between Sudan and South Sudan is the effect of the many, often insoluble problems which have existed in the region for a long time. However, both Sudan and South Sudan have now confirmed their commitment to an immediate cessation of hostilities and, on 4 June, began their first high-level talks on border security since the situation in the region threatened to drag the former civil war back into a full-scale conflict. Sudan and South Sudan are also affected by a drought, and people have started moving in search of food; according to the UN, around 1 million people could be at risk of starvation if food aid does not reach them in the coming months. I therefore voted in favour of the resolution, particularly in view of my memories of a recent visit to Sudan as an election observer.

  Joachim Zeller (PPE), in writing. – (DE) I voted in favour of the resolution because, since South Sudan gained its independence, the hostilities between Sudan and South Sudan have been further inflamed and have already claimed many lives. The European Union, jointly with the African Union and the United Nations, must bring the two sides to abandon the armed conflict. Only then can we help South Sudan to build up viable state structures and encourage the emergence of a civil society. After decades of bloody conflict, the people of South Sudan have the right to peaceful development. If this is to happen, the governments of Sudan and South Sudan must resolve their conflicts at the negotiating table and not by resorting to arms. The ultimate failure of the two states because of their warmongering and internal circumstances would have wide-ranging significance beyond the region, and should not be permitted by the international community or by the European Union either.

  Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD), in writing. – (PL) I am concerned as I watch the situation develop in Sudan. It is clear that the growing conflict is motivated by both economic and religious factors. I remember well the joy of the people of South Sudan after the referendum on independence. It was a day of rejoicing for them but, as time has shown, it was a day which brought neither calm nor discipline to their aggressive neighbour in the north – not even for a moment. The attacks from the northern neighbour began only a few days after the result of the referendum was announced. Fortunately, the situation has not yet deteriorated into one of full-scale conflict, and the feuding parties have begun attempts at dialogue. The EU should become an active mediator in the conflict and should press the UN and the African Union to send peacekeeping forces to the contested Abyei area and also to monitor the withdrawal of South Sudanese and Sudanese forces in accordance with the provisions adopted by both parties on 20 June 2011. I think that the resolution on which we are voting represents exactly the line which should be adopted by EU diplomacy.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) We have warned from the start of the dangers represented by a referendum in the then-region of southern Sudan, fostered by the EU, US and UN, as well as by the majority in this Parliament. We warned that support for destroying the country’s unity would cause confrontation and the destabilisation of both parties, potentially affecting the entire region. Unfortunately, reality has borne out this warning, with the return of the conflict between north and south over defining borders. The US, the EU and Israel have exploited the conflict that has been going on since 2005, and which has exacerbated poverty, social injustice, ethnic and religious differences – the north is Arab/Muslim and the south is African/Christian – and they have pushed these peoples towards secession for reasons relating to their own geostrategic interests and to taking advantage of the south’s considerable oil and sundry mineral resources. We need to advocate a peaceful political solution to the conflict, free of any external interference, whilst supporting dialogue between the parties and mutually acceptable solutions to the problems of defining borders and sharing oil revenues. ‘Additional peacekeeping forces’ and ‘a continued UN presence’, as advocated in this resolution, might not constitute the necessary contribution to a genuine peace and unity process for this region.

Motion for a resolution: B7-0301/2012

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for the agreement because there are historical and cultural ties and strong trade traditions binding the EU to the countries in question. I particularly welcome the clear commitment by all stakeholders to promoting human rights, democratic principles and the rule of law, confirmed by the inclusion in Article 1 of the trade agreement of extensive and binding provisions concerning these fundamental rights.

  Pino Arlacchi (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this resolution because I believe that this agreement would be an excellent opportunity not only to increase welfare and consolidate growth in Colombia and Peru, but also to provide an anchor for reforms and a vehicle for the integration of both countries in global economy. At the same time, as requested by this resolution, there is no doubt that the EU should actively contribute to the implementation of flanking measures, enforcing the obligations of all parties under the agreement. From my point of view, it is also important to underline the role of the European Parliament that should continue to follow closely the implementation of the agreement.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report. The trade agreement aims to open markets for goods, services, government procurement and investment, and to promote economic integration and economic development between the parties, thus reducing poverty. I welcome its implementation and believe that it is important for it to be implemented in accordance with the objectives of sustainable development, including the promotion of economic progress, respect for labour rights and protection of the environment. I agree with the calls for these countries to ratify and effectively implement ILO conventions, draw up a transparent and binding action plan on human rights, the environment and labour rights and establish a dedicated domestic advisory group (DAG) on human rights and democratic principles.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution because the trade agreement between the EU and Colombia and Peru aims to open markets for goods, services, government procurement and investment. This would promote economic integration between the parties and comprehensive economic development with the objective of reducing poverty and creating new employment opportunities. The EU is the second biggest trading partner of Colombia and Peru. The trade agreement would offer guarantees to ensure that the new architecture of the EU’s trade and investment relations works in favour of far-reaching social and environmental protection and sustainable development by promoting and preserving a high level of labour and environmental protection standards on all sides, as it contains a chapter on trade and sustainable development. In order to fully achieve the high standards set out and demanded by individual citizens, civil society organisations, the opposition parties and the government, there is still substantial work to be done both in Colombia and Peru, especially regarding the effective implementation of the new legislative framework. It is very important for the trade agreement to include a chapter on trade and sustainable development and for domestic mechanisms to be created and dialogue maintained with civil society which will involve citizens, whether individually or in an organised collective manner.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The European Union is the second biggest trading partner of the Andean countries, after the United States, and Europe has also supported their respective governments in the processes of democratic transition. On 13 June, Parliament gave the green light to a trade agreement which aims to remove technical and tariff barriers to trade between the EU, Colombia and Peru. It should allow us to benefit from conditions of access ‘equivalent to those of the United States’ in Colombia and Peru. However, Parliament was anxious, before giving its agreement, to ensure that these agreements would have a positive effect on human rights and the improvement of employment and trade union rights, without which they would be suspended immediately. These agreements are therefore based on a reciprocity clause: economic integration is to be the means of combating poverty and strengthening social cohesion and sustainable development. In this regard, an independent group of experts will examine the situation of democracy in these regions in order to monitor their respect for these legal commitments.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – I do not support any EU trade negotiation with third countries which result in the annulment of national BITs and restrict all Member States to EU negotiated terms and conditions for trade. It is important for competitiveness for countries to be able to establish unique and idiomatic trade deals and not relinquish sovereign trade decisions under EU proposals. I therefore could not vote against any call to postpone such negotiations.

  Ole Christensen (S&D), in writing. – (DA) My reasons for voting in favour of the resolution of 13 June 2012 on the EU trade agreement with Colombia and Peru are set out below.

Negotiation of the free trade agreement between the EU and these two countries has been completed, but it has not yet been ratified by the European Parliament.

The EU has a general policy of not entering into trade agreements with countries that have serious problems with human rights. I am therefore voting in favour of this resolution, as it lays down requirements and offers the governments of Peru and Colombia the opportunity to demonstrate that they are willing to improve their conditions in relation to human rights and workers’ rights. This is particularly relevant in the case of Colombia, as it is the most dangerous country in the world in which to be professionally active.

The section of the free trade agreement about trade and sustainable development sets out that monitoring mechanisms are to be established that involve civil society organisations. The resolution makes reference to the fact that the legal framework for this is not yet in place in Colombia and Peru (paragraph 5). Furthermore, the resolution states that Colombia and Peru should establish domestic advisory groups (DAGs) with binding involvement for civil society in order to monitor the implementation of the free trade agreement (paragraph 7) and implement the Victims and Land Restitution Law (paragraph 17).

The resolution is the best possible compromise and a necessary step in preparation for the European Parliament’s vote on the free trade agreement in the autumn.

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. – (PT) It was with enormous personal satisfaction that I saw this pre-resolution – for which I was rapporteur here in the European Parliament – passed with 525 votes in favour (76.5%) and 64 abstentions (9.4%). It concerns Parliament’s consent for the trade agreement between the EU and Colombia and Peru. I should like to acknowledge my co-rapporteur for this pre-resolution, my German colleague from the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, Bernd Lange: we achieved a basis of mutual understanding, which constitutes the roots of this strong support for our report. In this pre-resolution, we acknowledge and support the enormous efforts of the Colombian and Peruvian Governments in recent years to protect human rights, workers’ rights, indigenous populations and the environment, and we call for greater civil society involvement in the practical implementation of these core values – on which we were unbending – and for acceleration of the reforms under way, which we think will make this agreement more applicable and transparent. Although we requested, as an add-on to this resolution, a road map from each of our Andean partners as regards each of these areas, from a strictly personal point of view, I believe the mechanisms set out in the report will, if scrupulously implemented, have the same results. We will vote on assent for the trade agreement in October.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I cannot fail to vote for the trade agreement with Colombia and Peru, whose language, history and culture are so close to those of the European Union. Ravaged for years by guerrilla movements such as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the Shining Path, these countries have made efforts to adopt democratic practices and human rights, without giving up the fight against those seeking to jeopardise that same democracy and the rule of law. Neither country is free of faults, but both countries are on the right track and qualify for the European Union’s signature of a trade agreement with them, which is expected to benefit both parties.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This motion for a resolution, tabled further to an oral question on behalf of the Committee on International Trade, concerns the EU trade agreement with Colombia and Peru. For years, Colombia has been considered a haven for drugs producers and traffickers. Unscrupulous individuals have taken advantage of the poverty in which the majority of the population live to exploit them. Thanks to international cooperation, these countries have started a process of reforms and combating drug trafficking, with very positive results. Colombia has exceeded International Labour Organisation forecasts on adopting the advocated measures and Peru has implemented the United Nations Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families. Despite the improvements relating to respect for human rights and the rule of law, the two countries are aware of the need to continue improving in this area. I voted in favour because I believe this free trade agreement could help these countries to combat poverty and social exclusion, and to replace the growing of narcotics with saleable consumer goods, thereby increasing exports to the EU, the main importer of goods produced in Peru.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The EU has signed yet another free trade agreement. This is the culmination of a tumultuous process, in which the negotiations started with the Andean Community of Nations (CAN) and ended up being concluded with just Colombia and Peru. The so-called road map for human and labour rights aims to deflect the criticisms of free trade and mitigate some of its most negative effects. Clearly, however, it does not change the essence of this agreement. We seem to be here to assess its practical results. Free trade between two unequal partners is always protectionism for the rich. We cannot ignore the pressures on countries that have hitherto benefited from the generalised system of preferences to sign agreements of this type. Furthermore, this once again proves the EU’s hypocrisy on human rights issues, which are used as a weapon for attacking countries that do not fall into line with its interests, but conveniently forgotten when convenient. That is the case with Colombia, where countless organisations have been reporting clear human rights violations, particularly trade unions. Those organisations and trade unions opposed this agreement and have denounced its negative consequences. We voted against.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) Negotiations between the EU and the Andean Community of Nations for a region-to-region association agreement, including political dialogue, cooperation and trade, were launched in June 2007 following a Council decision to authorise these negotiations in April of the same year. Regrettably, disagreements between Andean countries on approaches to a number of key trade issues covered under the foreseen agreement led to the suspension of talks in June 2008. Under these circumstances, the Commission presented a recommendation to the Council in December 2008 with a view to modifying the existing authorisation so as to continue negotiations of a trade agreement with those countries of the Andean Community that are willing to move ahead. In January 2009, the Council authorised the Commission to negotiate a multi-party trade agreement with those countries sharing our general objective of a balanced, ambitious, comprehensive agreement that satisfies the requirements of the World Trade Organisation. The Presidents of Colombia, Ecuador and Peru confirmed their commitment to negotiate. The negotiations were successfully concluded in May 2010 and, after a phase of legal review, the text of the trade agreement was initialled with Colombia and Peru on 23 March 2011. This is an ambitious, comprehensive and balanced trade agreement that should be signed on behalf of the EU.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed this document because, given the importance of the historical and cultural links, the trade agreement between the European Union and Colombia and Peru aims to open markets for, inter alia, goods, services, government procurement and investment and to promote economic integration between the parties and comprehensive economic development with the objective of reducing poverty, creating new employment opportunities, improving working conditions and raising living standards by liberalising and expanding trade and investment between their territories, as well as encouraging a commitment to implement the trade agreement in accordance with the objective of sustainable development, including the promotion of economic progress, respect for labour rights and protection of the environment, in accordance with the international commitments adopted by the parties. I welcome the commitment expressed by all the parties involved to the promotion of human rights, democratic principles and the rule of law, as confirmed by the inclusion in the first article of the trade agreement of extensive and binding provisions on these fundamental principles.

  Cătălin Sorin Ivan (S&D), in writing. – I voted in favour of the resolution concerning the Free Trade Agreement with Colombia and Peru. I believe that a free trade agreement will be in favour of the European Union and the two Andean countries. Concerning the main issue in this process – the status of human rights – it is stated clearly in the resolution that the Andean countries should ensure the establishment of a transparent and binding road map on human, environmental and labour rights, which should be aimed essentially at safeguarding human rights, enhancing and improving trade unionists’ rights and protecting the environment. I strongly agree with all the abovementioned conditions and I am sure that the governments of Colombia and Peru will take the necessary measures to comply with this.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) At the present time, the trade agreement between the European Union, on the one hand, and Colombia and Peru, on the other, makes no provision for any real mechanisms for settling disputes or for oversight of human rights provisions. I therefore supported this resolution to set up an independent advisory group to ensure the effective implementation of human rights provisions and the respect of democratic principles, and also to introduce a framework for open and democratic dialogue between the authorities and civil society.

  Bogusław Liberadzki (S&D), in writing. – (PL) We have voted after listening to the speech given in the European Parliament by President Ollanta Humala. The President has confirmed that Peru will respect the agreement with the European Union, and stressed the pro-ecological policy of the Peruvian Government and its policy on combating the production of drugs. Peru is an exporter mainly of raw materials, and wants to begin developing its production and growing its services sector so that it can compete with other Latin American states and not allow the crisis to take hold. The trade agreement is a fair one, and the presence of the President of Peru on the day the vote is taken on it demonstrates that the government of Peru attaches the greatest importance to the agreement. This enhanced my motivation to vote in favour of its adoption.

  George Lyon (ALDE), in writing. – I voted in favour of the motion for resolution on a trade agreement between the EU and Colombia and Peru. I welcome the resolution, which indicates a clear commitment from Europeans for respect for human rights and fundamental rights, including in our trade relations. I am glad that the Parliament warmly welcomes the recent efforts and progress achieved by the new Colombian Government as regards labour and human rights. I join my colleagues working in the INTA Committee in our plea for the Commission to assist Colombia and Peru in their progress and in implementing the changes that are now initiated. I am hoping that this resolution will pave the way for Parliament to approve this trade agreement, which would be hugely beneficial for both the EU and Andean economies. It will remove barriers to trade in services, public procurement and investment. Its benefits are clear: it will eliminate tariffs which have cost the European spirits industry EUR 35 million in the past 10 years. The agreement also has the potential to save EU agriculture exporters EUR 22 million annually. In the current economic circumstances, these export opportunities are vital to support jobs and growth in Europe.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this resolution, which strongly welcomes the commitment expressed by all the parties involved in the promotion of human rights, democratic principles and the rule of law, as confirmed by the inclusion in the first article of the trade agreement of extensive and binding provisions on these fundamental principles.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour. In order to fully accomplish the high standards of human rights set out in the trade agreement, to which both the Andean governments and the European Union are committed, I agree with the proposal to swiftly establish a dedicated domestic advisory group (DAG) on human rights and democratic principles, which should accompany and monitor the implementation of this or other trade agreements and work as an effective internal consultation body to the domestic offices that participate in the Committee on Trade contemplated by the trade agreement.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) We feel that the EU being the main investor in, and the second largest trading partner of, Latin America, as well as the main donor of development aid, constitutes reason enough for there to be a clear and well defined strategy for EU-Latin America relations. A good means of delivering the support that Latin America needs is boosting trade between the two blocs, which would become one of the most significant in the world if it crystallised. That is the context for the Colombia-Peru negotiations. However, we must not forget the outermost regions of Europe, which could be hit by the import of certain agricultural products. We will have to find a balanced agreement that enables these countries’ development but that, at the same time, will not be damaging to the various economic sectors of certain Member States, mainly in the agricultural and livestock sectors.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (ES) I voted against this resolution as I am against a multilateral trade agreement between the EU and Colombia and Peru. The new trade structure and the EU’s investment relations contained in the agreement neither guarantee nor examine the necessary social and environmental protection, nor are they leading towards a sustainable development model and the promotion of workers’ rights in Colombia. This agreement also completely ignores the current economic and social asymmetries between the parties and leads to an increase in inequality and poverty in a region with one of the highest levels of inequality in the world. It is unacceptable for the EU to negotiate a trade agreement with a country such as Colombia where there is ongoing systematic violation of human rights. In Colombia, 55 human rights defenders were killed or disappeared during 2011, a 40% increase on 2010.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – Regrets that, although the chapter on trade and sustainable development includes legally binding provisions, there is no binding dispute settlement mechanism for this chapter in the trade agreement, and that the use of the measures and sanctions foreseen in the trade agreement’s binding general dispute settlement mechanism is excluded in the case of violations of the standards set forth in the chapter on trade and sustainable development, constituting a weakening of the current binding conditions. I voted in favour.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) Firstly, it must be stated that Colombia and Peru are currently developing well, even though they are still far behind the economic strength of the EU Member States. This is the reason why yesterday, I spoke in favour of the report on development cooperation with South America. In general, free trade agreements between industrialised countries and developing countries primarily serve the interests of western enterprises with global operations, and not so much the local economy in the partner countries, where the local structures that have grown up are often destroyed – the consequence of which is greater poverty and further migration. While the few enjoy the benefits of the free trade agreement, the majority of the population gets nothing out of it. In the present case, the European Parliament is therefore advocating a package of measures that should alleviate these negative consequences and strengthen human rights in the region. Since I am in favour of strengthening relations with Colombia and Peru, I also voted in favour of the resolution.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. – (DE) I welcome the steps towards a trade agreement between the European Union and Colombia and Peru, which will undoubtedly have a positive effect on the opening of the markets and the promotion of economic relations. The improved economic opportunities that will thereby arise will create new jobs and enable poverty to be reduced. The trade agreement aims to promote sustainable development in these countries – and, in the final event, that will benefit Europe, too. It is about providing lasting support that enables people to help themselves, and I therefore voted in favour of the resolution because it enables the EU to continue to exert its influence in this region in a positive and sustainable way.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this resolution, from which I would highlight the fact that Colombia and Peru have ratified all eight fundamental International Labour Organisation (ILO) conventions, plus three of the four governance conventions, as stated by the ILO representative at the public hearing held by the Committee on International Trade on the trade agreement at the European Parliament in Brussels on 29 February 2012.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) It should be stated, first of all, that all the parties to the trade agreement between the EU and Colombia and Peru have clearly committed to promoting human rights, democratic principles and the rule of law, which I fully support. This agreement aims to open up the markets for, inter alia, goods, services, government procurement and investment, and to promote economic integration between the parties and comprehensive economic development with the objectives of reducing poverty, creating new employment opportunities, improving working conditions and raising living standards by liberalising and expanding trade and investment between their territories. However, there is still substantial work to be done both in Colombia and Peru, especially regarding the effective implementation of the new legislative framework, which is intended to solve old problems that have not been completely resolved, relating to longstanding problems of poverty, violence and corruption, internal armed conflict, illegal armed groups, drug trafficking, impunity and land dispossession. That said, this agreement could be a key instrument in combating these types of situation, which are devastating that part of South America.

  Evelyn Regner (S&D), in writing. – (DE) I abstained on this report because I have serious concerns about the human rights situation in Colombia, especially as regards the serious violations of trade unionists’ rights. The reason why I did not vote against it in the end was that I considered the road map very worthwhile, as it proposes measures that are urgently needed. However, two crucially important proposed amendments were not adopted. I refer to paragraph 15, the key element, which provides that the resolution should contribute to respect for human rights in Colombia. Not only is control by the Andean Community required; the Commission must also participate in effective controls. Furthermore, the road map must enter into force before the vote on the ratification of the free trade agreement so as to ensure that the specifications of the road map are actually implemented and complied with. Only through cooperation between the Andean countries and the EU can it be guaranteed that this road map is also enforceable. It is also important that effective mechanisms are put in place immediately to end impunity (crimes going unpunished). That can only happen with the support and involvement of the European Union.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – Against. The Greens/EFA regret that the EP discussion on the FTA is being largely reduced to the aspect of labour rights in Colombia, disregarding problems in the same area in Peru. In this regard, we want to enlarge the scope from labour to human rights in general. Backed by a recent study done on behalf of German trade unions (DGB) by the Hans Böckler Foundation and the WSI Institute (May 2012), the Greens criticise the fact that the Sustainable Development chapter of the FTA is less stringent than its homologue in the EU-Korea FTA. In the current FTA, provisions mandatory in the Korea FTA are downgraded to recommendations; clear institutional provisions are lacking. Fulfilment of labour and environmental conventions is made dependent on the availability of financial resources in the country! The Sustainable Development chapter is excluded from the Dispute Settlement Mechanism in the FTA. Civil society can be consulted on the contents of the Sustainable Development chapter (soft law), but not on the rest of the FTA (hard law).

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the EU trade agreement with Colombia and Peru because I think it is necessary to open up the goods, services, public procurement and investment markets, thus encouraging economic integration between the parties and comprehensive economic development. Since the European Union is the second biggest trading partner of Colombia and Peru, the agreement on the liberalisation of trade in industrial products and fisheries could increase Colombian GDP by 1.3% and Peruvian GDP by 0.7% By liberalising and expanding trade, the agreement aims to improve general working conditions, encouraging achievement of the objective of sustainable development, the promotion of economic progress, respect for labour rights and protection of the environment.

  Matteo Salvini (EFD), in writing. – (IT) The resolution on the trade agreement with Colombia and Peru poses some serious questions. Can the Commission continue to make concessions to countries that blatantly violate human rights? As such, I voted in favour. I would emphasise that the trade agreement on which we will shortly have to decide represents a real threat to the EU’s agriculture and fisheries sectors. Once again, the Commission is proving to be deaf to the alarm calls of our workers and businesses.

  Francisco Sosa Wagner (NI), in writing. – (ES) I abstained on Amendment 28 and I voted against Amendment 25 due to a lack of precise detail on having received the amendments and voting list very late, given that the texts are a mix of very different and also unclear issues.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I abstained because, although the idea is an attractive one, many of the preconditions for an agreement of this nature have not been met. This type of agreement is simply tantamount to granting to transnational corporations the right to go to these countries to get their hands on major public contracts and natural resources, and to do this under conditions that are very advantageous to them, without ever concerning themselves about the future of the planet and its inhabitants. Colombia is a country of 5 million hectares of land which have been grabbed by the military forces, displacing 4 million peasants. Sixty per cent of all workers’ representatives assassinated in the world are killed in this country

Our farmers are subject to very strict husbandry and production conditions. These cover traceability, working conditions for staff, hygiene regulations and quality controls. That obviously has a cost. An influx of cheaper products, offering very little in the way of quality guarantees and ethical safeguards, is likely to deregulate the market seriously and jeopardise the future of many farmers. Why advocate the profit of some and disregard cooperation to the benefit of all?

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The objective of the trade agreement between the European Union and Colombia and Peru is to liberalise the goods, services and investment market, and to promote economic integration between the parties and comprehensive economic development, with the objective of reducing poverty, creating new employment opportunities, improving working conditions and raising living standards. However, this agreement does not provide for a conflict resolution mechanism, and the use of sanctions in the event of a breach of the terms relating to trade and sustainable development is barred. That is why the European Parliament is advocating the importance of continuing constructive dialogue with partner countries in relation to protecting human rights. Although it is regrettable that the European Parliament has not been kept informed about the activities of the EU-Colombia dialogue mechanism voluntarily set up in 2009, I voted for this resolution calling for the agreement to include domestic mechanisms and dialogue with civil society.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the resolution on the EU trade agreement with Colombia and Peru because this agreement aims to open up the markets for goods, services, public procurement and investment, and to promote global economic development. The purpose of the agreement is to reduce poverty, create new employment opportunities, improve working conditions and raise living standards by liberalising and expanding trade and investment between the territories of the countries participating in the agreement. The European Union is the second biggest trading partner of Colombia and Peru. The planned trade agreement provides for total liberalisation of trade in industrial products and fisheries, which could increase Colombia’s GDP by up to 1.3% and Peru’s GDP by up to 0.7% in the long term. An important part of the agreement is devoted to respect for human rights and democratic principles. Failure to respect these would also give rise to the possibility of terminating or suspending the agreement partially or totally. In this regard, we call on both Andean countries to ensure that a transparent and binding road map is drawn up on human and labour rights.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) This resolution is one of a number of concerns of Parliament, prior to the ratification of the free trade agreements with Colombia and Peru. This resolution welcomes ‘the Colombian Government’s efforts to fight impunity and the murder of trade unionists and human rights defenders’. Colombia is still the country in the world where the greatest number of trade unionists are assassinated with total impunity (90% of these murders go without punishment), a fate that they share with human rights defenders and the ‘indigenous’ population. Furthermore, these free trade agreements also fail to promote the sustainable development policies which these countries need. In that sense, these agreements are blind to the economy and will make inequalities even worse. I therefore voted against this resolution in order to condemn the hypocrisy of the European Union, which is moving towards the ratification of a free trade agreement with a country like Colombia while, at the same time, claiming to be up to date on human rights and environmental protection. The Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left will be united on this agreement, in particular, in the vote in the Committee on International Trade on 10 July.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) We voted against this resolution because free trade agreements (FTAs), with the opening up of the goods, services, government procurement and investment markets, do not lead to the supposed development of weaker economies talked about in the report, but rather to the colonisation of these economies. The workers and peoples of Peru and Colombia are currently engaged in a brave fight against this FTA which, like previous ones, will lead to an assault on the rights won by the workers and on the sovereignty of these peoples, to the appropriation of natural resources and biodiversity by big multinationals, to increased unemployment, and to the ruin of millions of small farmers, thereby jeopardising food sovereignty and security.

Report: José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (A7-0174/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report and would congratulate the European Union on reaching this historic milestone. Our having a single diplomatic front as regards human rights and the creation of the post of European Union Special Representative for Human Rights means we are finally speaking with one voice; although it is only in a specific field, I think that field has considerable scope. However, I consider it relevant to evaluate well the importance and mandate of this new EU representative.

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Appointing an EU Special Representative for Human Rights reflects the strong commitment of Member States and European institutions to protecting the system of human rights and democratic values at a regional and global level. To ensure that the special representative’s activities can fully leverage the potential offered by this post, active, effective cooperation is required between this person and the European legislative. Although it remains the Council’s privilege to appoint the representative, I think that submitting an annual report on this person’s activities to all the EU authorities, along with holding a hearing/having an exchange of views with the relevant committee in Parliament, is a prerequisite for making the EU’s actions in protecting human rights globally transparent and legitimate. I also endorse the need to establish effective relations promoting cooperation between the special representative and the international institutions or NGOs with a long tradition in protecting human rights, as well as the provision of consistent institutional and financial support on behalf of the European authorities to implement the mandate of the future representative.

  Pino Arlacchi (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report because I value of primary importance the need to strengthen the visibility and coherence of the EU’s human rights policy. The European Parliament has repeatedly called for the appointment of an EU Special Representative for Human Rights. I believe that the first EUSR for HR should be granted a strong, independent and flexible mandate in order to act swiftly and effectively. The EUSR for HR should also address different horizontal issues contributing to more coherent action in EU external policies. In addition, it is fundamental that, while implementing his/her mandate, the EUSR for HR should cooperate with representatives of civil society and international organisations acting in the field of the protection of human rights and democracy.

  Liam Aylward (ALDE), in writing. – (GA) I voted in favour of this report and what it says as regards the mandate which the new representative for human rights will have.

The representative must have a strong, independent, flexible mandate, one not focused only on narrow specific responsibilities. This position must reflect the EU’s human rights policy, and it must involve responsibilities relating to democracy, international justice, international humanitarian law, abolition of the death penalty, freedom of expression, issues of gender, children and armed conflict.

I am currently working with two Irish people on two different cases. In both cases, the spouse of a European citizen is being detained abroad in unclear circumstances. In both cases, the spouse’s human rights are being infringed and their rights to information and to a fair trial are being denied.

It is my hope that the EU Special Representative for Human Rights will use his mandate to assist in cases like this, cases where the Commission and the Member States are reluctant to do anything, although there is a clear breach of human rights involved.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report. I welcome the appointment of an EU Special Representative for Human Rights to ensure the continuation, effectiveness and visibility of EU external action in the promotion of human rights and democracy. The establishment of this position should significantly improve communication between the different organisations responsible for protecting human rights, presenting a single EU policy on human rights. The appointment of this representative would help foster the EU’s fundamental democratic principles.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this recommendation because Article 21 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) reaffirms the European Union’s commitment to promoting human rights and democracy in all its external actions while guaranteeing coherence and consistency across these areas and its other policies. The TEU provides the legal basis for the appointment of the EU Special Representative for Human Rights (EUSR for HR). The EUSR for HR should strengthen the visibility and coherence of the European Union’s human rights policy as a fundamental part of its common foreign and security policy (CFSP) and contribute to raising the EU’s human rights profile worldwide. The appointment of the first ever EUSR in this area should enhance the visibility, effectiveness, coherence and accountability of the EU’s human rights policy. The European Parliament should play its appropriate role in the appointment procedure and the oversight of the mandate during its entire term. The policy objectives of the EUSR for HR should include enhancing the coherence, effectiveness and visibility of European Union action in the protection and promotion of human rights and democracy.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – The EU wishes to appoint a Special Representative for Human Rights to oversee and raise the profile of EU human rights worldwide. Firstly, EU Human Rights have made a mockery of national legal systems which are designed to protect society and forge the equal and fair treatment of its members. It serves to aid criminals and terrorists, undermines the value of incarceration and impinges upon national sovereignty over who is resident within a country. Secondly, while, on the one hand, the EU is prolonging one of greatest financial crises in history, forcing tens of thousands out of work, preventing stocks of essential medicines from being replenished in Greece, witnessing some 25 000 people becoming dependent on hand outs from the Church and using the control of wealth to humble these once strong nations into subservience to Brussels, the Commission wants to appoint somebody to pontificate on European Human Rights worldwide. How about the EU focuses upon Chapter V of its own Charter of Fundamental Rights, being the citizens’ rights to vote, the right to good administration and the right to petition and ask the people of Europe whether they want a continuation of this abhorrent project to create a federal superstate?

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I welcome Parliament’s adoption of the draft recommendation to the Council on the creation of a post of EU Special Representative for Human Rights. Under the authority and on the proposal of the High Representative, the aim of this new special mandate is to increase the visibility, responsibility and coherence of the position of the EU institutions on this important theme. The Special Representative for Human Rights is to be the EU’s privileged interlocutor with international organisations at the highest level, the chief of which are UN bodies (UNGA, UNHRC).

  Antonio Cancian (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the appointment of an EU Special Representative for the protection and defence of human rights because I recognise the possible scope of their operations, including working and communicating with the United Nations, the UN Human Rights Council, regional organisations and, above all, non-governmental organisations. All of these bodies’ shared goals are to support human rights, including personal freedom, freedom of expression and religion, and to oppose violence, torture, discrimination and the death penalty, evils which affect men, women and children every single day.

The EU Special Representative (EUSR) would need to have vast experience, knowledge and qualifications and be of extremely high international and humanitarian standing, while also being charismatic, brave and confident. Given a flexible term of two years, the EUSR would have to intervene to achieve improvements and mediate to obtain greater respect for human beings and a better, more peaceful and democratic civil society. I think that the work of the EUSR will be important because, by giving the EU a voice and real clout, it will help strengthen the effectiveness and visibility of EU foreign policy on human rights, democracy and justice, while working together with the High Representative for Foreign Policy.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) While the appointment of the European Union Special Representative (EUSR) for Human Rights and the establishment of his/her mandate is formally a Council decision based on a proposal by the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, I voted for this recommendation because I believe the EUSR should act and speak on behalf of the EU, reflecting the shared and indivisible responsibility of all EU institutions and Member States to protect and promote human rights worldwide.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Human rights and fundamental freedoms are the body of values and principles that mark us out as human and the basis of our coexistence; they are universal, indivisible and interdependent. The entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon undoubtedly represented an important step in human rights terms and included the possibility of creating a European Union Special Representative (EUSR) for Human Rights. On countless occasions, Parliament has called for the appointment of this EUSR, so as to promote visibility, effectiveness, consistency and accountability in EU human rights policy. I welcome the plan for the Foreign Affairs Council to appoint the EUSR on 25 June this year, as well as the role enshrined for Parliament in relation to appointing him/her and supervising his/her mandate. The mandate will be for two and a half years and may be renewed so as to ensure continuity, consistency and democratic accountability. Although under the authority of the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, he/she should nevertheless have an independent, strong and flexible mandate, in the performance of which he/she should act and speak on behalf of the EU, reflecting the shared and indivisible responsibility of all EU institutions and Member States to protect and promote democracy and human rights worldwide.

  Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) Recent events not only in Syria, where the abuses of the Assad regime have turned into carnage, but also in Libya, following the removal of Gaddafi, as well as the deterioration in the human rights situation in many other countries, make the need to appoint an EU Special Representative for Human Rights more urgent than ever. The EU Treaties contain this firm commitment to promote human rights and democracy in all external actions. The Special Representative will have to be given a strong, independent and flexible mandate. He or she will have to be given the freedom to take rapid, effective action against events requiring an urgent response. I hope that we will collaborate closely with the Council on this matter, given the constant, major concern that Parliament has about protecting human rights.

  Marielle de Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Parliament has long been calling for the appointment of a Special Representative for Human Rights. This ambition is not amenable to any compromise. Indeed, this special representative will not only be a representative of the 27 but also a representative of the Union as a whole. Consequently, Parliament intends to play its role in the appointment procedure and in the oversight of his or her entire mandate. The representative must be given a strong, independent and flexible mandate not defined by narrow and specific thematic responsibilities, but which allows him or her to act swiftly and effectively. All the following human rights issues must be covered: abolition of the death penalty, human rights defenders, the fight against impunity, the fight against torture, freedom of expression (including on the Internet), of association, of assembly, of religion and belief, minority rights, child protection, women’s rights, peace and security, gender issues, and so on. Finally, adequate financial and human resources should be provided to the special representative in order to ensure the effectiveness of his or her work and that of his or her team.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I abstained from voting on this text. While the promotion of human rights is clearly a praiseworthy objective, the creation of an additional player does not make European policy any easier to read, nor does it contribute to the effectiveness that we seek. The function of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy must be maintained.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) On Wednesday, 13 June, we adopted our recommendations to the Council on the EU Special Representative for Human Rights. I should like to draw particular attention to the importance of increasing the visibility, effectiveness, coherence and responsibility of this post in the European Union’s Human Rights Policy. For this to happen, I believe that it is essential for this representative to enjoy a ‘strong, independent and flexible mandate’, for his or her powers to cover, in particular, the strengthening of democracy, the rule of law and institution building, international justice and international humanitarian law. I would like this representative to work in close collaboration with the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the European External Action Service and the EU delegations, and also international organisations, NGOs and experts acting in the field of human rights. I should also like to express my desire for Parliament to play ‘its role’ in the appointment procedure and the oversight of the mandate of the representative during his/her entire term.

  Diane Dodds (NI), in writing. – By voting against this report and its suggestion to create an EU Representative on Human Rights, I am not in any way diminishing the importance which I place on the protection of human rights, both in the EU and beyond. Faced with this proposal, my two questions are simple – would such an office result in a marked improvement in worldwide human rights records? I fear the answer to be no. And secondly, is this function carried out already? The answer being yes. For it is not just a function fulfilled by Member State governments across the EU, but also by global organisations such as the UN. If the EU insists on imposing its views on others – which we know the EU does – with the vast resources available to the High Representative on Foreign Affairs, surely this role should be carried out by Baroness Ashton? Before the EU goes global in lecturing others on human rights, it has much to learn itself about human rights. All you need ask is the street preacher who faces arrest as his freedom of religious expression is suppressed.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D), in writing. – I voted in favour of the proposal for a European Parliament recommendation to the Council on the EU Special Representative for Human Rights because I believe that, given the central importance of the human rights doctrine in the EU and for its external relations, the appointment of the EU Special Representative (EUSR) for Human Rights constitutes a matter of coherence and effectiveness of EU action. The adopted report contains a list of recommendations to the Council, some of the more important being, in my view, those stressing the importance of transparency of the EUSR selection procedures, the crucial need to provide him/her with a strong, independent and flexible mandate and the need for cooperation with representatives of local, regional and national civil society, NGOs, experts, and regional and international organisations acting in this field. It is also important that the representative for human rights be supported in his/her work by sufficient human and financial resources: this is not only a matter of effectiveness of his/her action, but also a crucial requirement for granting the EUSR the sufficient visibility of its position, crucial for the achievement and diffusion of the EU’s goals in the field of HR protection.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) At international level, the European Union has been adopting the role of guardian and interpreter of human rights, and of honest broker between parties on poor terms, where violations of these rights are very often at stake. It has a history of actions and decisions that have made it into a political bloc that is particularly cohesive and active on these issues, seen as setting an example by the outside world. Despite this cohesion, the high standards required in this area and Europe’s efforts to live up to its practices and its legacy justify the appointment of a European Union Special Representative (EUSR) who is specifically entrusted with these issues and can represent it, particularly when human rights are on the agenda. I agree with the ideal profile of candidates to the post suggested by Mr Salafranca, as well as his description of what the EUSR’s duties should be and the resources available to him/her. I hope that the first EUSR will be up to the challenge, and that his/her intellectual stature and how he/she acts will bring dignity to the role, and make the EUSR visible and respected on the international stage.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Parliament’s concern about respect for human rights is acknowledged the world over, and the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, awarded annually and intended to give recognition to figures or entities famous for defending human rights and fundamental freedoms, is highly regarded. This report by José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra concerns Parliament’s recommendation to the Council on nominating a European Union Special Representative (EUSR) for Human Rights. The structure of the EU is founded on human rights, universal values that should be taken into account in all the EU’s negotiations with third countries. In fact, there are still a great many human rights violations, of which I would highlight the cases of monks’ self-immolation in Tibet and the continued massacre of innocent people in Syria; these two alone would justify this appointment. I therefore welcome this recommendation to appoint an EUSR for Human Rights, who will work for justice and human rights and for the abolition of the death penalty, will advocate causes opposing impunity, and will defend the rights of women, children, minorities and any form of discrimination.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) We have often denounced the self-serving view of human rights that increasingly dominates EU policy in this regard. The creation of an EU Special Representative for Human Rights is inseparably bound up with this process. Appointing a face for this policy will make it more visible, but it will not eradicate its weaknesses, contradictions and inconsistencies. Unfortunately, it has more to do with defending the EU’s economic and geostrategic interests – or rather, those of its major powers and their big companies – in the world than with genuinely defending human rights. We did not vote for this report.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The European Union is committed to the promotion of human rights, fundamental freedoms and democratic principles worldwide. The appointment of a Special Representative for Human Rights would be of considerable assistance to the EU in its external actions aimed at promoting human rights and fundamental democratic values. I believe that human rights are one of the most important policy areas of the EU. However, the level of their violation worldwide remains strikingly high. It is within the EU’s powers to change this state of affairs. The Special Representative would ensure the coherence, consistency and better visibility of the EU’s policy in this area. If his work is to be truly effective, we will have to ensure that he is granted a strong, flexible and, in particular, independent mandate. The scope of this mandate must be in line with the principles of the universality and indivisibility of human rights and should cover the strengthening of democracy and the promotion of international justice. It should include the abolition of the death penalty, the fight against torture and inhumane and degrading treatment, the fight against impunity, the fight against all forms of discrimination, the promotion of minority rights, and the protection of children’s rights and women’s rights, but it should, in particular, promote freedom as a fundamental pillar of democracy, and thus contribute to overall peace and security throughout the world. I think that, in the context of the protection and promotion of human rights worldwide, the post of EU Special Representative for Human Rights is justified.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) With this vote, I join my fellow MEPs in specifying the mandate that we would like to see for the future Special Representative of the European Union for Human Rights, and for which we have called for several years now, namely: a strong, independent and flexible mandate; a mandate that reflects the EU’s human rights policy and which covers, in particular, the strengthening of democracy, international justice, international humanitarian law, the abolition of the death penalty, freedom of expression, gender issues, child protection and armed conflicts. He or she should be able to act as an intelligent and strategic advocate of human rights, democracy and the rule of law throughout the world, and be a strong voice on behalf of the European Union. He or she should be able to help us ensure coherence in our relations with third countries, so that they contribute effectively to the development of the States in greatest difficulty, and ensure that our States stop closing their eyes to human rights issues for purely economic reasons.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed this document because the EU Special Representative for Human Rights (EUSR for HR) should strengthen the visibility and coherence of the EU’s human rights policy as a fundamental part of its common foreign and security policy (CFSP) and contribute to raising the EU’s human rights profile worldwide. Article 21 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) reaffirms the EU’s commitment to promoting human rights and democracy in all its external actions while guaranteeing coherence and consistency across these areas and between its external action and its other policies. Article 33 TEU provides the legal basis for the appointment of the EUSR for HR, namely, ‘the Council may, on a proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, appoint a special representative with a mandate in relation to particular policy issues. The special representative shall carry out his mandate under the authority of the High Representative’. The European Parliament has repeatedly called for the appointment of an EUSR for HR.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported Mr Salafranca’s report on the EU Special Representative on Human Rights. The European Union does, indeed, need a high-level interlocutor for its counterparts in third countries and at international organisations. This will guarantee the visibility, effectiveness and coherence of the European Union’s human rights policy.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I fully support the creation of a European Union Special Representative (EUSR) for Human Rights. Implementing stronger protection for human rights, in particular, the freedom of expression and freedom of worship, will undoubtedly help to foster ever greater integration between EU and non-EU countries. The introduction of this unifying role at European level will strengthen the operational work on this agenda and cooperation with the UN, the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) operating across Europe. This cooperation also extends to the European High Representative for Foreign Policy, who will help make the EUSR’s work more effective. The considerable progress achieved in safeguarding human rights continues, however, to be undermined by fundamentalist and extremist fringes that, regrettably, gain support through violent means. Therefore, bolstering European efforts to combat such violations sends a clear signal that we are looking to a future where human rights are increasingly protected.

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE), in writing. – The appointment of the EU Special Representative (EUSR) for Human Rights would strengthen the visibility and coherence of the Union’s human rights policy and its commitment to human rights around the world. Although it is formally a Council decision, the Special Representative should work together with the Council Working Group on Human Rights and its Political and Security Committee. The Parliament should play its part by keeping the special representative under regular review during his/her mandate and making annual progress reports. The mandate should be flexible, strong and ensure independence in order to act swiftly and decisively to promote democracy, the rule of law, international justice and international humanitarian law worldwide.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I supported this resolution, which states that the policy objectives of the EUSR for HR should include enhancing the coherence, effectiveness and visibility of EU action in the protection and promotion of human rights and democracy; that the EUSR for HR should work in close cooperation with the Council Working Group on Human Rights (COHOM); that the EUSR for HR should be a high-level interlocutor for his/her counterparts in third countries and at international organisations, also able to engage with the UN (UNGA, UNHRC, etc.) as well as relevant regional organisations; and that the EUSR for HR should chair high-level human rights dialogues and lead consultations with third countries on human rights issues.

  Clemente Mastella (PPE), in writing. – (IT) We are in favour of appointing a European Union Special Representative (EUSR) for Human Rights because we believe that this can enhance the visibility, effectiveness, coherence and accountability of EU action in this field. Of course, Parliament should play its part in the appointment procedure and the oversight of the mandate during its entire term in order to encourage transparency and accountability.

The policy objectives should include enhancing the coherence, effectiveness and visibility of EU action in the protection and promotion of human rights and democracy throughout the world, strengthening the rule of law and institution building, international justice and international humanitarian law. While fulfilling their mandate, the EUSR for Human Rights should cooperate with representatives of local, regional and national civil society, and with non-governmental organisations (NGOs), experts and regional and international organisations acting in the field of protection of human rights and democracy. The EUSR will also be responsible for constituting a team, covering the necessary policy expertise. Given the need to ensure coherence and the mainstreaming of human rights across the activities of all EU institutions, this team may include seconded staff from Member States and the EU institutions.

  Barbara Matera (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the proposal for a European Parliament recommendation to the Council on the EU Special Representative (EUSR) for Human Rights. My support is based not only on the conviction that respect for human rights is one of the central pillars of European policy but also, and above all, on the need for the European institutions to appoint a single representative for international humanitarian law. The EUSR for Human Rights, as the single spokesperson for democratic values, would boost the European Union’s efforts to protect and promote human rights through its external policies.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) To achieve the stated objectives, the European Union Special Representative (EUSR) for Human Rights should be granted a strong, independent and flexible mandate not defined by narrow and specific thematic responsibilities, but rather allowing the EUSR to act swiftly and effectively. In line with the actions and priorities set out in the action plan, the EUSR for Human Rights should also address different horizontal issues contributing to more effective and coherent action in EU external policies. I voted in favour.

  Erminia Mazzoni (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I welcome the proposal to establish an EU Special Representative (EUSR) for Human Rights to strengthen the effectiveness and visibility of EU policies in this sector. The European Union is founded on respect for, and promotion of, fundamental rights. These universal and indivisible rights should know no frontiers or restrictions of any kind. They underpin the founding treaties and were more vigorously articulated in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of 2000, which, with the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, has become legally binding.

Efforts in this sector are needed on two fronts: within and outside the EU. The Special Representative for Human Rights should have a broad and flexible mandate and, in a time of austerity such as this, should be able to use existing services. Lastly, I hope that the EUSR will be able to work closely with non-governmental organisations, which fulfil a primary role in this field, and with Parliament, which has always championed human rights.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report because I believe respect for human rights is one of the main pillars of European policy. As sole spokesperson for democratic values, the European Union Special Representative for Human Rights will step up the EU’s role in promoting human rights in its external policy.

  Marek Henryk Migalski (ECR), in writing. – (PL) In the vote on the report on the EU Special Representative for Human Rights, I was firmly in favour of establishing this position because I consider the protection of human rights to be a fundamental part of the EU’s work. The special representative should concentrate on areas which particularly need help from the EU in terms of protecting people. The report on the EU Special Representative for Human Rights stresses that while implementing his or her mandate, the EUSR for HR should cooperate with representatives of local, regional and national civil society, non-governmental organisations, experts and regional and international organisations working in the field of the protection of human rights and democracy. Finding the right partners for dialogue is particularly important in view of the fact that the EUSR for HR is going to have to call for respect for human rights in undemocratic countries in particular. The European Parliament has already appealed several times for the appointment of a special representative for human rights, and I welcome the fact that this matter is finally coming to a conclusion.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – In order to raise the profile of human rights in EU external action, it was decided by the Council to appoint an EU Special Representative for Human Rights (first thematic SR ever) as much more needs to be done in order for human rights to run like a ‘silver thread’ through EU external policy (dixit Ashton). The EU special Representative should have an international profile and possess experience and proven dedication to the cause of human rights. The appointment should be made by June 2012 on a proposal made by the High Representative. So, it is the solution for human rights violations in Europe. I voted in favour.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour. I am pleased that this initiative, born in the European Parliament, is being implemented. Human rights are fundamental values of the European Union and their dissemination in neighbouring countries and throughout the world are an integral part of external relations. The appointment of a Special Representative specifically for such issues is therefore a logical and coherent step. As problems in this field are very varied and often long-standing, it is important for the EU Special Representative appointed to have a sufficiently broad mandate that is longer in duration than usual and for the representative to cooperate closely with the various relevant EU and international institutions and, above all, the European Parliament. Thanks to the Special Representative, the EU’s human rights element in relations with third countries should become more coordinated, united and consistent.

  Kristiina Ojuland (ALDE), in writing. – I voted in favour of this report because human rights are a fundamental part of the external relations of the EU and the appointment of the EU Special Representative for Human Rights emphasises the commitment of the EU to defending human rights worldwide. I would hope that the first EUSR for HR will address promptly the existing discrepancies within the CFSP, in particular, concerning the measures towards third countries and their citizens who are responsible for human rights violations. Although the geographical scope of the activities of the EUSR for HR will be global, I would like to underline the importance of the human rights situation in the Peoples’ Republic of China, especially Tibet and East Turkestan, and Russia. Their influence on international affairs, which cannot be underestimated, should not discourage the future EUSR for HR from raising the human rights violations in those countries.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this Council recommendation on the European Union Special Representative (EUSR) for Human Rights, in which the European Parliament, while acknowledging the Council’s exclusive competence for appointing the EUSR, based on a suggestion by the High Representative, does not fail to demand, in order to strengthen the transparency and accountability of the mandate of the EUSR, that an exchange of views/hearing with the EUSR nominated by the High Representative take place in the relevant committee of the European Parliament.

  Fiorello Provera (EFD), in writing. – (IT) The appointment of a European Representative for Human Rights is intended to increase the visibility of European policy in this area. Greater visibility also means greater accountability and the need to report regularly to Parliament on this especially sensitive subject. I support this initiative. Appointing a Special Representative for Human Rights will enable the EU human rights strategy and the associated action plan to be implemented more effectively, by formulating recommendations, by stepping up dialogue with third countries, international, regional and non-governmental organisations active in this sector, by fostering overall coherence in EU action on human rights, and by integrating this dimension across all areas of the Union’s external action. I therefore support Mr Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra’s report.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The appointment of a European Union Special Representative (EUSR) for Human Rights constitutes a very important step in increasing the visibility and coherence of EU policy in this regard and is a key element of the common foreign and security policy. While the appointment of the EUSR and the establishment of his/her mandate is formally a Council decision based on a proposal by the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the EUSR should act and speak on behalf of the EU, reflecting the shared and indivisible responsibility of all EU institutions and Member States to protect and promote human rights worldwide. I voted in favour because I believe that this reaffirms the EU’s commitment to promoting human rights and democracy in all its external actions.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. While the appointment of the EUSR for HR and the establishment of his/her mandate is formally a Council decision based on a proposal by the EU High Representative, the EUSR for HR should act and speak on behalf of the Union, reflecting the shared and indivisible responsibility of all EU institutions and Member States to protect and promote human rights worldwide; the appointment of the first ever thematic EUSR should enhance the visibility, effectiveness, coherence and accountability of the EU’s human rights policy; in particular, the European Parliament should play its appropriate role in the appointment procedure and the oversight of the mandate during its entire term.

  Tokia Saïfi (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The European Union is preparing to appoint its very first thematic special representative: the Special Representative for Human Rights (SRHR). Given the strategic importance of this post, I supported Parliament’s recommendation to the Council during the plenary sitting. This constructive and balanced text aims to refine the selection criteria for the candidate and to specify the nature and scope of his or her mandate. Parliament therefore reminded the Council that the objective of this nomination was to strengthen the coherence and visibility of EU actions in the protection and promotion of human rights. For this purpose, the SRHR must have a sufficiently long mandate (2.5 years) to be renewable more than once (to capitalise on experience). Furthermore, the SRHR should be selected in accordance with objective criteria on the basis of his or her skills, experience and international reputation. Finally, the SRHR must have the financial and human resources needed for the full exercise of his or her mandate.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The appointment of the first European Union Special Representative should enhance the visibility, effectiveness, coherence and accountability of the EU’s human rights policy. In particular, the Representative should act and speak on behalf of the Union, reflecting the shared, indivisible responsibility of all EU institutions and Member States in view of the Union’s accession to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. This vote will seek to strengthen the transparency and accountability of the Representative’s mandate. Moreover, the Representative should chair high-level human rights dialogues and lead the consultations with third countries on human rights issues, as well as provide the Council, the High Representative, Parliament and the Commission with an annual progress report and a comprehensive implementation report on the mandate at the end thereof.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) Along with most of my fellow Members, I voted in favour of this text. To vote against would be to prevent the European Union’s Special Representative for Human Rights from strengthening the visibility and coherence of the EU’s human rights policy as a fundamental part of its common foreign and security policy (CFSP) and from contributing to raising the EU’s human rights profile worldwide. That would be utterly scandalous and would be a scandalous political, indeed human, attitude to take.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Human rights constitute a founding principle of the EU, as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), and their promotion and defence are a core policy of external action and common security. Following several demands by Parliament, on the basis of Article 33 TEU, the Council is being called on to appoint an EU Special Representative for Human Rights (EUSR), so as to make EU policy more effective and visible, and to bring it more in line with the other international organisations already on the ground. This post is intended to give more visibility to the EU’s role in promoting human rights and democracy in the world. To that end, there must be coordination with the other services and institutions within the EU, and the EUSR should be able to engage with international, regional and non-governmental organisations. The EUSR should be an internationally known person with visibility in the field of human rights. His or her mandate should be for two years, with the possibility of renewal following consultation with Parliament.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the report on the EU Special Representative for Human Rights. The Treaty on European Union reaffirms the EU’s commitment to promoting human rights and democracy in all its external actions, while also guaranteeing coherence and consistency across the different areas of its external actions and between these and its other policies. The EU Special Representative for Human Rights should act and speak on behalf of the EU, reflecting the shared and indivisible responsibility of all EU institutions and Member States to protect and promote human rights worldwide. Appointing an EU Special Representative for Human Rights should enhance the visibility and coherence of the EU’s human rights policy as a fundamental part of its common foreign and security policy (CFSP) and contribute to raising the EU’s human rights profile worldwide. I think that, while implementing his/her mandate, the Special Representative for Human Rights should cooperate with representatives of local, regional and national civil society, NGOs, experts, and regional and international organisations operating in the area of protecting human rights and democracy.

  Viktor Uspaskich (ALDE), in writing. – (LT) I believe that the appointment of a Special Representative would be a positive and visible step, which would contribute to new unions and would establish a dialogue on human rights. Nevertheless, I remain a realist. The new high-level post does not automatically guarantee new, more credible policies on human rights. We have to make sure that the new Special Representative does not become another passive bureaucrat. The new representative for human rights must have a strong, independent and flexible mandate. The report states that the new post should reflect current policies on human rights. This is not necessarily good news. Two weeks ago, the Director of Amnesty International stated that the EU has become a ‘toothless tiger’, and instead of moving forwards, it is moving backwards. The Human Rights Watch World Report 2012 states, ‘move beyond the fine words and human rights in Europe are in trouble’.

  Geoffrey Van Orden (ECR), in writing. – Whilst I support robust action in the defence of genuine human rights (notably freedom of speech and belief, personal liberty and the right to property), I am sceptical of EU interference in the human rights sphere, which it often seeks to leverage in pursuit of its wider institutional ambitions.

I see little added value in creating an EU Special Representative for Human Rights, as our national governments are already more than able to press for better international human rights through existing, proven mechanisms. I have spearheaded action in the European Parliament to improve the basic freedoms and rights of Zimbabweans.

Given the current national budgetary constraints and the need for the EU to reduce expenditure, I am particularly concerned about the budgetary implications of the creation of an 11th EU Special Representative. I therefore abstained on this report.

  Dominique Vlasto (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported this recommendation, outlining our expectations of the future EU Special Representative for Human Rights. The promotion of human rights and democracy worldwide is at the heart of EU action. It is its raison d'être, its strength and its ambition. We have been waiting for a long time for this post to be created, under the authority of the High Representative/Vice-President. Nothing now stands in the way of the appointment to this post. This is the second major innovation in European diplomacy after the creation of the European External Action Service (EEAS). I shall keep a watchful eye to ensure that it is not an umpteenth honorary position, for then it would be an empty shell. To my mind, the representative must have maximum visibility, effectiveness and capacity for action. He or she will be the face and the power of the EU in its quest to root out any denials of democracy and of individual freedoms and violations of human rights. I have also expressed my desire for our Parliament to be associated with the appointment procedure and to be informed of the actions of the representative. It is unimaginable for our Parliament, elected by the citizens, not to have any right of oversight of the results of the person who is to promote its values in the world.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – The visibility, effectiveness, coherence and accountability of the EU’s human rights policy and the EP’s role in the appointment procedure are the focus of this report and, with my vote, I wanted to support their implementation.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The appointment of an EU Special Representative for Human Rights demonstrates the importance that the EU wants to give to this area; it is clearly self-serving in nature. By creating a ‘face’, the EU wants to give more visibility to a hypocritical policy that creates or makes use of intervention and aggression processes wherever and whenever the EU’s interests are at stake. In view of the EU’s political practices, the appointment of a representative is not aimed at actually defending human rights, which should be, above all, a cross-cutting practice: instead, it steps up the manipulation and minimisation of human rights. It reinforces a policy linking several EU instruments, such as the European External Action Service, with all those available for interference in countries where the EU has geostrategic, economic and financial interests, in breach of these peoples’ sovereignty and in defence of the interests of the major EU powers. As the crisis in the EU is demonstrating, big companies in the EU are attempting to emerge from the crisis by increasing exploitation of the workers and by dominating natural, energy and food resources, as well as markets. The actions of whoever is appointed by the EU will contribute to this objective.

Motion for a resolution: B7-0276/2012

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report. I consider it essential that the European Union genuinely, effectively and transparently control the field of arms negotiations. It should take into account the fact that arms trade treaties lacking transparency, monitoring and regulation could lead to irresponsible arms transactions and cause unnecessary human suffering. In view of this, there is an urgent need for a robust and clear package that respects the parameters within which these agreements are made.

  Pino Arlacchi (S&D), in writing. – I support this report because, although some really good amendments presented by my group had not been approved, it is important that the Parliament takes a clear position on this fundamental issue. Indeed a united, coherent and consistent EU approach is crucial for such a treaty to be adopted and effectively implemented at global level. The Arms Trade Treaty that will be negotiated in 2012 must include clear and binding provisions consistent with the highest international standards. Uncontrolled arms trading poses a serious threat to peace and stability but also to democracy, the rule of law and sustainable socio-economic development. The EU Member States consistently account for approximately 30% of all exports and are among the world’s leading arms producers and exporters. For these reasons, the EU has both the responsibility and the interest in contributing to controlling the trade in arms at global level.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed this resolution. Hitherto, there has not been a legally binding, international treaty on the regulation of transfers of conventional arms. The poorly regulated, uncontrolled and opaque arms trade leads to irresponsible trading in weapons, causes unnecessary human suffering, fuels armed conflict, instability, terrorist attacks and corruption, undermines peace building processes and socio-economic development, leads to the overthrow of democratically elected governments and the violation of the rule of law, human rights and international humanitarian law. The United Nations General Assembly has proposed adopting an international and legally binding Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) establishing international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms. This would enable Member States to ensure that their national systems and internal controls are of the highest possible standards to prevent the diversion of conventional arms from the legal to the illicit market, where they can be used for terrorist acts, organised crime and other criminal activities. I welcome the European Parliament’s call for the July 2012 negotiation of a legally binding international Arms Trade Treaty to mark an historic step forward, through greater transparency and accountability, by establishing the highest international standards and criteria for making assessments of decisions on the transfer, import and export of conventional arms.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this European Parliament resolution because UN General Assembly Resolution 64/48 urges UN Member States to attain an effective and balanced, legally binding instrument meeting the highest possible common international standards for the transfer of conventional arms and to achieve a strong and robust treaty. At present, a global treaty on the regulation of transfers of conventional arms has yet to be concluded. In the field of arms transfers, there are no binding commitments which unequivocally safeguard international human rights and international humanitarian law. The UN General Assembly has defined the aim of the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) as a legally binding treaty establishing international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms. They would be aimed at obliging Member States to establish national systems and internal controls of the highest possible standards. This would prevent the diversion of conventional arms from the legal to the illicit market, where they can be used for terrorist acts, organised crime and other criminal activities. A united, coherent and consistent EU approach on this issue is crucial for such a treaty to be adopted and effectively implemented at a global level and the long-term success of the ATT is dependent upon the adoption of a set of high, strong and clear standards.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – There has been significant opposition, especially in America and Canada, to the UN Arms Trade Treaty. While the control and regulation of international arms trading is necessary, there is a distinct lack of recourse to international discrepancies in public opinion with this particular debate. While many households in America have handguns and a great number of families in Canada use guns for hobby and hunting purposes, in the UK, few people have access to small firearms. Those who use guns for illicit purposes are unlikely to be swayed from criminal behaviour by the introduction of new legislation, although pan-national corroboration to restrict the availability of arms on the black market is something I vehemently support. The EU may have broad reaching control of trade in Europe, but designating a single European stance in this area represents a sizeable foray into the realm of foreign affairs and thus encroaches upon the prerogatives of both NATO and national governments. By doing so, the EU is effectively mounting a subversive campaign against public opinion across the Atlantic

  Antonio Cancian (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted for the motion for a resolution on the negotiations on the UN Arms Trade Treaty because I believe that the time has come to fill the legislative void in this sector with a binding international treaty to regulate transfers of conventional arms. In my view, it is essential that the EU brings a united, coherent and consistent approach to the negotiations next July. This is crucial for ensuring that the treaty text is as comprehensive as possible and can be implemented effectively at global level.

I support this proposal because I agree that it is necessary to establish the highest international standards and criteria and for making assessments of decisions on the transfer, import and export of conventional arms. I am also sure that this initiative will not damage the contribution made by the arms industry, in Europe in particular, to job creation and economic growth, areas that are currently a focus of EU attention. I expect the negotiations to produce a document that regulates trade in the widest spectrum of conventional weapons, including light weapons, the illegal trafficking of which is the main cause of thousands of civilian deaths in local conflicts every year.

  Emer Costello (S&D), in writing. – I want to see the adoption of an effective, legally binding international treaty based on the simple principle of outlawing the international transfer of all conventional arms, related equipment, ammunition and training likely to be used for grave violations of international human rights, humanitarian law or that will adversely affect sustainable development. It beggars belief that we have detailed international rules on the trade of foodstuffs but nothing on conventional arms. International treaties like this do work. The 1997 Landmine treaty has reduced landmine casualties by two-thirds and reduced the trade in landmines to almost zero, despite the fact that the US, China, India and Russia have not signed it. I welcome Parliament’s insistence that the treaty should cover the widest possible range of activities in the trade in conventional weapons and the widest possible spectrum of conventional weapons, including small arms and light weapons, but I am disappointed that it narrowly voted not to include ‘dual-use’ goods. I hope the July UN conference will be able to negotiate a strong treaty which should then be incorporated into the domestic legislation of all signatory states, and reinforced through rules such as on regular public reporting.

  Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) Unfortunately, there are still a number of outbreaks of violence fuelled by arms supplied most often through illegal trade. There is an international legal framework, verification mechanisms, not to mention loopholes to get round them and a great deal of hypocrisy regarding the criteria for transferring arms to sensitive areas. In most cases, profit motives take precedence over the tragedies being fuelled by the arms trade. This is why I believe that redefining these criteria would be a welcome step in order to include aspects such as good governance, rigorous respect for human rights and tackling the corruption that goes hand in hand with the arms trade. The EU must play a more important role in this control mechanism, in defining the criteria, and in the negotiations on getting all the signatories to the Arms Trade Treaty to accept them. If this arms trade cannot be eliminated from people’s everyday lives, we need to ensure that such weapons are only used in self-defence and according to strict rules.

  Marielle de Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The arms industry is an area which is both sensitive and crucial to the European Union, particularly in the context of its relations with other States in the world. Consequently, this trade should be controlled and regulated better. The signing of the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty in July will constitute a first step towards the recognition of the rights of the civilian population, which is the main victim of armed conflict. This treaty will improve, on the one hand, illicit trade through an export control mechanism and, on the other hand, it will combat trafficking in conventional arms. It will ensure greater transparency and better governance of arms transfers. Member States will be required to report regularly on this question to Parliament and ensure that the treaty is implemented rigorously in their own legislation.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I am delighted that a very large majority voted in favour of the resolution on the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. Although it is not binding, it does send a strong signal from the EU to its Member States to adopt a strong common position during the international conference, to be held from 2 to 27 July at the UN headquarters, in New York. After four years of negotiations on this treaty, it is time to reach a conclusion. We are calling for this new international treaty to be based on the ‘highest, strongest and clearest possible set of standards’; it must ‘strengthen accountability’ and its implementation ‘must be open and transparent’ with mechanisms to ensure that it meets all reporting and implementation requirements; it must also offer a robust evaluation of the final destination country of a sale, namely, an evaluation that makes the conclusion of a contract subject to compliance with a number of criteria (social and economic criteria, democratic and humanitarian standards).

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report because I believe we need to seek to regulate the trade in conventional weapons using an international legal instrument. Despite this position of principle, I am bound to express my scepticism in relation both to its conclusion under adequate terms and to its effectiveness if it comes into force. The importance of the arms industry is well known, as is Europe’s need to maintain, if not increase, the Member States’ investment in their defence industries as part of the joint effort to be made in the context of NATO. However, beyond this legitimate investment in these industries that generate jobs and create technical innovation, there is a hard to control parallel market worth many millions of euro per year. We need to seek to limit its action and combat its principal agents. Without this firm action at international level and genuine implementation, the treaty could never get off the ground and remain a mere enunciation of hopeful words. However, the pen is mightier than the sword and, fortunately, has effects that the latter cannot always counteract.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The arms trade is a subject that divides Europeans into those who see just another type of trade with the resulting economic benefit and those who consider it a commercial strategy that enables terrorist groups to achieve their goals. This treaty is crucial to preventing situations like those that occurred in Syria, with China and Russia providing weapons being used to kill innocent people. It is therefore essential that the United Nations adopt restrictive measures and transparent rules for this type of trade. Given that the Member States are responsible for around 30% of global exports, making the EU one of the world’s largest suppliers, I welcome this UN initiative, since an instrument is being created that legally binds all UN members as regards the manufacture, import, export and transfer of conventional weapons. I welcome the measures proposed and I hope that all countries will implement them as quickly as possible, so as to prevent these weapons being diverted into illegal markets where they could be used for other purposes, particularly criminal activities or acts of terrorism.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The debate on the UN Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) started in 2006, when the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution supported by 153 countries. The United States was the only UN Member State to vote against creating the ATT. It is very important that the ATT bear fruit, in the context of a restarted arms race and escalating military spending, particularly by the US and the NATO countries, which are increasingly showing their aggressive nature. With the Treaty of Lisbon and the provisions relating to the European Defence Agency, the EU is also entering this race. Regulation of the import, export and transfer of arms will be all the more effective if accompanied by a multilateral and reciprocal disarmament process, particularly the decommissioning of the immense existing nuclear arsenals and the complete destruction of chemical and biological weapons. It is also important to tackle the instruments such as tax havens which facilitate the money laundering associated with the arms trade. We are pleased that the reference to jobs in the arms industry has been removed from the resolution. That is why we voted in favour.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) Uncontrolled and unregulated arms trading poses a serious threat to local, national, regional and international peace, security and stability, as well as to democracy, the rule of law and sustainable social and economic development. Unregulated arms trading is a contributory factor in armed conflict, the displacement of people, organised crime and terrorism. It is clear that the arms industry contributes to job creation and economic growth; on the other hand, however, the poorly regulated, uncontrolled and opaque arms trade leads to irresponsible trading in weapons, causes unnecessary human suffering, fuels armed conflict, instability, terrorist attacks and corruption, undermines peace building processes, good governance and socio-economic development, and leads to the overthrow of democratically elected governments and the violation of the rule of law, human rights and international humanitarian law. Moreover, in the field of arms transfers, there are no binding commitments that would unequivocally safeguard such rights. Taking these facts into consideration, I firmly believe that it is important that the Arms Trade Treaty be implemented effectively and credibly. It is important that the Member States, in line with their Treaty of Lisbon commitment, uphold the EU’s positions set out in reply to the UN Secretary-General at the conference in order to ensure a successful outcome from the conference resulting in an Arms Trade Treaty based on solid foundations.

  Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) I am pleased that the issue of the negotiations on the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) has finally been put on the work agenda of our European Parliament, particularly thanks to pressure from the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, to which I belong. By this, we hope that our Parliament is able to voice its opinion on this matter and that the European institutions adopt a strong common position to find a solution to the problems of arms transfers. Indeed, for the international community to sign a treaty of this nature sends a strong signal, insofar as it will establish common binding standards for the import, export and transfer of arms. This trade must urgently be regulated in view of the arms transfers that fuel conflicts, poverty and violations of the rights of individuals. We are calling for clear, binding provisions, which meet the highest international standards in accordance with international humanitarian law. This problem must urgently be tackled head on if we are to ensure lasting security and stability in the world.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) The arms trade, which is carried out in the utmost opacity, has a direct impact on respect for human rights and development conditions in the least advanced countries. That is why I supported this resolution, because I believe that it is our responsibility as MEPs to encourage, through the Commission, the Member States to take practical measures to regulate this trade. We must have a binding agreement at international level and it should apply to the widest possible range of transfers of, and transactions in, conventional arms. Lastly, I would like this treaty to introduce measures for monitoring the transparent implementation of the rules that it puts into force.

  Ágnes Hankiss (PPE), in writing. – (HU) All EU Member States have a stake in ensuring that trade in conventional arms is regulated by a comprehensive international convention. The Arms Trade Treaty must include general standards and norms for foreign trade in conventional arms in order to standardise the international conditions of lawful arms trading and, at the same time, to cut off the channels of illegal arms trading. The primary objective of the Arms Trade Treaty must be to ensure the adoption of these general and standardised norms, and thus support responsible commercial conduct and guarantee transparency.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed this document because the value of global exports has continued to grow despite the economic and financial crisis, and EU Member States consistently account for approximately 30% of all exports and are among the world’s leading arms producers and exporters. Therefore, the EU has both a responsibility and an interest in developing and contributing to a regulated, more transparent and controlled arms trade at global level. Unfortunately, we have to recognise the contribution that the arms industry makes to job creation and economic growth, but I believe that the poorly regulated, uncontrolled and opaque arms trade leads to irresponsible trading in weapons, causes unnecessary human suffering, fuels armed conflict, instability, terrorist attacks and corruption, undermines peace building processes and socio-economic development and leads to the overthrow of democratically elected governments and the violation of the rule of law. The July 2012 negotiation of a legally binding international Arms Trade Treaty must mark an historic step forward and, by establishing the highest international standards and criteria for assessing the transfer, import and export of conventional arms, ensure greater transparency and accountability. I agree that the urgent adoption and entry into force of a global and comprehensive UN Arms Trade Treaty is necessary. Transparency and accountability are the key to a robust treaty of this nature.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) EU Member States account for approximately 30% of all arms exports and are amongst the world’s leading arms producers. We must therefore act to improve the transparency and regulation of commercial sales. Parliament has sent a strong signal to the UN Member States currently negotiating the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), by adopting the related resolution by 612 votes. The resolution was supported by a large majority and I welcome that. It insists on the need for the ATT to contain the provision for regular reports to a specialist UN unit on all arms-related sales agreements, in particular, transfers of small arms and light weapons. Parliament also found it necessary to make provisions committing States Parties to adopt the required measures in their national legislation.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this resolution, which points out that uncontrolled and unregulated arms trading poses a serious threat to local, national, regional and international peace, security and stability, but also to democracy, the rule of law and sustainable social and economic development; unregulated arms trading is a contributory factor in armed conflict, the displacement of people, organised crime and terrorism.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour. It is vital that the international community demonstrates its commitment to regulating the international arms trade by making full use of its Rules of Procedure to agree upon a comprehensive text that covers all the major issues necessary for a robust treaty to be agreed during the conference in July 2012.

  Kyriakos Mavronikolas (S&D), in writing. – (EL) The European Union has an interest in, and responsibility for, the development and contribution of a transparent and regulated arms trade at international level. The Arms Trade Treaty must mark an important step forward, in the aim of establishing high standards and criteria for the purpose of assessments in the run-up to decisions to transfer, import and export arms. We need a treaty in the European Union that essentially prohibits and controls the illegal movement and transfer of arms. The Arms Trade Treaty must emphasise to the States Parties that all decisions to import, export or transfer arms must fully respect existing international commitments, especially in terms of international human rights laws, and be compatible with the UN Charter. The treaty must also ensure that the States Parties will not transfer arms to countries where there is a serious risk of their being used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international human rights laws and international humanitarian law, including genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The treaty should cover the widest possible range of activities in the trade in conventional weapons, including the import, export, transfer (including transit and transhipment, as well as temporary import and export and re-export), manufacture under foreign licence, stockpile management, and all related services including brokering, transportation and finance. The treaty should cover all aspects of the trade in conventional weapons including state-to-state transfers, state-to-private end-user transfers, commercial sales and leases, as well as loans, gifts, aid or any other form of transfer. The treaty should also cover the widest spectrum of conventional weapons, including small arms and light weapons and munitions, intangible transfers, the components and technologies associated with their use, manufacture or maintenance, whether for use in military or other security and law enforcement purposes. I also believe proper attention should be given to the marking and traceability of conventional weapons and ammunition in order to strengthen accountability and prevent diversion of arms transfers to illicit recipients.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The negotiations on the Arms Trade Treaty are expected to begin at the UN during the first week of July. The report calls on the EU to seek and advocate the long-term success of the Arms Trade Treaty which depends upon adopting the highest, strongest and clearest possible set of standards. Especially regarding support of revolutions, but not to sell if ‘suddenly’, revolutionists are not revolutionists but extremists. But what is the difference? Revolutionists are those who are in friends with EU. But extremists are those who are not in friends. I abstained.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) Arms trading is one of the world’s most lucrative industries. While nuclear weapons are subject to strict controls as well as trade bans and conditions, this does not apply to conventional weapons, although wars have hitherto been waged conventionally. In order to secure peace and to curb and regulate uncontrolled arms trading, intense negotiations on the UN Arms Trade Treaty are currently under way. I did not vote in favour of the resolution because I am of the opinion that, although the approaches adopted by the Treaty are quite good, the main problem, namely illegal trading in weapons, cannot be curbed in this way. Warring countries will always find new opportunities to procure weapons, illegally if need be. This problem could be exacerbated as a result of the Treaty to the extent that it could even lead to a real boom in the black market for weapons.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) The arms trade has a huge impact, encouraging conflicts, poverty and human rights violations throughout the world, but is an area of global trade that has hitherto been opaque, and poorly and ineffectively regulated. The scope of the arms trade is growing constantly and its growth was not even halted by the global economic recession. We therefore urgently need to reach an agreement on a global Arms Trade Treaty, which would be binding for all actors involved in the arms trade, and to also establish an effective system for monitoring and reviewing the treaty. At the same time, we need to strengthen the fight against illicit trading in arms and corruption. The level of democracy, stability and respect for human rights should be one of the most important criteria enshrined in the treaty. The treaty should ensure that in such painful cases as Syria at the moment, the supply of arms is halted immediately, knowing that they are being used to kill civilians.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) An insufficiently regulated arms trade that lacks monitoring and transparency leads to an irresponsible arms trade. That has already caused unnecessary human suffering, fed armed conflict, instability, terrorist attacks and corruption, compromised peace processes, good governance and socio-economic development, and led to the overthrow of democratically elected governments and violations of the rule of law, human rights and international humanitarian law. For the above reasons, I voted for this resolution calling for the July 2012 negotiation of a legally binding international arms trade treaty to mark an historic step forward, through greater transparency and accountability, by establishing the highest international standards and criteria for making assessments of decisions on the transfer, import and export of conventional arms.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. A robust ATT must include provisions and benchmarks committing States Parties to adopt national legislation and to establish a national authority responsible for the control of all transfers of items covered by the treaty and for meeting all reporting and implementation requirements The implementation of the ATT should cover end-user controls and brokering activities, including registration of operators and the licensing of their activities, disclosure by applicants of necessary information and full supporting documentation prior to issuance of an export authorisation, as well as legislative measures to establish as criminal offences all transfers of conventional arms and ammunitions not licensed by the national authority or in accordance with the treaty.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The United Nations conference due to take place in New York from 2 to 27 July 2012 aims to agree the Arms Trade Treaty in order to elaborate a legally binding instrument on the highest possible common international standards for the transfer of conventional arms. By voting in favour, I endorse the need for uniform global action towards common legislation to ensure greater transparency and greater control in this area, in view of its continual development, even during the current crisis. We need to cut the risk of irresponsible trading in weapons, which has caused unnecessary human suffering, fuelled armed conflict, terrorist attacks and corruption, undermined good governance and led to the overthrow of democratically elected governments.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) is intended to regulate and bind signatory states by setting out guidelines concerning the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons, with a view to reducing the illegal arms trade. This illegal trade is directly linked to organised crime and criminal activity, and to support for acts of terrorism that jeopardise global, regional and local stability and security. It is essential that the negotiations for the ATT taking place this year involve the majority of states, and that they be in line with international human rights law and international humanitarian law. The EU should present a robust common position, demonstrating to other partners that transparency and responsibility in the negotiation and ratification process is of the utmost importance for global stability and security.

  Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE), in writing. – It is somehow strange that nowadays, there is still no global regulation of transfers of conventional arms, which goes against our safety. And not only at European level, negotiations should be at a global level. That is why the negotiations that will take place in New York in July 2012 are very important. We will take an historic step forward if there are positive results, such as better transparency, national systems and internal controls, eradication of illicit markets which can be used for terrorist acts, and common standards on the import and export of conventional arms. For all these reasons, I will vote in favour of this motion for a resolution

  Geoffrey Van Orden (ECR), in writing. – We support a UN Arms Trade Treaty, limited in scope, and with global application and, on this basis, wished to signal our support by voting in favour of the resolution. However, I wish, on behalf of the ECR Group, to put on record our serious reservations about the text of the resolution, as amended in plenary. We feel strongly that the resolution should have placed emphasis on those who abuse the trade in arms rather than on our own countries, which are responsible and already have high standards in this area. We do not support any of the language which seeks to artificially create a role for the EU, such as calls for the EU delegation to take part in the treaty negotiations. Equally, the statement that ‘a united, coherent and consistent EU approach is crucial for such a treaty to be adopted and effectively implemented at a global level’ is mystifying. Diplomatic efforts should be spent ensuring countries such as China and Russia are signed up to the highest possible standards, not trying to harmonise the EU stance. Finally, it is regrettable that the acknowledgement of the contribution that the arms industry makes to our security and economies was amended out of the resolution.

  Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. – The Arms Trade Treaty called for in this resolution will prevent the flow of weapons that facilitate crimes under international law. I fully support the resolution and, by ensuring that weapons are traded responsibly, this treaty can potentially improve the lives and the security conditions of people around the world. Standards must be set to regulate international trade in arms and the adoption of this resolution by the European Parliament is a positive step ahead of the negotiations at the United Nations on a comprehensive arms treaty.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The debate on establishing the UN Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) started in 2006, when the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution supported by 153 countries; the United States was the only UN Member State to vote against creating the ATT. It is very important that this process bear fruit, in the context of a restarted arms race and escalating military spending, and of investment in new weapons by the US, NATO and the EU, whilst they engage in hypocritical discourse about arms reduction. However, it must be stressed that regulation of the import, export and transfer of arms will be all the more relevant if accompanied by a multilateral and reciprocal disarmament process, particularly the decommissioning of the immense existing nuclear arsenals – starting with the world’s most significant nuclear powers, such as the US – and the complete destruction of chemical and biological weapons.

Motion for a resolution: RC-B7-0280/2012

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting in favour. I am extremely concerned about the situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The re-election of Joseph Kabila in the elections on 28 November 2011 and the opposition’s subsequent contesting of the results led to severe clashes and serious cases of violence. Since then, the situation in the country has been very unstable. The continued human rights violations and the humanitarian situation are even more worrying, meaning there is an urgent need for a transparent process of democratisation involving all parties.

  Pino Arlacchi (S&D), in writing. – The European Union’s Election Observation Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo has concluded in its final report that the electoral process was marred by numerous cases of fraud detected. For this reason, with this text, we stress the need for the European Union and the international community to support the DRC in its efforts to underpin democracy and to assist Congolese NGOs to raise voter awareness. I also would like to underline that impunity for human rights abuses and the increased unemployment and impoverishment of the population are also determining factors in undermining political stability in the Democratic Republic of Congo and are creating a climate of insecurity.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution. On 28 November 2011, parliamentary elections were held for the second time since the entry into force of the constitution in 2006, a crucial step for the consolidation of democratisation and the stabilisation process in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). Between 26 November and 25 December 2011, against the backdrop of the elections, at least 33 people were killed, while at least 83 others were injured and at least 265 civilians arrested by members of the defence and security forces. The European Union’s Election Observation Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo concluded in its final report that the electoral process had been marred by a lack of transparency and credibility due to the numerous irregularities and cases of fraud that had been detected. The repression of human rights activists and journalists has increased and they are being arbitrarily arrested and intimidated. I welcome the European Parliament’s recommendations for the DRC to investigate these violations and to initiate a political dialogue with all parties, including the opposition forces and civil society, paving the way for true democracy and political reform in the country.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – I am an ardent supporter of democracy, of the protection of the right to vote and the importance of strengthening democratic institutions. However, the EU represents none of these things and, as such, is in no position to assume powers via which they can or should demand such reforms in third countries such as the DRC. Such prerogatives are the preserve of democratically operational national governments and supranational bodies that work in accordance with the wishes of the public they represent.

  Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The deterioration in the situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo is extremely worrying, especially the continuing atrocities in the province of Kivu. The number of victims has increased at an appalling rate, with civilians, especially children, women and elderly people, being the hardest hit. Thousands of women have been raped, mutilated and killed, while many of the survivors are infected with the HIV virus. The perpetrators of these crimes need to be punished. This is why the fight against impunity needs to be stepped up and the judicial system strengthened. It is right for us to insist further on setting up a special court to try cases involving genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. In a country where three quarters of the population are living in poverty and which is facing a severe refugee crisis, the consequence of non-compliance with democratic rules when organising elections and of the violation of human rights is to lock Congolese society into a vicious circle of instability, violence and underdevelopment. Therefore, I call on the Commission to take action to get the Congolese authorities to implement the recommendations made in the EU Election Observation Mission’s report.

  Marielle de Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The presidential and legislative elections in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) in November 2011 were marred by numerous irregularities, which skewed the results. The Congolese Government must therefore redouble its efforts to guarantee the rule of law and security of the Congolese people throughout the DRC, by holding investigations into the violence and violations of fundamental rights committed during these elections. The creation of a constitutional court, fundamental reforms of the Independent National Electoral Commission and the effective operation of the High Council for Audiovisual and Communications to ensure equal media coverage for all candidates are essential prerequisites to the smooth running of the electoral process in this country. Finally, the Commission and the Member States must make the EU’s financial contribution to the electoral process in the DRC dependent upon the effective implementation of the recommendations of the Election Observation Mission, in view of the forthcoming provincial and local elections.

  Diane Dodds (NI), in writing. – The border area of Eastern Congo and Rwanda is one that has suffered great violence and loss of human life over the last twenty years. As a result of the continued violence in the region, we are witnessing a growing humanitarian crisis in the Congo, while UN resources in the area become increasingly stretched. More than 100 000 people have been forced to flee their homes. The Red Cross say the humanitarian situation could – once again – become ‘disastrous’. That is something we should all use our influence to avoid. Already, many governments have made significant financial aid commitments and that is to be welcomed. I would urge the High Representative to work alongside national governments in coordinating humanitarian relief to this area.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The elections in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), which were affected by various types of irregularity, demonstrate how the institutionalisation of democracy is not solely dependent on elections. For a long time, the DRC has not existed as a completely pacified state that respects democracy and human rights. There are many reports bearing witness to that fact and many international efforts have been made to prevent the exacerbation of the situation. Regrettably, there have been no tangible results that are cause for anything more than vague hope and that provoke concern from international observers and partners. The stabilisation of the whole continent depends, to a large extent, on stabilising its second largest country: the DRC. Its process of transition to democracy naturally elicits continuous concern and attention from the EU.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is one of the poorest countries in the world and is living through the infancy of democracy whilst recovering from a very difficult past; it therefore needs EU support to consolidate the reforms that have been started. This joint motion for a resolution was tabled to replace motions for resolutions from six groups and concerns the monitoring of elections in the DRC, where the EU Election Observation Mission concluded that these elections were marred by a lack of transparency and credibility due to the numerous irregularities and cases of fraud detected. Moreover, human rights violations by armed groups are continuously being recorded, confirming a serious problem of lack of government authority. The EU should continue supporting the DRC, particularly the victims of armed groups, disarmament of which is essential and urgent if a climate of peace is to be instituted and the reforms the country needs so badly are to be implemented. I voted for this motion for a resolution, and I hope the situation will improve and that the next elections will take place under conditions of the required normality, in order that the human rights violations and crimes committed by sections of the army might come to an end.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The Democratic Republic of Congo, located in the heart of Africa and bordering countless countries in the region of Central Africa, has enormous natural wealth, particularly minerals. This potential is unrivalled in the whole of Africa and even in the world. Since its independence, there have been successive interventions and attacks from outside or via actors within the country itself, which have pushed it into a series of conflicts that have, almost uninterruptedly, generated immense contradiction between the country’s enormous potential and the extreme poverty in which the majority of its people live.

For our part, we will continue supporting this struggle for sovereignty, for the country’s territorial integrity, and for its right to economic and social development. We need to defend the sovereignty of the Congolese people and to ensure that the country’s people and natural resources can be used to achieve their interests and aspirations.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) In November 2011, the second general election was held since the Constitution entered into force in 2006, which was a key step towards the consolidation of democracy and the stabilisation process in the Democratic Republic of Congo. At that time, dozens to hundreds of people were killed, injured and arrested in connection with the election. Repression has intensified in Congo of human rights activists and journalists, who face arbitrary arrest and intimidation. The acts of violence and violations of fundamental rights are deplorable. It is important that the Congolese Government in the national parliament again discusses the draft law on the protection of human rights defenders. Elections are necessary but are not enough to create the conditions for a democratisation process, which involves more than organising elections. I believe that, in the interest of successful democratisation, it is essential that the population’s basic rights, such as employment, health and education, be respected during the social and economic development of the country. I also consider it important that the Congolese Government resolutely implements a genuine political practice in which human rights are respected, including the freedom of speech and belief, freedom of assembly and freedom of religion, and eliminates discrimination based on sex or sexual orientation. Efforts to strengthen the rule of law, good governance and the fight against corruption are also of crucial importance.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed this document because the building of a democratic society requires, above all, strong political will and ambitious vision on the part of political leaders, governments and opposition groups, with the aim of building political institutions to guarantee the human, social, economic and environmental rights of the population. Political leaders, civil society organisations, religious authorities and women’s associations should reach a national consensus on adequate and appropriate institutions, as well as established and agreed procedures through which democratic practices can be implemented. Independent judicial and media systems are essential in shaping and regulating the democratic process. It is necessary to reinforce the rule of law, build democratic institutions, including a functioning parliament based on political pluralism, and strengthen the role of civil society. The Congolese Government must commit itself resolutely to a political practice that genuinely respects all human rights including freedom of expression and opinion, freedom to demonstrate and freedom of religion, etc. It is important to strengthen the rule of law, good governance and the fight against corruption and control over the security services. The forthcoming elections included in the revised electoral timetable for the period 2012-2014 must be transparent, credible and reliable, and human rights and fundamental freedoms must be respected.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The presidential and legislative elections in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) in November 2011 were marred by numerous irregularities, fraud and violence. By a large majority, Parliament stresses the need for the Congolese Government to redouble its efforts to guarantee the rule of law and to strengthen the institutions responsible for the proper conduct of the elections. In parallel, Parliament calls on the Commission and the Member States to make the EU’s financial contribution dependent upon the implementation of the recommendations and to support civil society, which demonstrated, through its action during the elections, its commitment to democracy. I decided to support this resolution in plenary.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this resolution on Congo, which strongly condemns the deplorable violence and violations of fundamental rights during the elections of 28 November and calls upon the Congolese authorities to make every effort to hold the necessary investigations to find the perpetrators, and welcomes and encourages the work of the security forces and the law enforcement agencies in their efforts to address effectively all the human rights violations.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The building of a democratic society requires, above all, strong political will and ambitious vision on the part of political leaders, governments and opposition groups, with the aim of building political institutions to guarantee the human, civil and political, social, economic and environmental rights of the population. We must firmly call on the Congolese Government to commit itself resolutely to a political practice that genuinely respects all human rights, including freedom of expression and opinion, freedom to demonstrate and freedom of religion.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The defence of democracy and transparent electoral processes are in the EU’s DNA. The findings of the final report of the Election Observation Mission are serious and should be of concern to everyone, starting with the Democratic Republic of Congo authorities. The EU must continue helping the peoples of these countries to realise their dream of living in a full democracy.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – Follow up – there will be a civil war and no resolutions will stop it. I abstained.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) According to EU election observers, the elections held in the Democratic Republic of Congo in November 2011 were not transparent. Numerous irregularities and cases of fraud were detected. The Congolese Government also rejected all recommendations concerning measures to ensure a regulated and orderly election. The population did, however, avail themselves of the opportunity to vote. In November, the turnout was 80%, suggesting that there is heightened interest among the population to drive forward the democratic process. I voted in favour of the resolution because I agree that elections are not, of themselves, sufficient to create the necessary conditions for a democratisation process. I also share the view that the social and economic development of the country and upholding the population’s basic rights are crucial for a functioning democracy.

  Mariya Nedelcheva (PPE), in writing. – (FR) As head of the EU Election Observation Mission (EOM), I am pleased that a resolution was adopted by our Parliament because Parliament must confirm its support for the application of the recommendations drawn up by the EU EOM.

This resolution had two objectives. On the one hand, it calls on the Congolese authorities to apply the recommendations drawn up by the EU EOM to reform the electoral process in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and ensure its transparency, credibility and reliability, especially before the forthcoming provincial and local elections.

The EU EOM recommendations concern fundamental reforms of the electoral system which are feasible and coherent and must be introduced as soon as possible. The issue is not about whether the elections are held but about whether they are held in the right conditions.

Furthermore, these recommendations involve and give responsibility to all the key actors in the Congolese electoral process so that they can act to ensure that the system is reformed and that the building of democracy is a reality.

I would like, on the occasion of the forthcoming elections, to be able to observe a transparent and credible electoral process, supported by all political parties and Congolese civil society, one that will finally contribute towards the country’s democratic, economic and social development.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this resolution, from which I would highlight the statement that the humanitarian security situation still constitutes a threat to regional stability. I would stress that peace, security and good governance are preconditions for the Democratic Republic of Congo’s long-term development.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This resolution follows on from the EU Election Observation Mission (EOM) in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The EOM concluded in its final report that the electoral process was marred by a lack of transparency and credibility due to the numerous irregularities and cases of fraud detected. In fact, elections are necessary, but not sufficient, for creating conditions for the democratisation process, whose scope will exceed the process of organising elections. Above all, constructing a democratic society requires strong political will and ambitious vision on the part of political leaders, governments and opposition groups, with the aim of building political institutions to guarantee the human, civil and political, social, economic and environmental rights of the population. As such, for a democratisation process to be successful, a commitment to the social and economic development of the country and to upholding the population’s basic rights, including the right to employment, health and education, is crucial.

  Robert Rochefort (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) with regard to democracy and the protection of human rights is extremely worrying. While the last presidential elections awarded victory to the outgoing President, the EU Election Observation Mission in the DRC reported a lack of transparency and credibility due to the numerous cases of fraud and irregularities detected. Furthermore, politically motivated human rights violations increased in the run-up to the presidential elections: repression targeted at human rights defenders and journalists worsened, and these people were subject to arbitrary arrests and intimidation. In view of this situation, and given that the EU’s financial contribution to these elections amounts to almost EUR 50 million, I voted in favour of this resolution, of which I am a co-author. Our text commits the Commission and the Member States in particular to make the EU’s financial contribution to the electoral process in the DRC dependent upon the effective implementation of the recommendations of the EU Election Observation Mission, and invites the Congolese authorities to ratify the African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance at the earliest opportunity.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. We believe that building a democratic society requires, above all, strong political will and the ambitious vision of political leaders, governments as well as the opposition, aiming at building political institutions to guarantee the human, social, economic and environmental rights of the population. Political leaders, civil society organisations, religious leaders and women’s associations in the DRC should reach a national consensus on adequate and appropriate institutions, established and agreed procedures through which democratic practice can be implemented.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The dispute over the results of the presidential and parliamentary elections in the Democratic Republic of Congo was inevitable and legitimate because the published outcome does not reflect what happened at the ballot box. The building of a democratic society requires strong political will and ambitious vision on the part of political leaders, governments and opposition groups, with the aim of building political institutions to guarantee the human, social, economic and environmental rights of the population. The Union must support the efforts of the Congolese authorities and regional organisations to promote democracy and good governance and to ensure free, transparent elections.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) According to the report by the EU’s Election Observation Mission (EOM) in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), the process of the latest elections, in November 2011, was marked by a lack of transparency and credibility, given the high number of irregularities recorded. Furthermore, the local and regional elections scheduled for 25 March this year have still not taken place and the authorities do not seem open to holding them. I consider it extremely important that the EOM’s 22 recommendations on the DRC be taken into account and applied by the relevant authorities, whilst nevertheless using the principle of conditionality. The creation of a constitutional court to monitor democratic principles and safeguard human rights, as well as the establishment of a national electoral commission, including civil society members, are key to the establishment of genuine rule of law.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Polling stations ablaze, attacks on convoys carrying electoral material, two police officers and a female voter dead: this was the prelude to the parliamentary and presidential elections in the Democratic Republic of Congo. In light of what has happened, I condemn such acts of violence and violation of the civil rights enshrined in the Declaration of Principles for International Election Observation missions adopted by the United Nations in October 2005; I deplore the flouting of the electoral legal framework; and I support the calls to set up a constitutional court to ensure more transparency in the electoral process, especially in the handling of electoral disputes.

  Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE), in writing. – The situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo is still a long way from democracy. There is a lack of respect for human rights, many activists and journalists are suffering abuse and repression, there are a lot of displaced persons and refugees because of the conflict, there is no independent judicial and media system, there is discrimination against women and it seems that the last electoral process was marred by a lack of transparency and credibility, due to the numerous irregularities and cases of fraud detected. The DRC deserves a better future. Building a democratic society requires, above all, strong political will. Because Congolese politicians are quite open to dialogue and to listening to European values, I will support this motion for a resolution.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – This report provides a range of recommendations that the EU expects to see implemented during the local and regional elections which will be held in 2014. The EP uses this resolution to remind how necessary for democracy it is to trust in electoral processes and their outcomes, the necessity of a firm commitment with the respect for the human rights and the importance of approaching the consensus between political forces and civil society.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) remains one of the countries with the greatest potential for natural wealth, particularly mineral, on the whole African continent and even in the world. Since its independence, there have been successive interventions and attacks from outside or via actors within the country itself, which have pushed it into a series of conflicts that have, almost uninterruptedly, generated immense contradiction between the country’s enormous potential and the extreme poverty in which the majority of its people live. Let us recall the murder of Patrice Lumumba, Prime Minister of the DRC, by imperialist conspirators backed by NATO, the Belgian Government and the CIA. This young pioneer of African unity, a staunch defender of the DRC’s sovereignty and of the people’s dignity and self-confidence, was a threat to the neo-colonialist intentions of the major world powers. More than 40 years later, the Congolese people’s struggle continues. For our part, we will continue supporting this struggle for sovereignty, for the country’s territorial integrity, and for its right to economic and social development. We need to defend the sovereignty of the Congolese people, to keep it free from any external interference, and to ensure that the country’s people and natural resources can be used to achieve their interests and aspirations.

  President. – That concludes the explanations of vote.

(The sitting was suspended at 14.30 and resumed at 15.00)

11. Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes

IN THE CHAIR: GIANNI PITTELLA
Vice-President

12. Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting: see Minutes

13. European Semester (debate)

  President. – The next item is the debate on the Commission statement on the European Semester.

  Olli Rehn, Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, let me first thank you on behalf of the Commission and my colleagues László Andor and Algirdas Šemeta for this opportunity to discuss the first real European Semester after the entry into force of the ‘six-pack’ legislation.

The Commission adopted two weeks ago its most important package of economic policy proposals of the year. We put forward country-specific recommendations for the reforms that are needed to deliver stability, growth and jobs in the 27 Member States and for their citizens. The Member States have taken last year’s recommendations seriously. Efforts have been made to implement them, but progress is still very uneven between Member States and more needs to be done.

To supplement national action, the European level must play its part. The Commission has put on the table concrete proposals to enhance sustainable growth; some of them have been on the table already for several months. They are about creating competitive services and energy markets, a digital single market, investing in infrastructure, promoting research and innovation, and getting better access to fast-growing markets around the world.

Such growth-enhancing structural policies must be supported by enhanced investment, public and private. We need more cross-border and Community investment in renewable energy and green growth, in transport and communication infrastructure, as well as in research and innovation. To this end, we have proposed an increase in the EIB’s lending capacity. We also welcome the recent agreement on our project bond proposal to unlock up to EUR 4.6 billion in a pilot phase. To support growth, we also need a European budget that has the magnitude and the means to invest in the future. In the talks on the next multiannual financial framework, I count on the full support of this House.

At the same time, with last week’s proposal on bank resolution, the EU is the first body in the world that has fully delivered on its G20 commitments to strengthen the regulation and supervision of the banking sector. This is a very important signal ahead of the G20 summit in Los Cabos, where one may expect some other leaders to be tempted to put the blame for the crisis only on Europe’s shoulders. And, as we said two weeks ago in our policy statement, we are preparing further steps towards a full economic union to complete our monetary union, including through a financial union. The main building blocks towards a financial union should include such common elements as a single rule book, integrated financial supervision, a common resolution authority and a single deposit insurance scheme. All these common and integrated elements should be part of the same overall framework, the overall construct, intended for the 27 Member States, while allowing stronger requirements and deeper integration for the euro area as necessary.

The basic principle is clear: the sharing of risk in the guarantee scheme calls for an integrated, strong supervision of the banking sector. There can be no further mutualisation of economic risk without deeper integration of decision making. In other words, to move further in mutualisation, it is necessary to strengthen our stability culture. This basic principle should guide the future construction of both financial and fiscal union.

The Commission supports a strong involvement of the European Parliament in the strengthened European Semester. In this context, I would like to thank Parliament, especially the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, for organising the opportunity to have an economic dialogue on the European Semester on Monday this week. I found it very substantive and constructive and I hope that this sentiment is shared. The Commission stands ready also, in future, to actively participate in any discussion on the outcome of this year’s European Semester. I trust that Parliament will fully engage in the multilateral surveillance of economic policies in the European Union and will be able to ensure that country-specific guidance will be both relevant and ambitious.

  Corien Wortmann-Kool, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (NL) Mr President, I would like to thank Commissioner Rehn for his presentation on the current status of the European Semester and on his other plans. You can count on our full support. It is really good that we are now half way through the first year of the European Semester and that it has become a very powerful instrument for better aligning our economic and budgetary policies. We have got rid of its non-committal elements and, thanks to this Parliament, the semester also forms part of the ‘six-pack’. Plus, the Commission’s powers have been significantly strengthened.

We would like to see transparent debates on the Commission’s recommendations and we would like the Council to really take them seriously, because that was something that was missing in the past. Therefore, it is important that, every time the Council fails to follow the Commission, the Council should come here and explain why it is not doing so and why it has taken a different position. In many previous cases, we have witnessed reverse voting take place.

Mr President, I would like to praise Commissioner Rehn for the thorough analysis he has tabled concerning the national reform programmes and stability programmes, as well as for his recommendations. It is now time that Member States seriously addressed them.

For that reason, it is a real pity that the Council is not attending today’s debate, because it is important that we conduct that debate among the three of us: Parliament, Commission and Council. What I can already see coming is that some countries will try to make deals in order to smooth over their rough edges, and I can also see that taking place in my own country, the Netherlands. We know that we need clear recommendations for all countries, but we tend to think those will not be needed when it comes to our own respective countries! However, if we continue with that train of thought, we will never haul ourselves out of this crisis and that is why we need to take this seriously. I hope that you will persevere in these efforts and ask for a public debate if the Council deviates from your recommendations.

  Stephen Hughes, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, I would like to make two points in my two minutes. This morning, President Barroso proposed an interinstitutional agreement on a growth initiative to properly involve the European Parliament in the process.

My first point is about democracy. I welcome President Barroso’s proposal, but I would also like to recall that two years ago, this Parliament voted for something much more important: an interinstitutional agreement on the European Semester. We must make the European Semester process truly democratic.

Commissioner Rehn, you reminded our Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on Monday that the new economic dialogue provision in the ‘six-pack’ expects the Council, as a general rule, to follow the recommendations and proposals of the Commission. Those recommendations cover essential elements of national policy: labour market regulation, pension systems, collective bargaining practices and so on. It is simply not acceptable that such recommendations are meant to be followed by Member States without the proper democratic involvement of both national and European Parliaments. That democratic deficit needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency.

My second point concerns the economic situation. Today, we have voted on the so-called ‘two-pack’, but we have still not made any progress in recognising the importance of public investment as a key part of national budgetary policies. Public investment is now to be increasingly addressed, as you have said, through European instruments, for example, through an increased role for the EIB and the pilot project on project bonds.

But these instruments will not be enough to solve the growing public investment deficit across the Member States. Public investment is at least 1% of GDP too low now, and that will not be made up via these instruments.

The Commission needs to provide solid estimates of public investment needs between now and 2020, taking account of existing policy objectives. It then needs to indicate as precisely as possible how those needs are to be met. Only then will we be able to assess whether the proposed instrument will address the public investment deficit or whether, as we believe, we need to go further. We believe that we need to address that deficit systematically within the rules on economic governance through a new growth regulation. Only in that way will we find a sensible balance between austerity and growth.

  Philippe De Backer, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, the road towards a true economic and fiscal union to complement our monetary union is, of course, full of hurdles. The new legislation in force on economic governance, reinforced today with the voting of the ‘two-pack’ in Parliament, has given new tools to the Commission to ensure that Member States choose the right part of a growth-friendly fiscal consolidation, but also stick to their country-specific recommendations.

As a Liberal, I truly believe that reforms of our economy and social system, such as labour market reforms and pension reforms, should be at the heart of regaining competitiveness in the eurozone. But unfortunately, in the past months, we have seen that some Member States have overly contradicted the country-specific recommendations.

Let us take the example of France. It has stated that it will undo the pension reforms and lower the retirement age. This is completely against the spirit of the recommendations given to France to ensure that all workers stay in employment longer.

Also in my own country, Belgium, wage setting hampers regaining competitiveness, but socialist members of governments have openly said that they will not address this problem. This is a perfect example of how countries choose not to show solidarity with other countries within the eurozone. As long as Member States keep looking to other Member States to enlarge the competitiveness of the Union and are not able or willing to implement or reform in their own country, the fundamental economic crisis in Europe will not end.

We must ensure that Member States finally take ownership of the European Semester and implement the structural reforms needed. We must ensure that, instead of blaming the European Union for everything that goes wrong, Member States are made responsible and more accountable for their policies. The Commission will have to ensure that Member States put into practice what they preach, but how will it make sure that Member States within the Council show the necessary solidarity with each other and commit to the fiscal consolidation and structural reforms as requested through the European Semester or enable the European Union to be the frontrunner in attracting private investment to regain competitiveness and growth? True solidarity implies responsibility from all Member States. Member States should stop hiding behind Europe, but instead use the full potential that Europe has to get out of this crisis.

  Sven Giegold, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, I believe that the European Semester is a key element of continued economic cooperation in Europe. Unless we succeed in aligning our economic policy guidelines more closely, the euro will come to a sticky end. That is why it is so interesting to see what the reality test looks like now, one year on.

In fact, the reality test looks very varied. There are countries like Bulgaria, a true model pupil when it comes to implementing the recommendation, which scarcely anyone would likely have expected. And there are other countries like Slovenia, Slovakia, Malta and Spain, which have so far implemented almost nothing. Overall, the results are rather mixed. Turning to my own country, Germany, which is currently regarded as the model pupil, I can only say, as regards the recommendations of the Commission: Hats off, you have really put your finger on some of the sore points of German economic policy! You say that the low paid should be taxed less and be less burdened with social contributions. You say that we should levy ecological taxes more and burden the low paid less. And you also say we should dismantle some excessive professional regulation. I can only say that you are right. And you also say that the education system in Germany offers too few chances to those who do not come from strong parental homes. You are absolutely right. If I look at implementation in Germany, I would have to say that, in fact, nothing at all has happened in this direction.

The fact that, as regards the assessment of the European Semester by the Commission, one has to look long and hard for it, makes me a little suspicious. One can find the assessment in working papers, where, under the relevant points, the phrase ‘partially implemented’ is written. However, the ‘partially’ really represents a very small part. One has the feeling that you are really looking for something to justify the ‘partially’.

We now need two things. First, as regards the test, are the proposals that are not implemented submitted again? The only answer I can give is that, in the case of Germany, that is what you did. Fine, you demonstrated courage. You are also confronting Germany with it. When checking whether implementation took place or not, you hid rather too much behind the small print. I would like to see you have more courage to say clearly who did what and to say it like it is. This enables us citizens, policy makers and the media to really look into the matter and to bring the European Semester project to a successful conclusion.

(The speaker agreed to take two blue-card questions under Rule 149(8))

  Csanád Szegedi (NI), Blue-card question. – (HU) Mr Giegold, you mentioned in your speech that some countries were at the forefront of resolving the crisis, while others have barely done anything to this end. The problem is that due to weakened economic competitiveness and economic loss, the magnitude of the austerity measures applied within countries is such that the population, especially in Central and Eastern European countries, can no longer bear them.

My question is this: is this the fault of the population, or is it the fault of the states with their immeasurable corruption, as seen, for example, in connection with the embezzlement of European Union subsidies? What do you suggest to ensure that it is not the people who are subjected to austerity and that it is not the people who have to pay the costs but the governments? Some kind of anti-corruption plan maybe, which could ensure that European Union funds reach their actual targets and do not end up in the pockets of private individuals? Thank you in advance for your kind answer.

  Sven Giegold (Verts/ALE), Blue-card answer. – (DE) To be honest, I never claimed to say which country is doing everything right and which country is doing everything wrong with regard to crisis policy. I was simply seeking to ascertain which countries had performed well and which had not according to the Commission’s assessment.

The purpose of this discussion today is to talk about the European Semester and not generally about problems of corruption and the distribution of the Structural Funds. We know that we have problems with corruption, but that is not what we are talking about. The issue here is which countries have implemented the country-specific recommendations, and I named the countries that had particular difficulties in this regard.

  Andreas Schwab (PPE), Blue-card question. – (DE) Mr President, I listened carefully to what Mr Giegold said. He first praised the European Semester, which considers and assesses economic policy issues. However, in so doing, he also made the assumption that the Commission had criticised the education system, presumably in Germany, as being too impermeable.

You praised that. Now, I would like to ask Mr Giegold the following questions. Has it escaped you that youth unemployment in Germany is at an historic low? Has it escaped you that job opportunities for Germany’s citizens are better than in any other country? And do you have any reason to believe that the training conditions in Germany are particularly poor?

  Sven Giegold (Verts/ALE), Blue-card answer. – (DE) Mr Schwab, you are aware of the PISA results for Germany, and they are, quite frankly, not particularly presentable. As far as permeability is concerned, if you grow up in a parental home with parents who are relatively uneducated, then in Germany, your chances of going to university or leaving school with the Abitur are pretty slim. And the Commission quite rightly draws attention to that.

That there are job openings in Germany is correct. However, most of them are in the low pay sector. We now have 25% of jobs in the low pay sector. The people who suffer from poor educational opportunities are the same people who get stuck in low paid jobs. Unfortunately, very little is being done by the current government about either problem: the permeability of the education system or the eradication of low paid jobs. The fact that the Commission dares to point this out is truly laudable.

  Franz Obermayr (NI). – (DE) Mr President, I will be very brief. I just have one request. We are used to hearing British Members of Parliament debating British issues that do not really interest us. Let us get back to the topic. Rather than listen to a domestic political debate between Liberal and Conservative Members of Parliament, I would be grateful if we focused on what is on the agenda, namely, the European Semester.

  President. – OK, but I believe Mr Giegold is from the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance. For now, he has transferred temporarily to the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, but only temporarily, I believe. He has just changed seat; he is still registered with the Greens. The debate will now continue.

  Vicky Ford, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, in these recommendations, some countries are being told to do what they are already doing and some countries, like France, are doing the opposite of what they are being told. The problem is that the people in Europe see the Commission saying one thing to our Member States but then often doing another thing in the European institutions.

So I have three recommendations for the Commissioner. Firstly, on the EU budget: stop wasting taxpayers’ money on vanity projects and make sure that we really are getting value for money in that budget; secondly, cut bureaucracy for businesses so that they can grow, which should be an urgent priority for the EU; and thirdly, sort out the banks. You will not mend bankrupt banks by burying their problems in a banking union.

  Mario Borghezio, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, when this declaration was written, perhaps no one envisaged that, when the time came to debate it, the spread would have been consistently over 500 and, God forbid, even at 600 for Spain and, God forbid indeed, for Italy too.

So, we want to combat speculation. This morning, President Barroso extolled to us the virtues of his solution of creating a European banking union. This, however, actually amounts to a way for the European Union to get its hands on our savings. Banking union will not protect European savers. National governments will lose any powers that they have or want to have over their respective national banking systems, whose contents will be poured into an undifferentiated melting pot of debt.

In essence, banking union is an attempt, and quite a blatant one at that, to ward off insolvency in the Spanish banking system today by using the savings of the other euro area Member States, even poor Italy, harshly enough. It seems, then, to be a preventive strike against the growing support for the real reform that could solve the problem of this bankrupt system: in other words, banking separation or the Glass-Steagall Act. Essentially, this means separating savings banks from investment banks, which is the only way to prevent savings from being used to plug gaps or being lost when the speculators fail.

We are witnessing the umpteenth attempt to contain a crisis by isolating it, as if the crisis were not affecting the entire euro area. This attempt must be stopped before it is too late.

  Jürgen Klute, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in June 2010, the Heads of State or Government of the EU Member States finally acknowledged that the European Community needs a more closely coordinated financial and economic policy. At the summit, they ‘invented’ the European Semester, so to speak. It is perfectly right that members of the Economic and Monetary Union should not simply consider how their policies affect businesses, workers and consumers in their own country. A European perspective is needed.

An internal market without a coordinated economic, wage and social policy may tempt Member States to create short-term growth and jobs at the expense of neighbouring countries. Such imbalances can cause monetary union to fragment, both economically and politically. That is precisely the situation currently facing the EU. The German economy has cut the ground from under its neighbours’ feet for years. There has been no stimulus from investment and wage growth. Instead, Berlin has brought the euro area to the brink of collapse with a decade of aggressive export policy.

It is therefore gratifying that the Commission is now slowly wising up to this core problem of the euro crisis in its country-specific recommendations. It is therefore right and proper that the Federal Republic is called upon to invest more in education, research and child care and that the Commission demands that it put a stop to the abuse of so-called ‘mini jobs’ and adapt wage growth to productivity growth. This is a belated but important insight.

I hope, Commissioner Rehn, that you will put this demand vehemently to the German Government, even though there is no formal procedure for surplus countries.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, back in October 2010, it was obvious to all of us that the European Semester was a first step towards necessary reforms which would clearly change the face of European economic policy. The European Semester is a very thorough and extensive analysis of the entire European economy. On 30 May, the Commission adopted the global package of its analysis with the country-specific recommendations. It came as no real surprise to us that economic imbalances exist in Spain and Cyprus. However, we can see quite clearly where other Member States still have to do their homework.

My first conclusion is that the European Semester has survived its baptism of fire. Together with the ‘six-pack’ and the ‘two-pack’, which are on the table, in my opinion, strengthening the coordination of European economic and fiscal policies is well under way. However, this is not praise; rather it has to be taken as a warning. In view of the persistent national debt crises in Europe, there is an urgent need for thought and action that go beyond these measures.

  Theodor Dumitru Stolojan (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, I firmly believe that of all the instruments and institutions created in the wake of the crisis, the European Semester is, as far as I see it, perhaps the most important, and can also become the most effective instrument for preventing and correcting financial, budgetary and economic imbalances, as well as for preventing another crisis in the future. I hope that the Commission will also take just as firm a line on the way in which Member States are going to implement the recommendations, because what we call the European Semester is basically a continuous process which runs for a year and will be repeated every year.

However, I would like to use my speech also to stress an extremely important point concerning national parliaments: the role of national parliaments in the European Semester. I would like to tell you that this spring, at the initiative of the Danish Presidency, a meeting of national parliaments took place, which also included a debate on their role within the European Semester. I observed then the desire of these national parliaments to be involved in this process. National parliaments now have the opportunity to get involved directly in seeing how governments adopt the measures needed to implement the recommendations made as part of the European Semester. I, too, believe that it is important for us to continue this exchange of experience between national parliaments, at the European Parliament’s initiative, so that they really feel that they are playing a direct, responsible part in this process represented by the European Semester.

  Pervenche Berès (S&D). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, we already had the opportunity to address this issue in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on Monday evening.

I would like to make several comments. The first is that, in these country-specific recommendations that you have just made, we basically believe that the fundamental question that should be settled, were all these recommendations to be implemented, is that of macro-economic imbalances within the Union. When you examine this jigsaw of recommendations, you wonder whether we really do have all the tools we need to correct these macro-economic imbalances, whether, in particular, we can make the management of the euro area as a whole as effective as we would like it to be.

Then, when I look at the specific recommendations that you have made for France, a country with which I am well acquainted, I am struck by the fact that at no time did you say that these recommendations had been made on the basis of a document submitted to you by a government since defeated in the elections. In this document, you are acting on the results of five years of Presidency by Nicolas Sarkozy. You say that, over five years, France lost 19.4% of its external competitiveness. The French people’s response to that is to say that they would like VAT to be revised, the pension reform to be revised and the minimum wage boosted.

However, you say precisely the opposite in the recommendations that you make to this country. That raises an issue of democracy. Mr Hughes has already said this in the name of my group, but I shall say it again in this particular instance. We shall not succeed collectively if, in the Member States, we feel that there is a diktat drawn up in Brussels which ignores the political realities of our countries. You must answer this question.

In this Parliament, as you know, we are all in favour of integration, of greater strength together at a European level, because we know that only together shall we be able to recover. However, if you do this against the people, against their political choices, we shall go to the wall. You must answer this question, Commissioner.

  Marije Cornelissen (Verts/ALE). – (NL) Mr President, Commissioners, I could not agree more with a lot of points in the country-specific recommendations. It is an excellent idea to rap the Netherlands on the knuckles for its failure to help women, the disabled, immigrants and the elderly into work, but that message is not loud enough because the semester does not have an audience. It seldom involves NGOs, social partners, or even national parliaments. Therefore, it does not get talked about so much in the press and voters do not take much notice of what the Commission has said when they go to the polls.

I challenge the Commissioners to carry out a survey among national parliamentarians and to ask them how many of the five 2020 targets they can name. I am prepared to stake a big box of Belgian chocolates that 90% would not be able to name even one. We need to raise the democratic standard of the semester so that Member States define their policies much more in line with the semester, and I am not just talking about goals and sanctions, but about all the other targets too.

Fortunately, this is an annual process and next year, we will have the opportunity to go about it better.

  Csanád Szegedi (NI). – (HU) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in connection with the European Semester, I find the European Union’s message that it intends to reduce economic disparities between Member States to be very important. However, ladies and gentlemen, facts are stubborn things. European Semester or no European Semester, the figures indicate that over the recent period, disparities between wealthier and poorer countries continued to grow. This leads me to the regrettable conclusion that the European Union lacks a clear and explicit strategy or concept in this respect.

We submit that if taking the European Semester, the Cohesion Funds and everything else together, we truly wish to reduce the differences that exist between wealthier and poorer Member States, then we must create jobs. We must re-launch production in Eastern European and Central and Eastern European countries. And I beg you, please do not consolidate banks for the umpteenth time! Someone should finally consolidate the people in Europe!

  Danuta Maria Hübner (PPE). – Mr President, I would say that the European Semester process is undoubtedly doing a good job by enhancing economic governance, on the one hand, and enhancing policy coordination, on the other. I also believe that this year’s outcome demonstrates visibly how much the adoption of the ‘six-pack’ has contributed to the semester progress, especially through giving more power to the European Commission.

But I also believe that this is a learning process for all of us and, on the basis of the experience of the two cycles, let me point to one or two challenges, as I see them, that this process is facing.

In my view, one of the issues is certainly the timing factor. I was thinking that maybe further adjustments with regard to the timing factor could be considered by the Commission, for example, better alignment of the timing of the release of the Annual Growth Survey, which targets the entire EU27 family, and the Alert Mechanism Report, which is introduced by the ‘six-pack’ and which targets specific Member States. Perhaps better alignment and sense of timing could increase the efficiency of the process.

Another area which is also important is linked to the fact that forecasts are never perfect. As the Annual Growth Survey is based on the forecast prepared by the Commission and then there are those budgetary adjustment recommendations, I was wondering whether the Commission has already seen any risks, in terms of the changing reality, that do not fully match the forecasts?

It would also be interesting, following on from what colleagues have already mentioned, to hear how the Commission sees the proportions between the EU recommendations respected by the Member States and those decisions which are made nationally, irrespective of the recommendations.

My very last comment is that what we have seen this year is a visibly enhanced European Parliament role, where again I think the ‘six-pack’ and the economic dialogue have made the difference.

  Mojca Kleva (S&D). – (SL) Mr President, in its assessment of Slovenia’s National Reform Programme, the Commission wrote that no major structural reform had been agreed to in the previous year. In the interests of strengthening market forces, lasting fiscal consolidation is now more urgent than it was a year ago.

Although I agree with most of the Commission’s analysis, I cannot support it, mainly for two reasons.

Firstly, what I find to be missing is an analysis of the implications of the austerity measures on people’s welfare. Nor is there any pressure for reform of the labour market with a focus on young people and youth unemployment. This is not only lacking in Slovenia’s assessment, but also in most other assessments.

I call on the Commission to include as soon as possible the issue of youth unemployment, as one of the sub-objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy, in the European Semester.

Secondly, as a member of this Parliament, I have virtually no impact on the European Semester process, which is currently used to put pressure on Member States and impose long-term policy prescriptions that clearly violate the subsidiarity principle.

We need to open up a political debate on the Commission’s prescriptions; we need to improve the democratic legitimacy of the European Semester and we need to narrow the gap between the European Parliament’s voice and that of the Commission or the Council with an interinstitutional agreement.

  Andreas Schwab (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the European Semester will be the time of the year when the European Commission makes country-specific recommendations on the development of economic and budgetary policy. I consider it an extraordinarily positive development that we are moving rapidly from the general macro-level towards country-specific recommendations and also towards criticism.

However, Mr President, Commissioner Rehn, I believe that we also need to be careful. The debate we have just had, which Mr Obermayr considered rather country-specific, was, in fact, always in danger of meddling in things that had nothing to do with the European Semester. That is why I believe that we must be careful not to engage at this point in general criticism of specific countries or specific establishments in countries but to quite specifically address issues of economic, budgetary and financial policy.

I also believe that a second point needs to be made. The implementation of what we have achieved in the European internal market acquis is absolutely crucial and relevant for development in Europe.

Commissioner Rehn, we are going to hold the next debate on this issue straight away. Would it not be helpful, in the context of this assessment of the individual countries through the country-specific recommendations, to raise the issue of the implementation of internal market legislation? Without wishing to give the wrong impression – many other countries are involved, including Germany – I would like to say that Bulgaria, which has just been mentioned, though judged a model pupil on economic issues through the European Semester, needs to catch up, for example, in the implementation of the internal market acquis. However, Europe can only succeed if we take issues of budgetary policy, financial policy, economic policy and internal market legislation together. I would therefore strongly suggest that we investigate the inclusion of issues relating to the implementation of internal market legislation in the assessment of countries in the context of the country-specific recommendations.

  Elisa Ferreira (S&D). – (PT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Europe has three agendas before it today: the growth agenda, the bank oversight agenda and the sovereign debt management agenda. Dealing with the European Semester involves including all three of these aspects.

On the growth issue, I think it is important to stress now that the Commission recommendations cannot just apply to countries with deficits: they must also apply to countries with surpluses too and, if some countries have to squeeze their domestic demand, the others have to free it up.

I also think that, in growth terms, it is essential that the Commission monitor the recommendations of the so-called troika because, when a country enters recession, it cannot carry on squeezing its public investment, its public spending, as if nothing had happened. The troika must revise and adjust its measures in line with results. I want to tell you, Commissioner, that we in Parliament have today agreed on the need to launch immediately an instrument for growth and for anti-cyclical activity to the value of 1% of the European Union’s GDP over 10 years. The second key issue is what is now being called banking union. We in Parliament called for this to be done two years ago in a June 2010 report, but it has yet to be realised. The third issue is that of sovereign debt, which is a precondition for stability in Europe. I also want to say that we have adopted the ‘two-pack’ here today but that we incorporated into it, in addition to austerity, something of the other aspect that has been missing, and that is the immediate setting up of a redemption fund – to use a German term – so that sovereign debt exceeding 60% can be jointly managed. This is a legislative text and we are awaiting the Commission’s support for this initiative by Parliament, so that we can bring under control this horribly threatening spiral that is currently destroying the European Union.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Antonio Cancian (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to ask you, Commissioner, and the Commission what you think, not what is the next set of compromises to be made with the Council, but what is your opinion, individually and collectively. The question is this: do you really think, with the budgetary resources and the urgency dictated by this momentous economic situation, that ways can be found and the right conditions can be established to keep Europe on its feet? Are you really just thinking, when you talk of growth, of the EUR 4 billion in project bonds issued between this year and the next, of the increased capacity of the European Investment Bank (EIB), because it must be kept going partly for what it has done in the past, or of the state of the single, digital, economic or other markets? Do you really think that this resolution uses time and resources to best effect, when the regions are crying out for relief, when states are making enormous sacrifices to the point that some people have even killed themselves? Do you really think that Europe should be proposing normal measures in abnormal times like these?

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D). – (SK) Mr President, the deepening crisis, inequality, differences in competitiveness and ever-increasing social differences – this is the situation in which the European Union finds itself at present. Differences since the launch of the euro and the general functioning of the financial system have drawn attention, in particular, to the fact that we must address the macro-economic imbalances better and more effectively. It is essential that we carry out better budgetary surveillance. We need better economic governance based on greater responsibility for the rules and procedures that we have agreed together. It is equally important to tighten the control of national economic policies at EU level. The current stage of the crisis requires resolute and courageous responses. Member States must, at long last, consider their economic and fiscal policies to be a matter of our common, European interest. All our experience to date clearly shows that we urgently need to coordinate the introduction and implementation of fiscal measures better and, in particular – I want to stress this, Commissioner – to fight tax fraud and evasion more effectively. Let us cancel counter-productive measures and, finally, focus on new and effective ones.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Mr President, all we have to do is look at the economic policy recommendations disseminated by the European Commission to understand the purpose and deeper goals of the European Semester. In relation to Portugal, for example, the Commission has just advocated wage cuts, plain and simple; in a country that already has some of the lowest wages in Europe; in a country in which millions of workers have become impoverished despite having a job and many others are becoming impoverished every day; in a country in which many have been dragged into the most extreme poverty. It also advocated cutting unemployment benefit, in a country where unemployment has hit historic levels because of the policies imposed by the European Union and the IMF; in a country where long-term unemployment has increased. Those were the Commission’s recommendations. That is the purpose of this coordination: coordinating the assault on social rights and coordinating the levelling down of Europe’s living and working conditions. That is why they wanted the European Semester.

  Andrew Henry William Brons (NI). – Mr President, the establishment of the European Semester two years ago was based on the assumption that the Commission initially and, in the end, the Heads of State or Government and the European Council, know what is best for each individual Member State better than the government of that Member State does.

The assumption is self-evidently false.

Furthermore, the government of each Member State is elected directly or indirectly and responsible to the electorate, whereas the Commission has no responsibility to any electorate and the European Council as a whole has no responsibility to the electorate of any particular state.

Coming to the substantive content of the guidelines, the Economic and Financial Affairs Council meeting on 21 February said in paragraph 20, and I quote, ‘to promote competitiveness, reforms need to focus on labour markets, in particular, wage setting mechanisms to ensure efficient adjustment of labour costs’.

This means that in the globalist economy facilitated by the EU, the wage rates of European workers must fall to the levels of those in the emergent economies.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI). – (DE) Mr President, instead of finally addressing the real problems of the euro area, the European Union – as we are all aware – has stuck its head in the sand and is trying to stay afloat with marketing strategies. This European Semester has, in my opinion, long been overtaken by reality, though it should ensure greater financial transparency.

We have all had to learn the hard way, in the wake of the euro crisis, that economic growth and success cannot be imposed by decree. That the EU is unable to ensure compliance with agreed financial criteria has already been demonstrated by the utterly ineffective Stability Pact.

As we now know, monetary union is a folly, which was doomed to failure from the outset because of the huge differences in the economic conditions of its members. Instead of moving towards greater centralisation, which, it is now clear, is the general intention, we must revert to a union of States with equal rights, which can, under certain circumstances, implement their own economic and monetary policy. Plainly, a hard currency zone would be viable. We all know that.

  Franz Obermayr (NI). – (DE) Mr President, in the context of the European Semester, for the first time, the Commission assessed stability and convergence in the Member States as well as the reform programmes concerned. The macro-economic imbalances of twelve Member States were also analysed for the first time. However, I do not expressly wish to focus on the individual details. I welcome the fact that the Commission has reconsidered its original position and it is now clear that only deficits are to be sanctioned. We do not need a Soviet-style planned economy, where we still punish countries that run surpluses.

I do not welcome – and I do not entirely understand the reason for – the Commission’s criticism of tax splitting. The Commission describes tax splitting as inhibiting access to the labour market. In my opinion, however, family tax splitting is an important measure to support families. Particularly in times of crisis, we absolutely need to ensure that establishing a family does not lead to the poverty trap, even if a wage should happen to be temporarily lost.

End of the catch-the-eye procedure

  Olli Rehn, Vice-President of the Commission. – (FI) Mr President, honourable Members, I wish to thank you for your input and for this very serious debate, which reflects the serious economic situation that we in Europe find ourselves in at present.

Unfortunately, there is insufficient time to reply to all the questions and comments that are so well justified in themselves, and which you have asked or made in connection with this debate. This is especially the case since, after me, there will be an opportunity for Commissioners Andor and Šemeta to speak on matters that concern them directly. However, this is also a reflection of the fact that we have every reason to continue this dialogue on economic policy, in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, for example. On the other hand, I am, of course, ready at any time to return to this House or to this plenary Chamber.

Two central questions that were mentioned in this debate were, firstly, that ownership in the Member States is a key issue for the success of this new coordination of economic policy, as, for example, Ms Wortmann-Kool and Mr Hughes pointed out, and, from this point of view, it is worth remembering that the new approach to economic governance and policy coordination has been unanimously adopted by the 27 Member States and the European Parliament. This is a very democratic way of proceeding, as all the Member States and Parliament have together decided and agreed on how the Union’s economic governance should be strengthened.

The Commission’s role in this new system will be to make recommendations on the basis of an economic analysis, and to consider how the Member States need to develop their own economic and financial policies, from the perspective of sustainable growth, competitiveness and employment. This is the approach that we have taken, and it is worth remembering that, within the context of this new system of economic governance, there is an important act, which emphasises the importance of the economic policy dialogue: as a general rule, the Council will be expected to follow and comply with the Commission’s recommendations. If not, the Council will have to explain why it is deviating from the Commission’s recommendations.

This also means the end of the usual political dithering or political trade-offs in the Council, which once led to the erosion of the Stability and Growth Pact, thanks to horse-trading by Germany and France, which Italy, as the country holding the Presidency, supported. That time has now passed and now, by virtue of the reverse qualified majority procedure established with your support, we are in a much better position to ensure that Member States either follow recommendations or have to explain why not, or be otherwise liable for the consequences. In other words, this provides a much stronger European perspective for issues where we need the European point of view because there is so much interdependence among the Member States and the consequences of economic policy, especially bad economic policy, are felt everywhere else in the European Union, particularly within the euro area.

The other central issue has been to examine the imbalances in the overall economy from the point of view of growth, a subject on which Mr De Backer and Mr Giegold emphatically focused attention. In this connection, I would like to point out that, in our recommendations, we have looked at the European Union as a whole and considered how we can best strengthen the basis for growth through measures taken in countries with either a deficit or a surplus, and, indeed, Europe is now witnessing a very difficult but much needed attempt to balance the books. In countries with a deficit, there is a need to achieve a surplus in the economy, so that they can bring their indebtedness under control and on a downward path. This will inevitably mean that competitiveness will have to strengthen and that levels of employment will have to improve. On the other hand, those countries showing a surplus will also need to make their contribution to the general effort, and, in this respect, it is important that they introduce structural reforms to strengthen domestic demand, thereby providing support for a boost to the European economy generally.

Mr President, honourable Members, I wish to thank you for a very professional and serious debate. I want to continue it with you, but now I give the floor to Mr Šemeta and Mr Andor.

IN THE CHAIR: OLDŘICH VLASÁK
Vice-President

  László Andor, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, because of time pressure, let me respond in a nutshell to my portfolio issues – or rather, I should say, three little nutshells, one of them about the very charming German dialogue which emerged at a certain point in the Chamber.

Indeed, we believe that on quite a few issues in employment and social affairs, Germany offers very good models and very good practices. Let me just highlight the importance of dual training and the resulting low level of youth unemployment, and the intensity and quality of the social dialogue, which should also be seen as a model for others. It is true that on some other issues which we highlighted in the document, like rising in-work poverty and the so-called ‘mini jobs’ which threaten the segmentation of the labour market, while this is obviously not yet such a serious issue as in some southern countries, it is an emerging problem with implications for others as well. That is why we believe it is very important to reverse this and act against it. There is also a need to act more forcefully on the gender dimension for creating equal opportunities in the labour market for women.

Another small nutshell, on pensions. There was a reference to developments in France after the elections. I believe that in some Member States, including France and Italy, very important pension reforms have been designed and implemented, and it is very important to consolidate these reforms. However, we do not judge these developments from the headlines of either the tabloids or the political press, and I need to find out the real implications of the proposed new developments that came out of France. It is about fine-tuning in order to consolidate a reform.

I believe I will have an opportunity to discuss this with the Ministers as early as next week in the EPSCO Council and to see what the real magnitude and implication is of the otherwise very impressive slogans that emerged and probably played a role in recent weeks in the political discussion in France.

The third point I would like to make is that the country-specific recommendations, together with the entire semester, cover a wide range of issues, but they do not cover everything, and many issues including, for example, youth unemployment, cannot be fully covered. We put great emphasis on youth unemployment in the semester and in the country-specific recommendations where this is relevant, but we are taking many actions which are not covered here. They take place outside, and include the very significant reallocation of the ESF or Structural Fund resources. This is, of course, something to which one should pay attention and not just assume that because it is not highlighted again and again in every single document, it will not make an impact.

Similarly, about public investment and other forms of investment in physical, but also in human capital: there are certainly references in this document, but I believe it would be very relevant to link the comments we have heard to the discussion on the next MFF, because these need to be long-term commitments and are part of the long-term structural development of the financial architecture of the European Union.

  Algirdas Šemeta, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, as some honourable Members have rightly pointed out, this year’s European Semester puts a special emphasis on tax issues. This is fully justified at a time when the road towards a stronger fiscal union would mean, as President Barroso explained this morning, more coordination on taxation policy.

At a time when the consolidation efforts of our Member States go well beyond expenditure, it is important to remember that some ways of increasing revenues are less distortive than others and more pro-growth. Our recommendations in the field of taxation, which go out to all Member States except Finland and Slovenia, are focused largely on five areas which are fundamental to quality tax systems.

What do we recommend? First, we recommend tax shifts from labour taxation towards more growth-friendly taxation. This recommendation was given to eleven Member States. We also consider that some Member States could put more emphasis on green taxation and make their taxation systems greener. Green taxation is much less harmful to growth than taxes on labour.

We also recommend to some Member States that they broaden their tax bases and also reduce their debt barriers in corporate and housing taxation. It is very important to take this into account because in some Member States, these taxation barriers actually caused high corporate and household indebtedness, which was one of the causes of the current crisis.

Finally, we recommend our Member States to improve their tax governance, particularly by intensifying their fight against tax fraud and tax evasion. We are currently preparing the proposals which will be submitted to the European Council at the end of this month regarding how we could better address the issue of tax fraud and tax evasion.

A few more urgent actions are needed at EU level to contribute to the growth and jobs agenda. The first of these is an agreement on the savings directive and a mandate to negotiate with the Swiss. I hope that the European Council at the end of this month will give finance ministers strong guidelines and ambitious timing targets towards an agreement.

Then we have to push for progress on FTT and on ETD, which are both on the agenda of next week’s Council meeting. A lot of technical work has been done and it is now up to the Member States, after this Parliament expressed its support, to accept their responsibility and prove that tax coordination can progress.

  President. – The debate is closed.

14. Future of the Single Market Act (debate)

  President. – The next item is the statement by the Commission on the future of the Single Market Act.

  Michel Barnier, Member of the Commission. – (FR) Mr President, good afternoon to you all.

Ladies and gentlemen, we are at a critical point in European integration: there will be an important European Council meeting in a few days, and there is the choice that the Greek people will make on Sunday … However, I certainly do not believe that this should be a time for pessimism or alarmism. It should be a time to be proactive, responsible and determined. The world is watching us and waiting to see what we do. That became apparent to me again, recently, on the other side of the Atlantic, in Canada and in the United States.

We should remind this world that is watching us and waiting to see what we do that not all of the world’s problems come from Europe. We should remember that the financial crisis was not born in Europe. It was born very much in the United States with all the consequences that continue to affect us. We must say to this world that is watching us: ‘You can be demanding, impatient, critical of Europe, but be fair and equitable. Be realistic and look at what we have been doing for the last two or three years to learn the lessons from these crises and to restore order to the economic, budgetary and political functioning of the European Union’.

Undoubtedly, the time has come, ladies and gentlemen, to state our confidence, as I am doing to you, in our institutions and in our capacity to take the right decisions and to implement them, our confidence also in the capacity of Greece and the Greek people to retain their place and their role in the euro area and in the Union.

One thing is certain and it is that we will not get out of these crises by the same route we went in. We are tackling this crisis of confidence, of the markets and, first and foremost, of our citizens, and we must assert our strategy for exiting the crisis and open up new prospects, in the short and in the medium term, for economic and political integration within the European Union.

What are the problems and what do we need?

We now know that there can be no single currency without solidarity and without joint economic discipline. That is why we need renewed economic and monetary union. We have made progress. Mr Rehn has won the support and the commitment of the European Parliament

We know that the financial crisis and the vulnerability of the banks are at the root of the States’ budgetary problems and the euro crisis. That is why we need to go further and, in particular, construct the banking union mentioned by President Barroso.

Whether we are talking about supervision, the single rulebook, or resolution, we must go further than what has been proposed over recent months or what has been proposed just now.

The Member States will have to be proactive, consistent and ready to make an effort and choose truly European solutions. I am thinking, in particular, of the issue of deposit guarantees, which is currently being held up at second reading, due no doubt to a lack of ambition on the part of Council.

We now finally know that Europe must be built with its people, and not without them, with the true democratic legitimacy that you represent. That is why, further down the road, there must be strengthened political union, as Chancellor Merkel was saying recently.

Ladies and gentlemen, today we are talking about the future of the internal market, which has been, for the last 60 years, the first stage, the first basis for European political integration. The role of the Commission is indeed to propose working for the Union as a whole, the EU 27, on the basis of the Community method, with only one single market including the financial services. This EU27, soon to be 28, is, might I remind you, our foremost asset in working towards recovering growth.

All current and future reforms are more likely to succeed if the big single market functions better. Neither Parliament nor the Commission has been surprised by all that has been said in this debate on growth over the past few weeks.

For two years, we, the Commission and Parliament, have worked together to put this strategy back on track with Europe 2020, the Monti report and then the reports by your fellow Members, Mr Grech, Ms Kalniete, Mr Correia de Campos and Mr Buşoi. Thanks to all these combined efforts, I was able to submit to you, on 13 April 2011, the Single Market Act, with a view to adding this potential for growth and confidence beyond the consolidation of public finances, to reconstructing the bases for growth from a better functioning of the single market.

We had worked well together. The Commission finally produced the 12 priority measures of the Single Market Act, which are now in the legislative pipeline and we have even managed to come to an agreement between Parliament and the Council on one of them, namely, standardisation. I hope that, in a few days, we will come to an agreement on a second of the 12 key measures, this time relating to the European patent. European companies have been waiting for this for 30 years.

What more should we do, ladies and gentlemen, as we have not yet achieved this return to growth? First, make what we have already decided within the framework of the internal market function properly. I shall call this the ‘quick wins’, a new growth in services.

I shall not go into detail about the importance of the service economy here on our European continent but services do account for 65% of GDP and 70% of total employment. They have been behind the creation of almost 11 million jobs over the last 10 years.

If there are positive results from the transposition of the Services Directive, we shall have to go further given the importance of this text for the daily functioning of our internal market.

We, in the Commission, believe that we could find between + 0.8% and + 2.6% growth in the internal market if the Services Directive reached its full potential. That is precisely the objective of this partnership for new growth in services, which the Commission adopted some days ago.

First, a more ambitious implementation of this directive, a peer review, through country-specific recommendations in the context of the European Semester that you have just mentioned and by adopting a stricter and more proactive policy towards breaches with the objective of zero tolerance of clear breaches of the Services Directive. Then there is the improvement of a tool that you support, as do I, that of points of single contact. That is the first act of this partnership.

Secondly, better functioning on the ground of the single services market. How do we achieve this? By optimising synergies between the different instruments of the internal market: directives on services, professional qualifications and e-commerce.

We have carried out ‘performance tests’, as I already mentioned, to see how, in three sectors – construction, business services, which is recruiting at the moment, and tourism – the freedom to provide services could interact better with professional mobility, benefits and opportunities in e-commerce.

Finally, we are seeking to guarantee the benefits of the Consumer Rights Directive by combating any discrimination that affects the end users of the services on account of their nationality and/or their place of residence.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is why I believe that we must be more ambitious and go beyond the Services Directive and the service economy. That is also the objective of this very practical text on the governance of the internal market, adopted by the Commission some days ago. This is not a technocratic concern. You can take my word for it.

Not only is legislation which is not implemented useless, it often adversely affects the functioning of the internal market. It harms the principle of competition within the Union, it creates imbalances between countries, and it also deprives the citizens of their rights.

That is why we want to ensure the proper implementation of all the single market texts. It is a subject on which you have worked a great deal, particularly Ms Kalniete, Mr Busuttil and Ms Bastos.

The Commission, therefore, has just adopted this communication for new and better governance by calling on the Member States, Parliament, the Council, the Commission and our own services to show that we can be more effective.

We shall adopt three lines of approach in our work: firstly, targeted action in those sectors with strong growth potential, obviously the services and financial services of which I have just spoken, but also network industries: transport, energy, the digital market.

We have identified key legislative measures for each of these sectors, and the Commission, with the Member States, is committed to redoubling its efforts to ensure that they are properly, quickly and correctly implemented, for example, with increased assistance for transposition and the use of peer review.

We want to see quick results in these sectors, and we shall apply the zero tolerance principle in the event of any delays in the transposition of our legislation. If problems persist, we shall then deal with these breaches with the utmost speed.

The second line of approach is to evaluate and monitor the scope of our efforts using the mechanism of the European Semester, spoken of by Mr Rehn. I do not think that this semester should only cover economic governance or budgetary surveillance. I think that, over the same financial year, it should cover efforts towards cohesion and competitiveness. We could then measure the performances of the Member States by means of benchmarks and naming and shaming, and where there are shortcomings, we will provide complementary measures and country-specific recommendations.

The third and last line of approach, Mr President, is a single market at the service of companies and citizens: better regulation, better use of IT tools, the ‘Your Europe’ portal, better functioning of SOLVIT and, finally, promotion of single market centres in each Member State.

I shall now say a few concluding words on a subject that will involve us over the coming weeks – and I know that Mr Harbour, whom I thank, is very committed to it – which is the second stage of the Single Market Act, which we are drawing up for the end of the summer. The 20th anniversary of this single market should not be an occasion for nostalgia or melancholy, as I often say it is, but an opportunity to be proactive.

We are going to retain all the advantages of the initial version of the Single Market Act, the competitive social market economy. These four words are important. They are clearly reflected in the 12 levers of growth that we have chosen together. Twelve new proposals that will drive growth and employment, that will deal, in particular, with sectors where the single market does not operate correctly or completely – energy, transport, services – and which, finally, will ensure the social and territorial cohesion of which I have just spoken.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is what we are going to work on and we should be careful to be clear about what we have already decided together and then also to open up public debate, as we shall do on the occasion of the Single Market - Together for New Growth week, which we shall organise together from 15 to 22 October.

  Andreas Schwab, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly, I welcome the fact that, with this joint motion for a resolution of all groups in the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, we have succeeded in putting together a common position of the European Parliament for the forthcoming proposals for the Single Market Act II. I believe that the fundamental issues which, for us as the European Parliament, will be at the heart of the consultation on the various legislative proposals in connection with the Single Market Act II in the coming weeks, have been incorporated into this document with all the necessary consistency and clarity.

I believe that the motion for a resolution also demonstrates that, although the internal market has been part of Europe for quite some time, it continues to have great potential and also growth potential for the European economies – up to 4% for 10 years according to the Commission. That is why I believe it is important that the European Commission makes it clear that the time for talking about the implementation of internal market legislation is over and that it is now time for action. It is important that the European Commission keeps on reminding all those Member States – I think one can safely say almost all of them – emphatically and repeatedly of their obligations and, if these obligations are not complied with, takes legal proceedings against those Member States by all possible means. The Member States contribute to the legislation through the European Council of Ministers. There are therefore no excuses for not implementing internal market legislation correctly and quickly.

That is why I was somewhat surprised when, this morning, the President of the Commission proposed that we conclude an interinstitutional agreement for the implementation of priority areas. I doubt that we need an additional agreement for the internal market. For this area, we chiefly need a European Commission that implements what the Member States have promised. Mr President, I believe that, to achieve this, we need a horizontal strategy, and the Commission has already started along this road with the first Single Market Act. I believe that we need good, credible impact assessments, we need to focus on priority areas and, Mr President, Commissioner, we need real control over implementation through improved single market governance.

  Evelyne Gebhardt, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, on the 20th anniversary of the internal market, the issue of the internal market really deserves the attention we are giving it today. It is one of our great achievements that we can move freely in the European Union, that we can sell our goods throughout Europe, that we have a high degree of product safety, and that we can bring citizens together here in this House, and it is a delight that we are working on it.

It is therefore important, Mr Barnier, that you continue on the path you have embarked upon so as to ensure, together with us, that the positive aspects of the internal market are brought closer to citizens and that they recognise what they have gained from the European internal market. That is something that is missing, that citizens do not recognise, because we talk too much about problems and not enough about the achievements of the European Union. It is therefore also important that we concentrate more on what we have enshrined in Article 3 of the Treaty of Lisbon, which is that we want to have and also need a social market economy – and I place particular emphasis on the word ‘social’ – so that workers and consumers recognise themselves in Europe.

I would also like to praise what Louis Grech highlighted in his report by adopting an holistic approach, which we need so that we can really see the internal market as a global concept and not as disconnected small actions that run alongside each other, and with which a philosophy of Europe is truly associated. It is really important to work on this together and we should continue to do so.

The internal market is good, but there is one thing we should not forget: it must be structured for the benefit of citizens and not just for the benefit of enterprises and the financial world.

  Toine Manders, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (NL) Mr President, Commissioner, as far as the future of the single market is concerned, I hope that we will have a market that is less non-committal, more disciplined and one with fewer differences in terms of political culture. Many of you have confirmed this. If you have a debt, there are two things that are important. First, not spending more than you are earning and, second, looking for opportunities to earn more and generate income. The single market can help us with the latter.

We must ensure a functioning single market and, to do that, we need courage and audacity. We need fewer stifling rules and a better functioning market in all Member States, on equal terms and with greater uniformity. Experience teaches us that the transposition of directives creates variation within the single market, as a result of which it is a lot more difficult to get a single market to work, especially for the benefit of SMEs.

I have been arguing for years that we should base our single market legislation on regulations that would have the same effect in all Member States. I have not yet succeeded in that, but I ask you again to make sure that we base legislation for the improved functioning of our European economy on regulations which Member States will no longer be able to transpose in a protectionist fashion, which is indeed the very reason why a transnational economy is not functioning in the European Union.

The single market must again become an example for the global economy: a market where money is earned, where social security is guaranteed and a market that will address many aspects that ensure prosperity and political stability. We need to ensure, Mr President, that we achieve a single market where entrepreneurs will again feel at home instead of fleeing Europe due to stifling rules and a market where European citizens will again be proud to buy European products.

I see that I still have ten seconds, so I will briefly mention ACTA. ACTA is dead because we have not given enough information to our citizens. However, our own European products are being counterfeited to the tune of EUR 1 billion. We have to ensure that entrepreneurs, and European workers too, feel at home again in the single market.

  Adam Bielan, on behalf of the ECR Group. – (PL) Mr President, the end of the year will mark the 20th anniversary of establishing the single market, the objective of which was to strengthen the ties between citizens and Member States. We have seen numerous benefits and new opportunities over this period, thanks to the legal measures which have been successively introduced to improve the way the single market works. The single market has proved to be particularly helpful during the last few years, when we have been fighting the crisis. The free flow of capital, goods and services and, above all, of people, has contributed significantly to improving the situation of the citizens in many of the Member States. Unfortunately, because of administrative and legislative problems, we still are not able to make full use of this tool’s potential. So I welcome the Commission’s assurance that it will continue to view the Single Market Act as one of its most important strategic political priorities, because all measures intended to support the development of small and medium-sized enterprises help stimulate economic growth, which, in turn, brings tangible benefits to European consumers. For there are still a great many hindrances to the operation of these businesses.

Worthy of note is the proposal to improve the function of the single market by means of IT tools which will make it much easier for the citizens to solve problems. Completing the single digital market this year is highly desirable. This also involves the call for the Member States to reduce administrative burdens by an additional 25% over three years and to modernise their public administrations. Full use should also be made of the current opportunities afforded by the Internet, such as online trade and services.

Action to improve the way the services sector works, by rapid and efficient implementation of the Services Directive, is of fundamental importance. The directive does, after all, concern services which generate as much as 45% of the EU’s GDP, and it helps create a steady increase in the number of these services. It is therefore a powerful weapon both in the fight against the crisis and for promoting the systematic economic growth of the Union. A particularly urgent matter here will be the elimination of legislation which creates discrimination, on the grounds of nationality, for example, and which still exists in some Member States.

  Roger Helmer, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Mr President, I understand that our good colleague, Mr Malcolm Harbour, has been very much engaged in this work on the single market. We should certainly thank him for his efforts, but he falls into an error common amongst British Conservatives. Challenged to find even one good thing to say about the European Union, most British Conservatives will cite the single market. They seem to believe that it is a free trade area and they think that free trade is a good thing. But it is not a free trade area. It is a customs union and it is a bureaucratic nightmare of regulation and red tape. Years ago, Commissioner Verheugen estimated that the cost of EU regulation was around 6% of European GDP. Since then, it has got worse and this proposal today adds more burdens.

I come to the House today with good news. It is possible to create growth and jobs and prosperity and investment and recovery in Europe but, to do so, we will need to do four things. First of all, we must cut taxes, secondly, we must have a bonfire of the regulations, thirdly, we must dismantle the reckless and failing experiment of monetary union and, finally, we must adopt a rational energy policy and abandon our lunatic obsession with the myth of global warming. I fear that we will do none of these things and we will condemn Europe to a third-world future of decline, poverty and unemployment.

(The speaker agreed to take two blue-card questions under Rule 149(8))

  Malcolm Harbour (ECR), Blue-card question. – Mr President, I am delighted for the first time and I welcome the fact that Mr Helmer is not in the same group as me and I can therefore intervene to question him.

I want to ask him to pick up two points: first of all, would he confirm that the antique data he uses, attributed to Mr Verheugen, was actually the total burden of all regulation on European industry, not just EU legislation but the whole of the national Member States’ legislation? I am sure he will find that is true and it would be good if he would stop using that figure.

Secondly, would he confirm that the single market is neither a free trade area nor is it a customs union? It is a fundamentally more advanced and open economic area than anything else in the world.

  Andreas Schwab (PPE), Blue-card question. – Mr President, I would like to ask Mr Helmer whether he is aware that Commissioner Verheugen has not been a Commissioner in the Commission for three years now and, secondly, whether he has followed the work of the Stoiber High-Level Group, which has reduced the bureaucratic burden in the European Union by 25%?

  Roger Helmer (EFD), Blue-card answer. – Mr President, I thank my colleagues for these interesting questions.

In the case of ex-Commissioner Verheugen – and I accept, Mr Schwab, that he is no longer a Commissioner but frequently in the European institutions, people retain the title of President or Commissioner after they have finished exercising their duty – he quoted a figure of 6%. Former Commissioner Mandelson quoted a figure for the benefits of trade in the single market at 1.8%.

Now, Mr Harbour, it is nearly 45 years since I left university but I can still work out that 6% is a great deal more than 1.8%. Thank you very much indeed for that. My answer would be that the single market is indeed a customs union, it is a Zollverein and it has an external barrier. You will recall that all the economic studies that have been done show that free trade areas are generally much more efficient than customs unions. If you wish to point out that it is, in fact, a customs union with the addition of massive and excessive regulation, I will be the last to disagree with you.

  Nicole Sinclaire (NI). – Mr President, this act purports, via a package of measures, to boost assistance for small and medium businesses yet I fear, once again, it is nothing more than comforting words to give the appearance of action. The reality is that the European Union is part of the problem, not the solution. Europhiles like Malcolm Harbour tell us that Britain’s future depends on membership of the European Union, that more than half of our trade is with the EU. These are disingenuous arguments. Eighty percent of UK trade is internal, with 50% of the rest being with the EU. That is only 10% of UK trade, for which we have had a deficit since the early 1970s. Yet the EU and its bureaucratic rules and regulations are draining the life out of small and medium enterprises. No wonder the Federation of Small Businesses said to prospective MEPs in the 2009 European election guide, please, no more EU regulations. Malcolm Harbour attended a dinner, as I did.

Commissioner Barnier, there are 4.5 million small businesses in the UK that account for 99% of all enterprise. That is almost 60% of private sector employment and almost 50% of private sector turnover. SMEs employ an estimated 13.8 million people and have an estimated combined annual turnover of GBP 1 500 billion. The EU has constantly negatively impacted on their ability to service the majority of their contracts, whilst making it easier for other EU countries to trade in the UK. No wonder eight out of ten people want a referendum on Britain’s membership of this corrupt and doomed mess.

  Małgorzata Handzlik (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, to achieve economic growth, we need a single market which works well, and for that it is essential to have the right legal environment. In many cases, we do have the legal instruments, but full use cannot be made of them because they are not being implemented by the Member States. An example of this is the Services Directive, which applies to services that account for 75% of the Union’s GDP. It’s potential is enormous. I think it is very important that the draft resolution refers to the transposition deficit, because I consider this to be the main problem when it comes to the incomplete functioning of the single market.

It is important that the European Commission has been working on this, and last week it adopted a package concerning implementation of the Services Directive, noting that over the next five to 10 years, implementation of the directive will generate an additional amount in the region of 1% of the GDP of the entire EU, and if the Member States are more committed to the process of transposition, this will rise to as much as 2.5% of GDP. The Member States must therefore be ambitious in their approach concerning implementation of the directive, but must also concentrate on identifying areas where progress could still be made. This means, for example, that they should make sure no prohibited requirements are, in fact, being applied and, where possible, should remove requirements which are subject to evaluation. I have referred to transposition of the Services Directive, but this also concerns other areas, such as public procurement, for example, on which we are currently working. I welcome the fact that Parliament has taken up this matter in the resolution.

  Louis Grech (S&D). – Mr President, Europe is at a crossroads. This resolution is a call for economic growth, but, in my opinion, it is also an indication of the frustration which Parliament – and perhaps also the Commission – is experiencing vis-à-vis the effective completion of the single market. It would be deeply sad if, in the fifth year of this legislature, we were to find ourselves churning out yet another resolution on the single market and debating the same problems that were identified in the first year, amongst others, the fragmentation and inadequate application of rules; lack of proper transposition and information; potential of the digital market; the Citizens’ Charter and the lack of resolution on the top 20 concerns; services and professional qualifications, directives, consumer redress and SMEs’ incentives.

Once again, we are discussing the potential of the single market, but citizens are tired of rhetoric and instead want to see the realisation of this potential because the single market is very vital for the European Union. Otherwise, for citizens, unless there is this realisation, this will become nothing more than a meaningless, tired buzzword. Time is running short and the continued unity and integration of the market are being seriously threatened. We are already feeling, unfortunately, the effects of protectionism in various ways.

It is high time the Council came up with more coordinated, urgent specific solutions and decisions concerning the crisis created, after all, by the irresponsible behaviour of some banks. This Parliament and the Commission – especially Commissioner Barnier – have been making specific proposals and initiatives, yet we seem to move very slowly. Citizens cannot go on being disillusioned at one summit after another.

The relaunch of the economy and the single market will need the continued impetus and input and hopefully the leadership of the Commission, and the committed ownership by the Member States. However, and most importantly, it must be a market which is credible, well understood and trusted by citizens, providing Europeans with a realistic and holistic action growth plan in order to achieve a truly competitive, inclusive and social economy.

  Jorgo Chatzimarkakis (ALDE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, 20 years of the internal market are indeed a reason to look back on this track record. It is exactly as Ms Gebhardt said: the internal market has brought the European idea, the European philosophy, to the fore, there is no doubt about that.

It goes without saying that, externally, the internal market is seen as a success. However, if we look inside the European internal market, we will discover that some have benefited more than others. Germany has a very healthy balance sheet. The German Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau has calculated that, in Germany alone, the internal market effect represents an annual amount of EUR 30 billion in relation to the euro. On the other hand, we see that productivity in the peripheral countries is declining. Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let us take the Single Market Act II and these 20 years of the internal market as an opportunity to consider how we can get to grips with this imbalanced development, these current account differences, within the European Union. If we do not succeed in this, unless everyone sees an advantage in the internal market, the internal market will lose credibility and legitimacy in the long term.

  Malcolm Harbour (ECR). – Mr President, I warmly welcome this very strong package of measures from the Commission, in particular, because, as I think all my colleagues on the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection have said, much of it reflects what we have been saying and promoting through our work over the last two and a half or three years.

I want to thank everybody on the committee for their deep engagement and knowledge about this subject. I think the resolution that we produced in response to this and marking out the road for the next phase of the Single Market Act is really important, and I hope the House will pass that with a very substantial majority tomorrow.

I think the key aspect of the package that we have in front of us today is that it is a very realistic and practical approach. I quote from what you said, Commissioner, in your governance proposal: ‘we have to make what we have work better’. This is not about bold new legislative solutions and, as a number of my colleagues have said, we have had enough of those. We need to get down to delivering the benefits of what we have already worked on.

Many of us here, particularly Ms Gebhardt, myself and Mr Schwab, worked on the Services Directive. We have been worried that it has not been transposed quickly enough, and we are pleased now that you are now going to put some real pressure on the Member States to ensure that those rights are properly delivered. That is not just about business; it is about consumers, as a number of you have said.

However, perhaps the most scandalous aspect of the Single Market at the moment is that, when citizens use the online tools they have on the Internet, they cannot actually buy services cross-border. They cannot buy goods cross-border in many cases because they are refused access to other websites and, in some cases, they are even offered different prices for the same service, depending on where they are making their enquiry. These things are absolutely unacceptable.

Finally, I will just close with this point. You said quite rightly, Commissioner, that the whole single market package must be subject to the deepest level of so-called smarter regulation – better policy making. This is not just true for the Single Market; it is true for everything we are doing in this House.

  Claudio Morganti (EFD). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the internal market may well benefit certain sectors and categories, but I would think very carefully before using the triumphalist tone that we find in this resolution. On the one hand, there may be some opportunities; on the other, though, we need to act with great care and caution, for different countries have their own particular circumstances.

For example, the goods and services sector is cited as having great growth potential; the implementation of the famous directive on that subject is also mentioned. I wonder how jeopardising hundreds of very small enterprises, from seaside traders to street vendors, can be thought of as ‘development’. The only likely beneficiary is big business, which finds it easier to exploit the so-called benefits of the single market.

We, therefore, are against an internal market that entails the erosion of our strengths and our special characteristic features. We do not feel that it is necessary or even useful to conform to the myth of a single European model.

  Ewald Stadler (NI). – (DE) Mr President, if Mr Grech of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament meant that this resolution is a call for economic growth, then he is under the mistaken belief that economic growth can be decided on politically. The Soviet Union came to this painful realisation after resolving on economic growth at every party conference. This resolution has exactly the same placebo quality.

We are currently running the risk of losing the credibility of the internal market in the eyes of Europe’s citizens. Nothing makes the failure of EU policy, including in the area of the internal market, quite so clear as the scandalously high unemployment figures. Which citizens have profited from this internal market? Those that have to fight harder every day to keep their jobs, the ever growing number of people who have to do two jobs in order even to survive? This resolution provides no answers in this respect. We are at risk of losing the positive aspects of the internal market because we have no answer to the unemployment that is rising daily, particularly among young people. Unemployment rates of over 50% are scandalous and demonstrate clearly the failure of your internal market policy and your monetary policy.

  Róża Gräfin von Thun und Hohenstein (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, not only must we enact good legislation, we must also listen carefully to the citizens. I am thinking, for example, of the Single Market Forum held in Kraków, at which the participants adopted the Kraków Declaration. We have achieved a great deal since then, and a great deal has happened in areas about which both citizens and business people made known their expectations, such as public procurements and the recognition of professional qualifications – the Commission’s proposals on recognition are already being worked on in Parliament. We are currently also working on the out-of-court settlement of complaints brought by consumers about purchases made online. Work on roaming, which was also one of the main problems – particularly for young people – has been completed successfully, and many other examples could be mentioned.

We face challenges – very serious challenges – such as postal services, for example. There is no rational reason why cross-border postal services are still so extremely expensive. They are a hindrance to the development of electronic trade, which means they are slowing the growth of the European economy. Communication with the citizens is a total failure, and it is essential that we improve the way public consultations are conducted – no progress has been made on this for years. We have now reached 20 years of the single market, and we are holding a Single Market Week. I hope this will prove to be a good opportunity and that good use will be made of it to listen to the citizens and to set, in partnership with them, the priorities of our work. You said, Commissioner Barnier, that we have to build Europe together with the people, so let us do precisely that now – this year – in the single market.

  António Fernando Correia de Campos (S&D). – (PT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, now that we are intending to discuss a growth pact, it is essential not to forget the public and the consumer; fundamentally, the human and social dimension that give it flesh and that was the subject of one of the three reports on the Single Market Act of 2001. This is because any growth pact will have to take into account the sacrifices and social benefits linked to it. As important as testing the internal market will be conducting an impact study on all the measures taken to realise the single market; a test or an examination that will enable us to measure the progress made for the benefit of the EU public.

  Hubert Pirker (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to mention two examples that annoy millions of car drivers daily because the internal market has not been realised in this respect. The first example concerns what drivers are obliged to carry with them. We have open borders and we drive our cars across all the countries of the European Union, but we find that all the countries have widely differing requirements as to what we must carry with us. In some countries, you have to carry a set of spare bulbs, in others a high-visibility jacket, in a third country perhaps mud flaps or a respiratory mask, and now breathalysers too. Failure to comply with these obligations has severe penalties. It is time this was harmonised, and I would ask you, Commissioner, to take the initiative for standardisation in this area; I would also ask you to immediately restrict it to a high-visibility jacket, a warning triangle and a first aid kit. That ought to be enough.

The second example concerns the registration of motor vehicles that have already been registered in one country and are then transferred to another country. The motorist finds that he has to go through the whole registration procedure again. That means a whole load of bureaucracy and annoyance, and a whole load of new costs. I call on you to implement swiftly the regulation that has already been sent out, so that in future, once a vehicle has been registered once, it is registered throughout the whole of Europe.

  Bernadette Vergnaud (S&D). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the aim of the Single Market Act is to make the market work for citizens again and to bring them and the market together, whilst recognising that an efficient single market can and must give rise to growth and sustainable job creation. Yet, the content of the recent legislative proposals and communications from the Commission show that its concerns are still predominantly focused on the promotion of trade to the detriment of measures aimed at employment and citizens.

Some major issues are absent, namely: the promotion of good-quality jobs and rejection of social dumping, safeguarding the social protection model and public services, the portability of social and retirement rights, consumer protection in financial services and the right to collective redress. Parliament must remind the Commission that citizens want and need an innovative Europe that is able to create growth, protect them and also restore their confidence. The resolution that we will adopt tomorrow must send a strong signal in this direction.

  Constance Le Grip (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, I would first of all like to pay tribute to the determination of the European Commission and, in particular, your determination, Commissioner, for having tirelessly placed the revival and deepening of the internal market at the top of the European agenda.

You will recall, Commissioner, that for more than two years now, both the Commission and the European Parliament have been working to identify the missing links of the internal market, to identify the issues and the sectors for which more internal market is needed, more internal market for more growth, more competitiveness and more jobs.

For its part, the European Council has, also belatedly, finally stated the importance it ascribes to the rapid and efficient implementation of 12 priority proposals for the internal market, the 12 levers for growth.

Rather than seeking to constantly invent new tools for growth, we would be wise to work with the toolbox that we already have. Thus, we shall seize the opportunity of the resolution, which will be put to the vote in Parliament tomorrow, to send a strong political message to the Member States: faster and more efficient transposition of directives that have already been adopted, more mobilisation and commitment to the newly opened issues – to name but one, the strengthening of the movement of workers – more fluidity of circulation.

We will welcome with great interest, Commissioner, the second stage of the Single Market Act, which you will present after the summer. We will be able to show both the political will and the capacity to put pressure on Member States.

  Sergio Gaetano Cofferati (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are of one mind as to the internal market’s potential, provided that certain conditions are met. What you often refer to – coordination and collective vision – is one such condition. If, in the meantime, however, serious events occur, such as changes to the legal basis for the Schengen measures, then clearly not only is this a political error but it also damages the internal market, by reducing opportunities for free movement.

When objectives are set – and I am thinking mainly in terms of growth, which is our primary concern at present – they also need to be qualified. Not any old growth, then, but sustainable and lasting growth. Together, when discussing the development of the economies of the Union and the individual countries, we must safeguard rights: producers’ rights, employment rights, the rights of those who work and hold capital, and citizenship rights, which are also consumers’ rights. I believe that growth must always go hand in hand with rights.

IN THE CHAIR: LÁSZLÓ SURJÁN
Vice-President

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Danuta Jazłowiecka (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there is no doubt that one of the greatest advantages of the existence of the European Union is the existence of the single market. It is one of few factors which are acting to stimulate the European economy. Since the European Commission says the main factor harming the economy is the weak and late transposition and incorrect implementation and application of EU standards concerning the single market, we are right to ask about the present attitude of the Member States and the destructive effect of what they are doing. We are increasingly seeing a return to national rhetoric and to blaming others for our economic problems. It has to be asked if this is a good route to take?

In my opinion, it is not. The recipe for the current crisis is more Europe, not less Europe. Lifting existing barriers to the European market is certain to help stimulate our economy. To achieve this, the will of the Member States is needed. Instead of this, we are increasingly hearing things being said about social dumping, people who are taking away our jobs and the need to limit the free flow of people and goods. We have to ask where this will end? In view of changes in the world economy, a return to closed national economies will definitely not help improve the situation – quite the opposite. The Commission, therefore, should monitor all violations of the single market’s rules, but should also continue to put forward new measures which will facilitate the Member States’ implementation of existing legislation.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D). – (LT) Mr President, a lot has been said today about the single market, and I see that this is clearly the basis for restoring the economy of our European Union and creating additional jobs. It was rightly said that today’s situation in the single market is very beneficial for some Member States due to certain restrictions, while for other Member States it is really damaging. I truly support and welcome your idea that common rules need to be established in the single market as a matter of urgency. As for the second issue, namely, the introduction of public procurement, I would propose introducing public procurement as quickly as possible so that it is possible to strengthen competitive conditions in our domestic single market, and to also use European Union money more effectively. The other issue is that we have to begin to think about defending the single market from third countries, particularly those that do not allow our individual companies to compete on a level playing field in their countries, because we are thus reducing the number of jobs in our own countries and reducing people’s incomes.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Mr President, Commissioner, the natural dynamic of free competition within the single market accentuates its divergence. Once placed in direct competition, economies with very different development levels inevitably diverge, unless there are mechanisms for protecting and safeguarding the weaker economies. The stronger economies are increasingly dominating the weaker ones: that has been the story of this integration process. Take a serious look at this and you will see some of the true causes of several peripheral countries’ debt levels. Now they want to deepen the single market and they want to do so by simultaneously cutting the EU budget and cohesion funding – the very instrument that could help to overcome some of the existing inequalities – because of pressure from the very countries benefiting most from the single market. There can only be one outcome: more divergence and more inequality between Member States; in other words, cohesion will increasingly and solely be a dead letter in the Treaties.

  Jaroslav Paška (EFD). – (SK) Mr President, Commissioner, I concur with your view that an effectively functioning single market is vital if economic growth in the EU is to be revived. In view of the enduring stagnation, however, I think that we should vigorously continue to implement certain administrative measures that would not cost much to implement but that would bring significant economic benefits. In particular, we should finalise legislation introducing a European patent as soon as possible. A single patent protecting innovative products across the EU should be the absolute minimum. I also believe that we should agree and implement common, simple rules for conducting business, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises, that would open up for them a realistic route to cross-border business. This means introducing unified, simple and transparent rules for accounting and reporting their incomes and expenditures. It also means implementing transparent and analogous means of certification and obtaining authorisation to trade that are also available to small businesses. The sooner we manage to introduce the necessary changes, Commissioner, the sooner the EU will be able to benefit from the changes.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – Mr President, it was good to listen to authorities like Mr Harbour and Commissioner Barnier here today, and even though Mr Barnier spoke for 13 minutes and 17 seconds – well beyond his five-minute allocation – it was good that he was allowed to do so, because he had a lot to say in creating the picture of where we are and where we are going to go.

He mentioned 12 key levers. Among them, I want just to mention three. One – standardisation – is absolutely vital. I hear it everywhere: I heard it in the States last week; second, the European patent, which has just been mentioned, at long last beginning to come together; and third, e-commerce. As the rapporteur for the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) on the Data Protection Regulation, I can say that it is going to be a very important part of that.

Finally, one speaker mentioned that ACTA was dead. It may be dead, but we need to revive part of it, especially to deal with contraband and counterfeit goods, which are costing the European Union millions of jobs and billions of euro.

  María Irigoyen Pérez (S&D). – (ES) Mr President, more Europe, a better single market. For some, it is rhetoric, for me, it is commitment. We know what is not working.

All Member States must adopt and make decisions that favour growth, especially for the younger population, eliminating bureaucratic obstacles. There is a lack of leadership to invigorate the single market, which is an excellent tool, even more so during times of crisis.

There is a need to change tack, however. There is a need to return to the social market economy. Commissioner Barnier, your proposal for banking regulation is welcome yet incomplete. We know that banks are necessary, but they are a risk to an economy’s stability. They benefit from what is known as implicit guarantee.

We must make progress in developing the single market, providing assurances and protecting consumers, including those that are vulnerable. We must work for an inclusive, competitive and safe market in favour of European citizens.

End of the catch-the-eye procedure

  Michel Barnier, Member of the Commission. – (FR) Mr President, since I took a long time earlier, I will be briefer and nevertheless will thank everyone who has spoken.

Andreas Schwab, earlier, Ms Handzlik, Ms Le Grip, Louis Grech have expressed our common concern, not by way of making further speeches – this is Andreas Schwab who said this – but by way of taking action. This is the meaning of these two operational documents, ‘Services’ and ‘Governance of the Internal Market’, that the Commission is implementing, particularly to reduce the time periods of infringement proceedings – currently 25 months – to 18 months and, if possible, further still. You can rest assured – this is the meaning of these statements – that the Commission is doing and will do its work.

We will put in place this partnership, in particular, with this idea of a practical guide for citizens and businesses. However, if the partnership is not respected, if it is broken, then that will not be tolerated. There will be zero tolerance. This is also why it is important to integrate this governance into the European Semester, and to assure ourselves that there is no discrimination based on nationality or on place of residence – I say this to Malcolm Harbour. I have also noted, in relation to these different regulations, what Mr Pirker said and I will speak about this with Mr Kallas with regard to road safety.

Evelyne Gebhardt and Mr Correia de Campos stressed an element with which I agree, which is that of the social market economy: the human aspects and also the presentation of positive points that must be implemented within the framework of the large single market, which is a shared collective area of economic and social life. Mr Correia de Campos, we are carrying out and we will carry out the social impact studies to which we are committed.

I also think that the overall approach that Louis Grech had, the very first one recommended, must remain our approach. I say to Ms Vergnaud that if she still finds imbalances, which I can understand, in the Single Market Act, there is this second stage that we are preparing, which you will comment on and where we will be able to reach a better balance on any subject affecting consumers and citizens. In any case, I welcome your suggestions towards constructive preparation for the second stage of the 12 new proposals that the Commission will present in September.

Mr Manders, Mr Bielan, Ms Sinclaire and Mr Kelly mentioned small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). I have said to you – and I truly promise you that I am committed to this aim on a daily basis – that the large single market must be reconciled with citizens and with small and medium-sized enterprises, who have felt that the large market was not for them. Ladies and gentlemen, when you look at patents, the simplification of public markets, accounting standards, digitisation, Mr Kelly, in markets, or EU authentification, the measures that we are taking in banking – with lighter regulatory measures for SMEs – and company law that we spoke about earlier, an angle, a tailored approach clearly exists for encouraging investment and the work of small and medium-sized enterprises.

Róża Thun mentioned different services which are not covered by the Services Directive. As I speak, 85% of services are not covered by a European text. The Services Directive is undoubtedly the main instrument – it is not the only one – for improving the performance of the services economy on the European continent.

I shall also say to Ms Irigoyen Pérez, who has just spoken, that I do indeed intend to make a number of concrete proposals this year for the protection of consumers, particularly in financial services, in respect of transparency of bank charges and access to basic accounts.

A few words to conclude. We are preparing this great week of public debates, from 15 to 22 October, for new sustainable growth, Mr Cofferati. It is the spirit of Kraków that will continue to flourish. For this reason, I would therefore like to thank you and to thank the Chair of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO), Malcolm Harbour, for the support that you provide for all these initiatives, support which is objective and attentive, but also very constructive, helping us to enable the internal market to function better.

  President. – I have received one motion for a resolution⁽¹⁾ tabled in accordance with Rule 110(2) of the Rules of Procedure.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Thursday, 14 June 2012.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Kinga Göncz (S&D), in writing. – (HU) Instead of intensified austerity measures and tax hikes that affect the less well off strata of society, what we need is a European-level strategy that is conducive to growth and job creation, with the full utilisation of the opportunities provided by the single market as one of its pillars. The elimination of existing barriers to the functioning of the internal market would not only result in savings for public finances, but would also give a boost to economic growth. The majority of measures aimed at completing the internal market does not require major investments, merely political will and a competent executive apparatus. The economic benefit of such measures, however, can be measured in billions of euro, given that they foster mobility within the European Union, facilitate cross-border service provision, promote small and medium-sized enterprises’ access to funding, encourage innovation and, ultimately, lead to job creation. The ideal functioning of the single market presupposes that European citizens – who have the right, by operation of law, to freely travel, take employment and settle down within the European Union – do not suffer discrimination while exercising these rights. It is the responsibility of Member State governments and European institutions to ensure that citizens are fully aware of their rights and obligations, and can make use of the available options for legal remedy, if necessary. We must guarantee EU citizens working in other Member States the same fundamental social rights as citizens employed in their home countries. The freedom to provide services and the freedom to pursue economic activities must go hand in hand with guaranteed social security.

  Tunne Kelam (PPE), in writing. – The single market celebrated its 20th anniversary this year. An important aspect of completing the single market, the Services Directive, was adopted in 2006 and was supposed to be fully in place by the end of 2009.

According to the Commission’s assessment, full implementation of the Services Directive would increase EU GDP by 2.6% and, in some of the countries most affected by the crisis, national GDP could increase by up to 2.2%. I do believe that such an increase would be highly desirable in order to overcome current problems.

Implementing fully the single market and Services Directive would not only boost the economy and increase GDP, but would also mean considerable savings on administrative burdens and bureaucracy, amounting to up to EUR 40 billion. New fiscal discipline rules will be instrumental in ensuring fiscal stability in the future, but we also need to force Member States to finally and unconditionally implement the Services Directive and by that to complete the single market.

Launching infringement procedures should be routine when handling cases where whatever EU legislation is not implemented in the foreseen time and form. As the average infringement procedure takes up to 25.5 months, I would urge the EC to speed up their processing in order to ensure a real effect in due time.

  Olga Sehnalová (S&D), in writing. – (CS) I wholeheartedly welcome the call to strengthen the single market. In my view, however, it should be strengthened in a balanced way. The single market cannot be judged in isolation from other policy areas, in particular, the social area, consumer protection and employment rights. We want an internal market which is fair and which benefits not only European businesses – particularly small and medium-sized ones – but, above all, the core of the market – the citizens themselves. We often hear that it is essential to involve citizens more in the development of the single market. How can we achieve this effectively? In my view, an effective information process can play a key role. This starts with public consultations, when legislation is under preparation. It is essential for consultations to be accessible in all official languages, and for them to be made more accessible and intelligible. The overall process continues by maximising the awareness of consumers when choosing goods and services, when they must have certainty that the legal framework rules out any concept of second-class consumers. Last but not least, consumers must be informed about their rights and how to enforce them, for example, through a functional alternative dispute resolution (ADR) system. I would like to end by joining the call for consistent transposition of the regulations. Insufficient and tardy implementation in national law and insufficient enforcement of regulations prevents a full exploitation of the benefits of the single market. Far from all transpositions are successful. My own country, the Czech Republic, despite some progress, does worst of all in this.

(1) See Minutes

15. Future of European company law (debate)

  President. – The next item is the debate on the oral question to the Commission by Klaus-Heiner Lehne, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, on the future of European company law (O-000110/2012 – B7-0117/2012)

  Klaus-Heiner Lehne, author. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly, I would like to express my thanks to the Commission, and particularly to Commissioner Barnier, for the very simple reason that in the last legislative period, which ended in 2009, our experience was that – with the exception of a very brief moment of awakening when the proposal for the European private company came – Commissioner Barnier’s predecessor, Commissioner McGreevy, in fact allowed company law to be left in a deep sleep, and we made no progress at all over those five years on this important issue, which also has significance for the internal market. Thankfully, that has changed entirely.

We now have a multitude of consultation documents from the European Commission, a group of experts that has debated the issue of how to develop company law further, and now we have a brand new consultation which, naturally, Parliament is looking at too. The Committee on Legal Affairs decided that we did not want to do this in the form of a report, simply because a report requires even more time and is naturally somewhat more detailed. Instead, we chose to put an oral question to the Commission, in order to be able to discuss this topic with the Commission, with Commissioner Barnier, and so that, at the same time, we can make clear Parliament’s position on what should happen now in a subsequent resolution.

Just as was the case around ten years ago, it is necessary to develop a new action plan on European company law. This is necessary for a great many reasons. There are gaps in European company law, real gaps, which basically are resulting in the fact that the internal market has not been completed. To mention one example, there is the missing 14th directive on the transfer of company seats, which, in my opinion, is a fairly typical example of such a gap. Parliament has asked twice in legislative own-initiative reports for the European Commission to table specific proposals. There is also the committee of experts convened by the European Commission itself, which has expressed the same opinion on this. Quite simply, it is part of the basic freedoms of the internal market that a company in the internal market must be able to transfer its registered domicile. This is not possible at present, or only under extremely difficult conditions.

In view of this, however, I must, at the same time, criticise the fact that the position of the European Commission to date on the topic of the 14th directive actually lags considerably behind Parliament’s expectations, and we are convinced that it does not meet the standard of a qualified answer to a legislative initiative either. However, we are of good courage that in the course of the continued work, when we get to the action plan, this proposal will hopefully then be reflected in the action plan.

Another important point in respect of company law is the issue of how to develop company law further in order to reduce the burden on companies. Here, the Commission has already tabled very specific proposals, such as on the subject of accounting. However, there is more to do beyond this and other aspects now require clarification in the course of the consultations. We are expecting further proposals from the Commission in this area, too.

I should also like to ask the Commission to revive the topic of the European private company, which, at the moment, is stuck in the Council. If there are individual Member States in the EU – and here I am expressing my own personal opinion – that are intrinsically unable, because of their own lack of decisiveness, to end the deadlock here and take Europe forward, then just as in the case of other projects – in the case of patent law or family law, for example – we must give some thought to using the instrument of enhanced cooperation, so that at least all the other Europeans will be able to enjoy this possibility. I would ask the Commission to give this issue greater consideration.

Another outstanding problem is the issue of applicable law; in other words, a kind of Rome Regulation for cross-border problems in company law. I believe that this issue, too, needs further investigation and discussion, and I would ask the Commission to do this.

Insolvency law is also closely related to this. In this area, however, it has been announced anyway that we will receive a specific proposal from the European Commission in the foreseeable future.

As you can see, a huge amount remains to be done in the area of company law. I am grateful that Commissioner Barnier has taken the initiative here and that we can see that in the second half of this legislative period, we will receive significant proposals, which could then represent progress in the completion of the internal market. Parliament supports both the principle and the approach here. Naturally, we will have to talk about the details, and we will certainly do so. However, for the time being, I would like to give the Commission our thanks. Naturally, we would now be pleased if the Commission were actually to take up our initiatives and turn them into specific proposals.

  Michel Barnier, Member of the Commission. – (FR) Mr President, thank you to Klaus-Heiner Lehne for what he has said and the initiative that he has taken in this regard. I promise him that on this issue, as on all the others, I am wide awake, Mr President, and proactive, especially as company law, honourable Members, is an important tool for growth. This is about the context of current day-to-day life for all businesses in Europe. Our objective is to create, with this law and with other reforms, the most efficient ‘climate’ for the work of businesses: European mobility.

I would like to reiterate that this large market must not primarily or only be for large businesses, but also for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), even for very small businesses. These are very real issues. That is why I was pleased about the success of the consultation on company law. We received more than 500 responses – and the Chair of the Committee on Legal Affairs, Mr Lehne, also mentioned the contribution of the European Parliament – from all economic, social and academic stakeholders across Europe. We are analysing objectively the responses that we have received.

At this stage, from what I understand from the responses that we received, and based also on my own convictions, we have very strong support for European initiatives in this area of company law, particularly on two points. Firstly, facilitating businesses’ cross-border operations. I bring to mind the improvement of the transnational merger system, the measures on cross-border divisions, and the rather difficult question of cross-border transfers of company seats.

Secondly, the codification of company law. We are currently working on this. It is a lengthy process, on which I hope, before my term is over, to be in a position to make you some concrete proposals. Based on these results, Mr Lehne, I am preparing, ladies and gentlemen, for this coming October, an action plan with a series of concrete short-, medium- and long-term initiatives in the area of company law. You will find in this plan almost all of the points that you yourself have raised, Mr Lehne. However, I will come back to a few of them.

This plan will cover our thinking on the future of company law and also our current work on corporate governance. Indeed, I am convinced that one cannot separate the two, governance and company law. The two main thrusts are thus grouped together to create this coherent framework. Furthermore, on this point I would like to praise the work already completed with regard to company governance by your Parliament, in particular, by your rapporteur, Mr Bodu, whom I thank.

Naturally, I do not have the intention nor the possibility to say in detail what this plan will cover, but I would like to briefly mention a few of the themes. Firstly, this plan will include initiatives to create greater transparency between companies and investors. We must draw lessons from certain irresponsible practices and behaviours that we have condemned.

A first initiative will involve non-financial transparency of companies, with a key element being the obligation on companies to make known their diversity policy on management boards. I will also propose steps to encourage more constructive and long-term involvement of shareholders in companies. In another area, I do intend to suggest giving greater responsibility to shareholders, for example, in setting the framework for salaries in the financial sector.

Another theme of this plan is that I would like to propose measures to stimulate the competitiveness of European businesses. There is a very strong demand for facilitating the cross-border operations of businesses. In this connection, I have fully understood the sense of Parliament’s resolution on a 14th directive on the cross-border transfer of company seats. There are opinions that are rather diverse on this matter. The question of a new proposal remains open, but it is clear that I would like only to commit to this path on the basis of clear support from Member States and from the European Parliament. In light of the results of our consultation, I will ask my departments to reassess the situation and, if need be, to prepare a proposal for a directive.

A few words also, Mr Lehne, on a point that you raised, which is the European private company. This is a subject which is blocked in the Council, where unanimity has not yet been reached, despite the efforts of several presidencies, and despite my own efforts. It is an important tool to help small and medium-sized European businesses and I do not wish to exclude any means to enable it to progress, including, Mr Lehne, the route of enhanced cooperation, which can be used if a sufficient number of Member States wish it, and it is this that I will verify. I would like to say that I am willing to support enhanced cooperation on this matter.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am increasingly convinced that Europe needs a regulatory framework that is adapted to the changes in the economic environment, to the needs of present day society. This regulatory framework must allow businesses to grow more easily within the Union, for the good of their shareholders and their customers as well as their employees.

I am mindful that some recent initiatives in the area of company law have encountered difficulties. This is not a reason for me to close the door and to do nothing more. We will therefore prepare a fairly full and detailed plan, in the spirit that I have just indicated.

That is why I also await with great interest the discussions that you will be having on your resolution on the future of company law. It will come at the right time to illuminate our work and lend more robustness, and undoubtedly more ambition as well, to the action plan that I will present to you in a few months.

  Tadeusz Zwiefka, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (PL) Mr President, modern, well constructed European company law – and I do not have to convince anyone of this – is one of the most important conditions necessary for the single market to function well. I would say it is a sine qua non for the single market to be effective. I am, therefore, extremely pleased that on the question of company law, we are seeing significant progress in the work of the European Commission as well as a growing commitment to the matter. For a long time now, the members of Parliament’s Committee on Legal Affairs have emphasised that legislation which is appropriate for the current situation and which meets the needs of EU businesses is extremely important for the healthy and dynamic development of the European economy.

When European firms diversify or undertake new forms of activity, by making use of the Internet for example, modern legal measures are required which, above all, relieve the administrative burden and excessive bureaucracy while also allowing businesses to develop their operations in a way which, for them, is clear, transparent and secure. I am certain that consultations on the future of European company law, which have just been completed, will show the European Commission the proper course of action – by which I mean rectifying where possible the inadequate legislation which, unfortunately, still exists in the single market and completing it with new and good legislation.

I think, too, that the work currently being done in our Committee on Legal Affairs on legislation affecting the auditing and governance of companies will not, in practice, be able to proceed very far without the adoption of new or amended legislation on company law. I do, of course, realise that initiatives in this area – as the Commissioner has said – may encounter certain obstacles, particularly from some of the Member States. I am certain, however, that the added value of these projects will convince those who are undecided, particularly if the interested parties themselves, by which I mean the people who run Europe’s companies, choose to adopt them. I would like to express to the Commissioner and to all of us my hope that this work can be brought to a successful conclusion.

  Evelyn Regner, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (DE) Mr President, thank you for your statement, Commissioner. I should like to approach it somewhat differently. Yes, naturally there are substantial gaps in European company law that need to be closed. It is necessary to close them. However, the short-term thinking behind the shareholder concept is one of the main causes of the crisis. The economic and financial crisis has shown us very clearly that this policy has failed. An enterprise must be seen as a social organisation that has responsibilities to shareholders, employees, creditors and society as a whole. Consequently, information, consultation and codetermination are essential if the social responsibility of enterprises is to be more than just lip service. In any event, the competition between national and European legal forms must be ended.

You mentioned the 14th directive, Commissioner. As rapporteur for the recent resolution on the 14th directive, I am disappointed at the inadequate follow-up from the Commission. Making reference to the impact assessment carried out by the old European Commission in 2007 is not sufficient. I call on you to take specific measures and to stick to the procedure agreed between the Commission and Parliament.

I should like to state firmly that the work on the European private company was taken up too early, has not been fully thought out by the Commission, and does not take into account the current requirements of the people of Europe. If we are to achieve our objective of sustainable European company law, what we need instead is a European framework instrument for worker participation. The resolution from the Committee on Legal Affairs tells you to pursue a stronger stakeholder approach in all your future initiatives, in order to safeguard the interests of workers, creditors and members, and to comply with national regulations on protection and codetermination.

  Cecilia Wikström, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (SV) Mr President, the debate on Europe has recently focused on the best way to overcome the economic crisis – that has, of necessity, been the case. Savings and acceptance of financial responsibility have been set against measures for stimulating growth.

In the political rhetoric, I think, unfortunately, we very often miss the fundamental question, and that is: how do we intend to safeguard development and prosperity in the EU beyond the crisis? As we all know, prosperity does not just materialise out of thin air. It can only arise when people, using their creativity, create goods and services.

One of the most important things we can do in the political arena to create jobs and growth is to tear down barriers to trade and barriers to enterprise and trade in general, and to ensure that operators and innovators are able to utilise their creativity to develop their businesses.

The resolution we are debating today deals with exactly this. These are positive reforms within European company law, and I would like to thank Commissioner Barnier for this sound proposal. These are important steps for strengthening competitiveness, particularly that of small and medium-sized enterprises in Europe. We need to have the courage to keep alive the vision of Europe beyond the crisis: fewer barriers to trade, but more in the way of simple cross-border legislation in the area of company law. Like my fellow Member, Mr Lehne, I would like to urge the Commission to look closely at this and to come back to us with further compelling proposals that are moving in this direction.

  Amelia Andersdotter, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (SV) Mr President, we need to reform European company law. The fragmentation in European company law and tax law is currently creating a situation in which it seems to be more a case of the Member States competing on the European market rather than companies competing with each other for customers.

We also need to rectify the situation whereby companies are using this fragmented legislation for extensive tax planning. We know from discussions concerning the Statutory Audits Directive and the Transparency Directive that many Member States and companies were strongly opposed to auditing on a project basis and instead focused on reporting their investments on a national basis. This will result in the very great risk of assets being moved from the European Union to tax havens in third countries, and it is a situation that cannot be rectified, primarily due to opposition from the Member States.

Above all, I am concerned about the fact that the Council’s reactions to the proposals from Parliament have, in general, been poor. We have seen in connection with the transaction tax and the consolidated tax base that as soon as Parliament takes a decision in the right direction, the Council tries to block it. I naturally ask myself how we as Parliament can tackle this and what the Commission can do to get the Council to stop being so reluctant to cooperate.

  Dimitar Stoyanov (NI). – (BG) Mr President, I am going to pick up on what Ms Andersdotter just said about competition between Member States and not between individual companies. I find this completely normal as the countries in the European Union differ greatly from each other, mainly due to the fact that, for instance, companies from Mr Lehne’s country, Germany, are much more au fait with the provisions of European company law than companies may be in Bulgaria, for example, which has been a member of the European Union for just five years.

This is why, when talking about a common European framework for European company law, specific features in the newer Member States, which may not be as competitive as a founding state, for example, also need to be looked at. When new changes or a new regulation are planned, a great deal of attention needs to be paid in case companies in a particular new Member State are being repressed by this law and more opportunities are being given to companies from an old Member State, which have the appropriate expertise to operate in the field of company law.

This is why I recommend that the Commission takes into account the individual Member States’ national characteristics and does not introduce complete liberalisation, even though, in order to actually achieve economic growth, companies need to be given greater freedom, instead of us imposing further frameworks on them.

  Raffaele Baldassarre (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, company law can act as a lever for developing the internal market. In difficult times like these, we now need to work together to find acceptable solutions that can be implemented rapidly.

I shall therefore be very clear, Commissioner, as to what this Parliament expects in the coming months; you have already noted certain requirements in your speech. First of all, we hope for a pragmatic and flexible approach to make the legislation clearer and more accessible. To that end, even though a single instrument would offer significant benefits, the directives could alternatively be grouped by sector: for example, by the principles of function, mobility and forms of law.

The other priority is to place European company law at the service of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Given that over 90% of European businesses are SMEs, the internal market needs to be the natural environment for them to operate in, not merely a potential option.

Lately, Parliament has been waiting, with some impatience, for a legislative proposal to set out the measures to facilitate companies’ cross-border mobility. That is all I shall say, because this subject is so huge that it is hard to cover it all in just over a minute. Nevertheless, I believe that there will be no shortage of opportunities for useful discussions.

  Alexandra Thein (ALDE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner Barnier, as a liberal, I, too, welcome the hearing instigated by the Commission on the future of European company law. This is a key element of a functioning internal market. There are particular problems in respect of the mobility of our enterprises – in other words, the outstanding 14th company law directive on the cross-border transfer of company seats without having to establish a new company. The Commission has been slow in presenting draft legislation because the Member States are unable to agree on a common line, and negotiations are therefore likely to be difficult. Similarly, it is scarcely possible for shareholder rights to be exercised across borders and we are still awaiting harmonised framework conditions in this area.

There are also problems with the European private company, where the Member States are again blocking progress, being unable to agree on, among other things, the necessity of cross-border aspects, the level of capital stock and worker codetermination.

My final point is that in the current proposed directive on accounting, the Commission has, in my view, made a technical legal error. In principle, the idea of making payment flows from the commodities industry in developing countries transparent is to be welcomed. In terms of legal technicalities, however, this topic does not belong there. If we want to help fight corruption, EU accounting law is not the right place to do it.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, company law is particularly important and, along with corporate governance, can, if the laws are drafted well, provide an incentive for foreign investment. Regardless of whether company law and corporate governance are handled together or separately, I believe that it is vital for European companies to benefit from a flexible regulatory framework. This can only be achieved as part of a code of conduct. Therefore, the ‘comply or explain’ principle must provide the solution, with the tough application of sanctions if deviations from rules are not explained in a transparent, detailed manner.

There must also be a single code of conduct for the whole EU because, otherwise, we cannot call it European legislation. The code of conduct must be specifically applied to listed companies because the only important factor in this process is the number of shareholders. Other indicators such as business turnover or the number of employees are irrelevant from a company perspective. There are obviously also situations when the rules may go outside the code of conduct’s flexible framework. I will mention conflicts of interest as an example. They need to be punished and discouraged in order to protect investors and employees.

I hope that Commissioner Barnier concurs with the idea that we need investment and jobs created by market instruments rather than by stringent regulations, which are regarded by investors as obstacles blocking their path.

  Salvatore Iacolino (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the future of European company law will undoubtedly determine the future of the European Union itself. One need think only of the 23 million small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), a sector that has gradually grown stronger but that now, more than ever, needs structural reform.

The single European market will surely profit from the perspectives of a European company law with a vision. Clearly, this vision must be imparted by the Commission, and it seems to me that the Commissioner’s comments are heading in this direction. We need an action plan with clear, accessible rules, where reducing red tape is given a high profile, and where company law is there to serve SMEs and business in general.

At the same time, we also need to look at other important issues, in particular, data protection, which must be updated and continually monitored and which could add to the burden on business. We need action for SMEs, extra safeguards for businesses to guarantee their rights, and cross-border mobility for companies, which must also be guaranteed and supported through an overarching approach aimed at meeting the requirements of company law, SMEs, healthy enterprise and, indeed, the employment market. We therefore trust that Mr Barnier’s proposals will bring company law in step with the times.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Sergio Gaetano Cofferati (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as you have heard, many of us agree not only about the importance of company law but also about the urgent need for binding rules in this sphere.

I believe that the most sensitive subject is the various cross-border problems. We need a single market where business, too, can benefit from adequate, non-restrictive mobility conditions within the EU. At issue, however, is not only business mobility but also the mobility of the people who work in those businesses. The proposals for discussion therefore need to be drafted very carefully to avoid pitting the needs – or, indeed, the rights – of those who run businesses against the equally important rights of the people who work in them. In other words, a clear distinction must be drawn between business mobility and relocation, which damages local communities.

  Lena Kolarska-Bobińska (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, Commissioner Barnier, we have said a great deal in the House about the deficiency of company law. I would like to refer to another aspect of this deficiency, one we have not mentioned yet – the discrepancy which exists between the practices of many company boards and certain European values. One such value is non-discrimination on the grounds of gender. I would therefore like to ask that when drafting this legislation, room be made in it for the suggestions put forward by the European Parliament in its report on corporate governance. These suggestions refer to the proposals of Commissioner Reding on increasing and, as it were, forcing company boards to increase the proportion of women to 30% by 2025 – the proportion of women on company boards, because, in many cases at present, they are almost completely absent. I hope that Commissioner Barnier, who is sympathetic to this idea and this proposal, will take account of it when drafting the legislation.

  Jutta Steinruck (S&D). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in view of the economic problems, the crisis and the challenges faced by European companies, their employees, creditors and other shareholders and stakeholders, EU company law needs to focus on a sustainable, forward-looking corporate model characterised by long-term thinking.

I am therefore asking you to pursue the aims of a social Europe. As part of that, you need to look at the involvement of workers in corporate decisions. You should also involve the social partners in your initiatives. After all, businesses have a social responsibility towards society and in respect of their contribution to growth and employment. In all your proposals, you must ensure that, as far as possible, existing rules on codetermination cannot be bypassed or eroded. We need the highest possible standards in European companies and we need corporate decisions to involve all those affected.

  Jaroslav Paška (EFD). – (SK) Mr President, the Commission’s efforts to support the functioning of the single market using appropriate types of European trading companies is a process that must tackle new obstacles relating to the national company law of the individual Member States. We should not therefore entertain any illusions that the process will be swift, or the solution simple. The fact that small and medium-sized businesses are the most important contributors to economic stability and job creation indicates where the European Commission should primarily focus its efforts. At present, only 23% of small and medium-sized businesses are also developing activities beyond the borders of their own country. According to expert analyses, the EU would gain as much as EUR 6.3 billion if it managed to draw up a specific European legal framework for this business category. From the above, it is clear where the focus of the European Commission’s attention should lie when seeking new, simple business models for cross-border trade in the EU and when improving its company law as currently applicable.

End of the catch-the-eye procedure

  Michel Barnier, Member of the Commission. – (FR) Mr President, I was very pleased with the proposals that were put forward and with the questions that were put to us, and with their quality.

Again, this first debate that the Chair of the Committee on Legal Affairs, Mr Lehne, has called for, the resolution, the work that I have confirmed to you, which is quite ambitious, on this action plan, will all help to respond to the many speeches that were made.

I would like to thank Mr Zwiefka and Ms Wikström for their encouragement – I did hear what they said – to be ambitious and comprehensive.

Ms Regner mentioned two points, as did Mr Lehne. I will not be coming to back to the 14th directive. I have told you about the reassessment that we are carrying out, and the new proposal that we were going to prepare, if need be. Ms Regner, you brought up a point that Ms Steinbrück also mentioned earlier, which is a sensitive one, that of worker involvement. The protection of workers is a sensitive subject, and the area of worker involvement is an issue to which I personally, as part of my political engagement, have long been very alert, as have you, Mr President.

It is clear, moreover, that it is on this subject, Ms Regner, that the text on the European private company (SPE) is currently being blocked. I hope that it will be unblocked and, in any case, I have confirmed to you that I was willing to support a proposal for enhanced cooperation which would allow progress on this subject, if a sufficient number of States agreed.

Ms Andersdotter mentioned taxation. Clearly, when one talks about businesses, about the level playing field, about the single market, it is evident that these fiscal inequalities, or sometimes tax competition within the market itself, feature among the key points. That is why I am grateful to you for observing that the Single Market Act, which we spoke about earlier and which we will speak about again in September, contains a ‘taxation’ chapter, which my colleague, Mr Šemeta, proposed along with energy taxation, harmonisation of the bases of the corporation tax system and, in addition, the financial transaction tax.

Mr Stoyanov mentioned national and sometimes regional particularities. I endeavour to take account of these particularities in all laws that we propose up to the point at which, Mr Stoyanov, the single market is called into question. You cannot ask anything else of me in my mission as Commissioner for the Internal Market and Services than to eliminate fragmentation, and to allow the free play of fair and equitable openness in inter-company transactions – this is the point mentioned by Mr Paška – to facilitate cross-border employment, trade and communication. I take account of particularities, but my rule and my mission are nonetheless to construct, patiently and with you, the single market.

Mr Iacolino mentioned, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), as did Mr Stoyanov. I have spoken a great deal about these and I would like to remind Mr Iacolino that in all laws that we propose, and this will be the case for company law, I endeavour to take account of particularities. Here, the issue is a cross-cutting particularity: – 21 million European companies are small and medium-sized enterprises. I know that the growth that we are waiting for, that we must rebuild, will not come from decrees, nor from speeches, but from the regions and small and medium-sized enterprises, provided that through our laws, through simplifying our texts, we promote the most favourable climate for small and medium-sized enterprises.

Mr Baldassarre, I can confirm that the action plan that we are preparing will carry forward this very ambitious and difficult project of codifying company law, and we will also – I say this to Ms Kolarska-Bobińska – deal with the question of diversity, which I am working on in management boards, though not exclusively, with my colleague, Ms Reding.

Ms Thein mentioned transparency. The draft that I submitted on country by country and project by project transparency has been well received. It is the object of work by your Parliament and by the Council of Ministers. Why did I use both texts, Ms Thein? Because the directive on transparency and the directive on accounting standards allow both listed and unlisted companies to be dealt with. Our ambition, which is quite bold – I saw that it was well received, particularly in Africa – is that 600 listed and unlisted companies should be required to declare what they pay and to whom in the area of the extractive industry and in the area of the logging industry.

On this, I am also minded not to increase, as Ms Thein wished, the burden for small and medium-sized enterprises, but we do have a duty to encourage transparency. This is a just cause.

I again thank Mr Bodu – I said this earlier – for the report that he presented on corporate governance. I am aware of his concerns on conflicts of interest. I am also aware of his desire not to add any burdens through unnecessary regulation – that is also my intention. I will always favour agreement over constraint. Sometimes, however, as we clearly saw with the financial crisis, Mr Bodu, we are required to build or to rebuild a new regulatory framework where we had unduly deregulated and eliminated any form of governance.

Moreover, I will not forget the question of employee involvement, the question of employee shareholding schemes and of everything able to create conditions for better social cohesion within companies. However, it is not necessarily in this text on company law that we should deal with these questions – I have spoken about this with Mr Andor and also with Mr Šemeta. I think, undoubtedly like you yourself, Mr President, that social cohesion is one of the keys to growth in business and in society. I would also say this to Mr Cofferati, who questioned me on this subject.

Finally, I thank Mr Lehne, Mr President, and the members of your committee for having placed this question on the agenda. I have shown you evidence of determination on the part of the Commission at this stage. We will now move forward quickly and precisely with the preparation of this action plan.

  President. – I have received one motion for a resolution⁽¹⁾ tabled in accordance with Rule 115(5) of the Rules of Procedure.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Thursday, 14 June 2012.

IN THE CHAIR: GEORGIOS PAPASTAMKOS
Vice-President

(1) See Minutes

16. Towards a job-rich recovery (debate)

  President. – The next item is the Commission statement: Towards a job-rich recovery.

  László Andor, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, a robust and systemic solution must be found – and very soon – to the financial and economic crisis. A major consequence of this crisis is the excessively high unemployment. Unemployment now stands at 10.3% in the 27 Member States of the EU, a level we have not seen since the 1990s. Within the euro area, the level of unemployment is even higher, reaching 11% of the workforce.

To find real solutions to Europe’s current crisis, we need a jobs-centred approach. The employment package that the Commission presented in April shows how employment policies can ensure that job creation drives economic growth. The package also outlines ways to rebalance EU economic governance by strengthening the coordination of employment policies. We need the strong support of the European Parliament on both these issues.

The Commission package seeks to reorient European employment policy along three main lines. First, we support measures to create jobs and boost the demand for labour across the economy. We identified the green economy, information and communication technologies, and the health and care services as the three areas that can generate the most job opportunities and for which a detailed action plan is presented.

We propose concrete demands and interventions to support job creation, such as hiring subsidies for newly created jobs, a budget-neutral tax shift from labour to environmental taxes and greater support for business start-ups, self-employment and last, but not least, the social economy.

Second, the package seeks to make labour markets more dynamic through balanced and fair reforms, notably investment in skills and the removal of obstacles to free movement of workers and worker mobility. We need to secure transitions in the labour market by making sure that transitions pay.

A more dynamic European labour market will help to reduce existing skill shortages and mismatches. This is why we also need to invest in skills and to create new tools to anticipate and monitor skills development at the EU level. The Commission is also committed to improving mobility by removing obstacles, such as those affecting the portability of pensions. We are also proposing to transform the current EURES system into a genuine EU employment tool able to match jobs and jobseekers across borders.

Third, the package aims to strengthen EU governance of employment policies. In particular, we want to reinforce monitoring of Member States’ employment polices so that employment and social concerns do not lag behind economic concerns. We also seek to involve the social partners in the process of implementing reforms and monitoring wage developments at the EU level.

In addition, the package also sets out a stronger link between Member States’ labour market reforms and investment through EU financial instruments and, in particular, the European Social Fund.

Parliament’s support for the package is critical. It will provide an additional political impetus for employment to be considered among the cornerstones of our ‘European growth pact’. I am looking forward to this debate today.

  Csaba Őry, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (HU) Mr President, Commissioner, the Commission recently published the draft employment package. On behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), I welcome this draft package, and I would like to begin by stating that we, for our part, support all of it, just as we support the proposal for a decision that was discussed in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs as Parliament’s initial response to this draft employment package.

Over the course of the debate, my colleagues will go into more detail. Let me just highlight some aspects I consider important. Above all else, I welcome the realistic approach with which the Commission has launched the draft package itself. We unfortunately share its opinion concerning the inauspicious signs that cast a shadow on this effort, whether it is youth unemployment or rising unemployment rates, and what I find particularly distressing is what is described in the recently published evaluation of Member States’ National Reform Programmes, namely, that the Member State concepts known to us so far do not seem to be sufficient to ensure the implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy.

It is therefore definitely welcome that the Commission intends to provide medium-term policy guidance in this regard and I believe that it has set the priorities in respect of the potentials lying in the green economy, the health and social services sector and information technology correctly. I certainly welcome the proposal to reduce the tax wedge on labour, and would like to point out that the Pension Portability Directive should be adopted as soon as possible, while the barriers to mobility with regard to Romania and Bulgaria should be eliminated; we definitely welcome the growth initiative referred to in the text. Thank you, Commissioner; my colleagues will continue to elaborate the rest of our observations.

  Pervenche Berès, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, the European Parliament wanted to organise this debate based on the employment package that you have placed on the Commission’s table and which we feel it is important to talk about here today, in plenary, at a time when the European Council may well mention a growth initiative, alongside other weighty matters which will be on its work table. With regard to that growth initiative, we think that your voice – which says that this growth must create jobs – should be strong, hence the importance of this debate that we are organising today.

When we look at the expectations of Europeans, at the time when the unemployment rate is approaching an historic record, it is not so much stabilising financial markets, but keeping or finding a job that concerns them more than anything. It is this expectation that we must respond to, especially when it comes to the youngest citizens. This hope bumps up against the realities of a social situation that is intensifying by the day. How, indeed, can we fail to foresee the spectre of a lost generation when we know that 5.6 million young people are unemployed, that one young European out of five is looking for work and that the situation may not improve before 2016, according to the International Labour Organisation (ILO).

The European Commission repeats that it will take some time before guidelines produce effects in terms of job creation. However, for this to happen, the guidelines must be the right ones. It is striking to see that in the national reform programmes that the Member States have sent to the Commission, ultimately, their commitment to present their national employment plans has not really been followed up with results. Many have not implemented this proposal.

I would like to retain two proposals from this employment package that you have put on the table that we think are right at the heart of the discussion that we need to have. Firstly, the taboo that you have ended when it comes to the minimum wage. You said that the minimum wage is an important element in the debate for combating poverty and social exclusion, for combating social dumping, and for putting forward the question of aggregate demand, of stimulating internal demand. It is a major topic if we wish to solve the problems of internal imbalances within the European Union.

Next, there is a second proposal that you seem to support, for which you know that Parliament will give you its backing, and that is this idea of a Youth Guarantee, which means that no young person would be without employment, education or training after four months in the labour market. This is a major proposal. If we want to commit to specific proposals that go beyond mere words, we must move forward on this in the coming months in terms of financial perspectives and the conclusions of the next European Council, and we will be by your side to do this.

Thank you, Commissioner, for the process into which, together, we will be able to breathe life so that we may correct a strategy which, for too long, has been one of austerity and which is leading us towards disaster.

  Phil Bennion, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, this employment package makes a lot of very welcome suggestions for Member States to take on board in their policy proposals for getting out of the current crisis. These touch on a number of key areas, including youth employment and unemployment, education, training, skills development and labour movement, to name but a few. It also points to areas of potential growth such as green technology.

However, I think the cornerstone of what the Commission is aiming to achieve in the job-rich recovery is, in my view, a structural change to labour markets. I do not think we should just go out on a limb and make changes without really looking at what we are doing. I think the Commission should carry out an impact assessment on current EU labour market laws and come forward with some reform proposals. I know that there is a lot of fear that such reforms might have a detrimental effect on workforces and social labour rights. These fears are very understandable but, if we do nothing, we fail to address the growing unemployment rates, particularly amongst young people, and the lack of competitiveness that we are seeing in some Member States.

Clearly, we need a sensible, pragmatic and socially responsible balance when we make these reforms, but it is only by making serious structural changes now that we can bring forward and build a solid foundation for growth in the medium to long term. A sustainable and competitive European economy based on real economic performance – not endless public borrowing – is the route to creating jobs and reducing our unemployment rates.

Labour market reform may be necessary, but it is not, in itself, sufficient. That is why I particularly welcome proposals in this employment package to boost entrepreneurship and tackle youth unemployment, in particular, providing opportunities for young people to develop valuable skills. New businesses, of course, are the employers of the future, and we must ensure that the rate of creation of new businesses is maintained. We need to identify and address the barriers to potential entrepreneurs. In the ALDE Group, we will engage positively with you, Commissioner, to bring forward this package.

  Marije Cornelissen, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (NL) Mr President, having a job is the foremost concern for hundreds of millions of Europeans. As far as I am concerned, creating jobs should therefore be our highest priority. The Commission’s communication ‘Towards a job-rich recovery’ is a step in the right direction. I am really enthusiastic about the idea of a labour market monitoring system, about an important role for employment schemes in the semester and, of course, I am especially enthusiastic about the focus on ‘green’ jobs.

We, the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, have read the working paper on ‘green’ jobs with great pleasure. We could almost have written it ourselves! One hundred to two hundred thousand additional jobs for every percentage point reduction in our consumption of raw materials; now, that should encourage every government to embrace a sweeping green policy. Still, I do not have much confidence in that actually happening.

Our Union is currently taking a huge leap forward: economic governance, a banking union, fiscal union, political union, but when it comes to the social dimension, it continues to remain relatively easy-going and non-committal. How can we force Member States to pay attention to social issues when we have an excessive deficit procedure, but not an excessive unemployment procedure, and when a budget deficit of more than 3% can lead to sky-high fines, but 50% youth unemployment does not? Where countries are called to account because of excessive labour costs, but not because of wages that are below the poverty line.

We need to move on and we need to move towards greater integration. But now that we are breaking all kinds of taboos anyway, why not break them at the social level, too? Bring on that directive for the European minimum wage, bring on those penalties for excessive unemployment or poverty and bring on that initiative to make 2020 targets binding. I wish you all the best!

  Anthea McIntyre, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, unemployment is a very major concern and I welcome the Commission’s communication on the job-rich recovery, but I totally reject calls for more harmonisation of European employment legislation, any attempts to establish European minimum wages and any calls for the EU to have controls and sanctions in the national labour markets of Member States.

European growth plans do not create jobs; it is businesses and entrepreneurs who create jobs. We must not introduce measures that create unintended consequences and actually stop entrepreneurs and possibly those who are self-employed from growing their businesses and starting to provide employment for others.

SMEs and micro-enterprises currently provide 90 million jobs in the private sector in the EU and they have huge potential for job creation, for growth and for innovation, and we must do all we can to help them rather than hinder them.

  Roger Helmer, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Mr President, during the second World War, the Royal Air Force was very concerned about the losses amongst its heavy bombers, so it sought to protect its air crew, first by putting armour around the pilot and then, when they needed more protection, armour around the navigator and more armour around the bomber. Yet they found that losses continued to go up. They finally realised that they had put so much weight of armour into those bombers that they could scarcely fly. They then removed the armour, the planes flew higher and faster and the loss rate went down.

For decades now, the European Union has been loading regulation on labour markets. It has done so with the best of intentions – to protect workers – but the effect is to create a labour market so overloaded and inflexible that it simply cannot fly. On top of that problem, we are now looking at green jobs. Colleagues ought to know that there are credible studies from several European countries which show that every green job costs two or three or four jobs in the real economy because green energy is so expensive that it actually restricts growth in the rest of the economy and costs jobs. What we need for jobs is, first of all, deregulation and, secondly, to abandon our green aspirations.

  Inês Cristina Zuber, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (PT) Mr President, this package by the European Commission advocates, inter alia, reducing the burden on companies from workers’ social security contributions; that is, it advocates cutting labour costs and decapitalising social security systems, thereby paving the way for its privatisation and the robbery of the workers by these means. Yet into what does the European Commission say that company start-ups should be channelled? Into this new sector of opportunity that they call the social economy and social companies, which means replacing the public services that they ordered shut down, transforming the peoples’ rights into business opportunities.

The European Commission also advocates pegging wages to productivity; a magic formula for loading responsibility for a company’s performance – which, as we know, is based on a range of factors – onto the shoulders of the workers. This package of measures presents us with other pearls of wisdom, such as the need to introduce flexible working hours, the implementation of time banks and the creation of conditions favourable to worker mobility; in other words, they are promoting emigration as a solution to the lack of jobs.

How can anyone applaud a European Commission package promoting job creation when the same package advocates public sector layoffs in several countries. The European Commission may now be attempting to have a social rhetoric, but its policies have exacerbated the recession and, with it, unemployment. We call for an end to the policies of neoliberalism and so-called austerity. Europe needs a recovery that includes public sector investment and increased wages.

  Thomas Mann (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, unemployment in the EU has risen markedly as a result of the enduring crisis. At the same time, the Member States are drifting further and further apart.

What is the master plan for more jobs? Regions need tailored solutions. Across Europe, there is widespread agreement on the way to go: promotion of SMEs, flexicurity, green jobs, recognition of professional qualifications, effective use of regional funds, the Cohesion Fund and the European Social Fund (ESF). We need more mobility to create new jobs, but we also need to secure stable jobs.

Illegal labour must be stopped once and for all by means of stricter controls, which will result in millions of euro in increased revenue for the budgets. Precarious jobs and dumping wages must be prevented in favour of fair pay. The agreements on minimum wages belong in the hands of the parties concerned.

Let us not abandon our young people. In my report on justice between the generations, I called for a European youth guarantee. After four months’ unemployment, we need apprenticeships, additional training and jobs. The European investment pact is intended for all the generations, but this must not be financed by taking on more debt, which would undermine the fiscal pact.

Sustainable growth can only be achieved against the background of reforms implemented in the Member States and balanced budgets. Then, the job-rich recovery that we want and desire will become reality.

  Alejandro Cercas (S&D). – (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, the Commission has finally made an intelligent declaration: there will be no recovery without a job creation strategy. Thank you for initiating this debate and for the stated action plan; you will have all our support.

Your communication is not enough, however, Commissioner. The problem is too serious for the measures announced by the Commission. I will briefly make two comments given that I only have a few seconds. The first is that this communication has to overcome the contradictions between the EU’s public policies. You cannot request, and rightly request, for example, that funds are reused when Member States that have problems do not have funds to cofinance the actions, as other EU policies restrict the spending of this money on training or productive investments. Labour reforms cannot be requested at the same time as applauding labour reforms that destroy jobs. Above all Commissioner, we need a real guarantee from Europe for young people, a European guarantee; do not leave it to the Member States, as those in most difficulty will not be able to do anything. The EU has allocated EUR 100 billion to saving five banks in my country. Use EUR 10 billion, 10 times less, to save five million young Europeans. That would be genuine action.

  Marian Harkin (ALDE). – Mr President, ‘Towards a job-rich recovery’ is certainly an inspiring title for any communication and indeed, the Commissioner’s words were inspiring today when he said that we must ensure that employment and social concerns do not lag behind economic concerns. Now, of course, the challenge is to make those fine words a reality and to ensure that our plans and programmes deliver European added value.

One very important proposal is the creation of a European investment package to be undertaken by all Member States to deliver sustainable jobs. I think this package would send a clear message to citizens that we are seriously attempting to rebalance the current austerity measures or the current austerity approach with the Europe-wide pact for investment and jobs. I know that, when 60% of Irish citizens voted for the Fiscal Treaty, they did so in the expectation, among other things, of a growth and investment pact.

This resolution also calls for upskilling and retraining of workers and one current instrument to achieve that at European level is the European Globalisation Fund. Therefore, I am appealing to Member States not to block its continuation but to work together to ensure that the EGF contributes to European added value by upskilling redundant workers.

  Karima Delli (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, we are all saying the same thing: the employment situation in Europe is catastrophic. With one quarter of young people under 25 unemployed, there is a lot at stake for the new generation, which refuses to be a lost generation.

The Commission has opened up the way with its employment package, which is designed to create 17 million jobs by 2020. However, it continues to lead us towards disaster by driving through austerity plans which increase unemployment and condemn the most vulnerable to the worst kind of hardships.

Yet, an exit from the crisis is simple. We must transform our economy ecologically and socially. To that end, we need to develop green, sustainable and non-outsourceable jobs through targeted investments in green, innovative industries. We need to invest in life-long training and in promoting the social and solidarity economy.

In addition, it is necessary to promote decent work, taking into account the objectives of the International Labour Organisation of improving rights and working conditions, and to reaffirm the vital need to increase the minimum wage so as to put an end to the scandal of poor workers and to fight social dumping.

We have the means to end the scourge of unemployment. Yes, it is possible! What, then, is lacking? All that is lacking is the political will. That is your responsibility! Mr Barroso accorded high priority to the issue of youth and youth unemployment in particular. What is the youth unemployment situation now, three years later? There are no specific proposals. There is nothing.

Action needs to be taken and it needs to be taken now.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD). – (PL) Mr President, one of the aims of the Europe 2020 strategy is that by the end of 2020, 75% of people between the ages of 20 and 64 will be in work. This, in turn, is meant to contribute to lasting economic growth in the Union. Another aim of the strategy is that by 2020, 17.5 million new jobs will be created. It is an exceptionally ambitious project in view of the situation today in the field of public finance and the economies of individual Member States, and also in view of unemployment across the Union, which instead of falling, is rising – from 9.5% in 2010 to its current value of 10.2%. This means that in the last few years, 6 million jobs have disappeared. Something else which is a cause of concern is the prospect of introducing the climate package, which may lead to a situation in which, in my country of Poland for example, half a million people lose their jobs.

The motion for a European Parliament resolution on ‘Towards a job-rich recovery’ does, of course, contain worthy objectives – among other things, it plans to create jobs by promoting entrepreneurship and self-employment – and another very important matter is that it calls on the Commission and the Member States to increase investment through public procurement. In the current circumstances, ladies and gentlemen, we have to ask a question about the future budgetary framework: is it not the case that reducing the EU budget and, inter alia, spending on cohesion policy, will exacerbate the economic crisis?

  Thomas Händel (GUE/NGL). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, I very much like your proposal regarding the productivity-aligned wage policy. When it comes to the minimum wage, however, you have given in to Chancellor Merkel, and I do not believe you when it comes to increasing employment in health care. How are new jobs supposed to emerge there when the Commission has already forced southern and eastern Member States to reduce their hospital capacities by a half? How are jobs supposed to arise in health care when the Commission requires some Member States to reduce their expenditure on health care further in the new country-specific recommendations for the European Semester? I fear that this point in this plan is pure gesture politics, not a real initiative for new jobs. On the contrary, there is already a shortage of drugs and medicines as a result of the austerity measures, and not just in Greece. I feel that if we are constantly designing new rescue packages for the banks, then we must now work for a rescue package for people and, in particular, to secure medical supplies in the crisis countries.

  Danuta Jazłowiecka (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, the speech given by Commissioner Barroso at the presentation of the package contained in the Commission communication on a job-rich recovery in the European Union reminded me of the words of a famous American investor, who said recently that jobs are not created by employers, but by consumers. In working to get the EU on the road to economic growth, we need to remember this. We should therefore also place great emphasis on measures intended to stimulate internal and external demand, giving support to Member States in a variety of ways, including when creating incentives for employers and when increasing support for new enterprises.

We should also give attention to non-standard forms of employment, which often give rise not just to very high segmentation in the labour market – where some workers have extensive rights, and others have none at all – but can also increase the risk of poverty and social exclusion. Therefore, it is important for the Member States to take a responsible approach to linking job flexibility with job security and appropriate remuneration, so as not to cause the emergence and development of groups of working poor.

On the other hand, the Member States should devote a great deal of attention to measures intended to help workers. The Member States should use social investment as a means to activate their citizens and supply them with instruments which will help them react flexibly and proactively to constantly changing economic and social conditions. Priority treatment should also be given to the problems being faced in the labour market by young people. I would like to reiterate how important it is to invest in education and training and to provide young people with the skills required by the labour market. The recently published Commission communication contains many good and necessary measures. I hope that very soon, the Commission will bring forward specific legislative measures which will put these ideas into effect.

  Sylvana Rapti (S&D). – (EL) Mr President, Commissioner, the employment package is a good package; it just needs to reach its target audience in time. We have wasted a full two years. The European Parliament has called consistently for something to be done about employment. If we waste another two years before everything that is said and written is done, I fear it will be too late.

Second point: the labour market – let us be honest – is suffering because long-term policies have failed and now we have the crisis. We need to take account of that because, according to the Eurobarometer survey, the crisis had a massive impact in 2011 alone.

A few simple figures: one in five Europeans and one in two Greeks are afraid of losing their job. A few more figures: five in ten Europeans and eight in ten Greeks are afraid that, if they lose their job, they will be unable to find another job within six months.

This is the reality and I trust and implore you to consider the question of flexibility, the question of elasticity, not only in connection with work, but also when appropriations are being allocated. As we are always talking about competitiveness, we need to understand once and for all:

Firstly, that competitiveness cannot be seen as an issue that relates to each Member State separately; it is an issue that relates to the entire European Union, if we want a strong European Union and a strong euro. Therefore, given that we are constantly hearing about wage cuts, on the one hand, if we want to improve the competitiveness of certain Member States, my thought is this: why not increase wages in Germany, for example, in order to help boost the competitiveness of other States in trouble.

  Jaroslav Paška (EFD). – (SK) Mr President, the economic stagnation in which the European Union finds itself is forcing us to think about suitable stimuli to revive economic growth. Although I understand the consolidation measures and proposals for the reallocation of the Structural Funds, I cannot help feeling that the Commission is overlooking some of the root causes of the current situation. One of the reasons that European workers are losing their jobs is that our European companies, which we often support through various stimulus measures, are moving production to other parts of the world, and the resulting profits to tax havens. Just look, Commissioner: are there any major European car manufacturers that have not built up their production capacities in China, Brazil, Russia and elsewhere around the world? Do you wonder that their European plants no longer achieve the sales they used to and that their European employees are losing their jobs? And I ask you: do the proceeds from such business end up as tax revenues of the EU, or in the overseas accounts of shareholders or senior managers of these companies? Let us therefore also consider, Commissioner, what sort of economic environment we must be creating in the EU if our traditional European manufacturers are gradually relocating elsewhere in the world to do business.

  Patrick Le Hyaric (GUE/NGL). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, there is a fundamental contradiction in your choices. By linking budgetary surveillance, namely, reducing social and public expenditure, while banks are being supported and financial markets satisfied, to the issue of employment, it is as if you wanted to mingle fire and water. Moreover, it prevents economic recovery in the European Union, as the wealth that is created is forever receding.

Employment and work can only be increased if wealth is redistributed. This involves improving workers’ remuneration and pensions and finding a new way of producing wealth through the ecological transformation of production, which would create millions of jobs in Europe.

In addition, it would mean replacing the European stability mechanism, which is, in fact, an austerity mechanism, by a European fund linked to the granting, by the European Central Bank, of a new loan subject to the creation of jobs, training and ecological progress. It would also involve promoting European public services for European public goods in activities relating to water, energy, transport, health, the environment, training and culture, without which what you are promising will not be achievable.

  Regina Bastos (PPE). – (PT) Mr President, Europe has already lost 6 million jobs since 2008. The economy in my country, Portugal, is suffering an unprecedented contraction, and unemployment among men, women and young people is reaching historic levels. According to Bank of Portugal forecasts, the situation will get worse over the next two years. It is in that context that we support and welcome the initiative of the new employment package; our congratulations to you, Commissioner Andor.

Persisting now and always with the basic premise of the need for economic growth, the Member States will really have to focus their efforts on job creation. The means for this should include subsidies for taking on staff by reducing the tax burden on a workforce, which will create new jobs, and support for company start-ups and entrepreneurship, but also for small and medium-sized enterprises that do not lay off workers.

National employment policies must also take into account that the areas with the greatest job creation potential are health care, information and communication technologies, and the ‘green’ economy. As the communication says, there is an urgent need to reduce the gap between the qualifications provided by education and the skills demanded by the job market. Another solution for combating unemployment is worker mobility. It is also crucial to use the Structural Funds to create jobs, and the European Employment Services portal is important as the instrument par excellence for recruitment and job offers in Europe.

Finally, social governance must be on the agenda because the European public is impatiently awaiting concrete results.

  Emer Costello (S&D). – Mr President, I would like to say to the Commissioner that one of the key messages from the recent Irish referendum is that stability and growth are two sides of the same coin. Irish voters endorsed stability, but sent a very clear message in favour of the growth agenda. We now need to make real progress on an investment programme for real, sustainable and quality jobs: a plan which will respect the rights and dignity of workers, promote social justice and fight inequality, in-work poverty and social dumping; a plan which will protect vulnerable workers such as part-time workers, domestic workers and those trapped in the black economy.

Such a plan should also address the need for investment and growth industries such as the green economy and creative industries. It should ensure that finance is made available for SMEs, the backbone of the European economy. We need specific actions to tackle youth unemployment, including a binding European youth guarantee. We also need to adopt a quality charter on internships. Too many young people are on their fourth or fifth unpaid internship with no job in the offing.

Commissioner, the commitment of this Parliament to growth and to jobs is real. We welcome your proposal and we look forward to working with you in the delivery of this proposal.

  Veronica Lope Fontagné (PPE). – (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, I would first like to congratulate you as the Commission’s proposal on the employment package is very important. It is an ambitious and difficult challenge in the context of the current crisis, but we have to achieve the objective of the Europe 2020 strategy and create new jobs.

To achieve this objective, the job markets need to be reformed so that they are more dynamic and inclusive, with workers trained in appropriate skills so they are more resistant to economic adjustment processes, and make full use of their potential for job creation during growth periods.

Hiring needs to be stimulated through tax incentives that: promote and support self-employment and business start-ups, back innovative sectors with a high potential for job creation, improve the job market situation for the most vulnerable groups, such as young people and women, and fight against informal or non-declared employment.

It is also important to note, however, that despite the high unemployment rate, there are increasingly more vacancies to be filled due to a lack of personnel with the appropriate skills. This gap needs to be filled by better planning for the needs of the job market and encouraging geographical mobility. In this sense, decisive progress needs to be made towards the creation of a European job market.

  Sergio Gaetano Cofferati (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in my view, there are two objectives that we must collectively work towards. The first is to create new jobs. We know that the group to target as a priority is young people, and we know that the most important tool is training. An investment in training is an investment in growth and social cohesion.

Yet there is a second major issue, which is less talked about: the regularisation of illegal work or, as it is euphemistically called, informal employment. These people are being exploited. They are working without contracts, without employment rights, and even without citizenship rights, because they often reach us without residence permits or the normal conditions that apply to others. The result on the ground is not only great suffering and exploitation but also a distortion of the labour market.

That is why I believe that the two aspects must be tackled together, giving each its due importance: creating work for young people while regularising work that is already being done outside the law.

  Konstantinos Poupakis (PPE). – (EL) Mr President, Commissioner, unemployment is a leading European problem which is having painful repercussions on social cohesion and the real economy in the Union. Every measurement records an historic high in numerous European countries and, according to the latest Eurobarometer survey, 45% of European citizens are worried about the shortage of jobs. In other words, the European Union faces a massive challenge, with employment now in a state of emergency. Clearly, the insistence on extreme austerity measures in certain countries has resulted in an unprecedented increase in unemployment. In my country, Greece, one in four citizens is already excluded from the labour market, long-term unemployment has topped 55% and youth unemployment is close to 53%, condemning the most promising members of Greek society to inertia or emigration. At the same time, the deregulation of labour relations has not only failed to maintain employment; on the contrary, it is recycling poverty and recession.

Economic governance as a whole therefore needs growth-oriented content. Economic sustainability cannot be sought in isolation from the pulse of society. Furthermore, measures to support employment are an important social investment. Finally, I should like to point out that Member States such as Greece, which is receiving financial support, should not, under any circumstances, be excluded from the procedure to attain the objectives of the EU 2020 strategy. We therefore need a policy mix that will safeguard fiscal restructuring and, at the same time, pave the way for growth with new, viable and high-quality jobs. You are well aware of that, Commissioner, given your particular awareness of the issue, and you are well aware of that Mr President, because you keep a close watch on society and its problems.

  Kinga Göncz (S&D). – (HU) Mr President, the unemployment situation in Europe is alarming. This includes youth unemployment, but also the employment situations of other vulnerable groups of society in addition to young people, such as the elderly, often even people aged 45-50, women, including those who have or wish to have children, as well as people with disabilities and members of various minorities. The draft lists a great many tasks. I would like to highlight only two special issues right now: the first is the role of social enterprises, which provide valuable assistance in mitigating the social consequences of the crisis in health care and social services. These need European-level framework legislation, simplified access to financing, as well as education and training opportunities.

The second is eliminating the deficiencies in the functioning of the internal market. The mutual recognition of qualifications, simplified administration in social security, pension portability and non-discrimination are all needed in order to ensure that the internal labour market is truly functional, while guaranteeing social rights on the basis of free movement and employment.

  Heinz K. Becker (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European plan to overcome the current challenges does not acknowledge consolidation of European finances or job-rich recovery, as certain populists are trying to make our citizens believe. Of course, we have a responsibility to achieve both objectives. In my opinion, this statement by the Commission takes an important step towards this. I welcome the fact that the potential of the green economy and the service sector is recognised, that the dual system of vocational training is to act as a kind of model for future structures, that the youth guarantee is being realised, that lifelong learning is also being implemented for the increasingly important group of older workers and that the increased use of fund resources is defined very clearly here. In other words, it is now a matter of implementing the measures announced. I recognise all this in the statements by the Commission and by the Commissioner.

However, I should also like to say something about the legitimate goal of avoiding a lost generation. Again, it can only be done via the two pillars and by implementing justice between the generations and solidarity between generations. It goes without saying that this begins with resolving the biggest problem that we currently face, and that is unemployment. However, this naturally leads immediately to the reduction of responsible debt. I do not want us to play these off against each other in the slightest. Instead, we should realise both. That should also be the objective of Parliament’s work.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Zofija Mazej Kukovič (PPE). – (SL) Mr President, the creation of new jobs is something that is exercising our minds and those of millions of young people that want to get on the labour market. There are many who do not have enough courage to realise their own ideas and there are many who do not know how.

Opportunities for work may be found in support products and health care services, as the Commissioner and the Commission have recommended in their statement.

As an example: a group of young people in Slovenia has invented a mobile phone application for blind and partially sighted people that will help them carry out everyday tasks more easily.

The journey from invention to final user is paved with many difficulties. It requires a lot of perseverance, a lot of financial resources and it is the role of us, as politicians, to make that journey an easier one.

Access to the global market of mobile solutions for people with special needs is certainly a path to new jobs.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, we all agree that the future belongs to the younger generation. However, unfortunately, they have been hardest hit at EU level by the economic crisis and the structural problems in the labour market. In some Member States, the situation is alarming, and I think that it is imperative for us to adopt measures immediately to improve their situation, both at EU and national level.

I recommend that Member States focus greater attention on this section of the population and include in the structure of the future strategic frameworks well-financed axes, specifically aimed at youth employment. We must take advantage of every opportunity provided by EU programmes and policies so that we can guarantee Europe’s young people a prosperous future, devoid of uncertainty.

  Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, I welcome the fact that the European Parliament’s report on green jobs has been incorporated into the employment pact. In your document, you foresee 8 million jobs by 2020. That is indeed possible. However, in order to achieve this, the Commission must provide the industrial policy framework, and this must be a long-term framework. Specifically, this means that if we do not have an ambitious directive on energy efficiency, then there will be no demand for construction workers and other workers to insulate buildings. That means you have to work shoulder-to-shoulder with your colleagues, so that we can provide this industrial policy framework. Otherwise – and I will say this to you now – what you have said will remain an unfulfilled prophecy. We cannot afford that in the European Union, because the credibility of this Union is at stake.

  Jan Kozłowski (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, I think that job creation is the most important way to solve Europe’s most acute problems: poverty and unemployment, particularly among young people. It is also the only way to return to a path of growth. We need to invest in promoting enterprise, and we also need to eliminate the bureaucratic and legislative barriers hindering development of the small and medium-sized enterprise sector – and it is this sector which accounts for 70% of all jobs. Another problem is the way in which education is not related to employment. It is surprising that, in spite of the continued high unemployment, we are not seeing a fall in the number of jobs available. Young people, often with a tertiary education, do not hold the qualifications being sought by employers, neither do they have the know-how needed to start their own business. I think these matters call for new measures at every level: local, regional, national and European.

  Evelyn Regner (S&D). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, I would like to make an observation, having listened to the debate in this Chamber. This subject is one for which the Chamber deserves to be full. The unemployed of Europe deserve that.

The Treaty establishing the European Union lays down our employment objective, and there are so many reasons for taking a serious approach to this subject. I would therefore simply like to make an observation: in the last plenary debate, you said something about youth unemployment that is incredibly important and which is relevant here; that is, that it is necessary to keep the bigger picture in mind, which is demand-oriented macro-economic policy. After all, the unemployed cannot solve the problem of unemployment on their own. In line with this, we must bear in mind our economic policy and, in particular, the multiannual financial framework and, accordingly, make available the resources that are due to the unemployed of Europe.

(Applause)

End of the catch-the-eye procedure

  László Andor, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, let me first of all thank you and the honourable Members for this very rich discussion, which has been extremely constructive for me, too, and which sent very clear and concrete messages to the Commission about the employment package and also the way forward – namely, that we do not only have to produce a good document but we also have to take care of the implementation.

That is what we are working on, on many issues, and not just on youth – where I am sure you are aware of the action the Commission has already taken – but also with regard to wider employment policies. In that spirit, I will be meeting the social partners working group next week and will seek its cooperation on all the different aspects of the employment package.

First of all, let me highlight the importance of many remarks concerning the wider context of employment policy, because you cannot detach employment from the wider economic landscape. One third of unemployment across the EU is a consequence of the crisis and, in some Member States, it is about one half, or even more.

So if we want to produce results in terms of job creation, we are strongly bound to the crisis response to the financial crisis, the financial sector, how to deal with public debt, how to deal with the private financial sector. The sooner there are proper solutions in those areas, the sooner we will have a better macro-economic environment in which to address employment policies too. It is also true that without this, we still have to go forward and find more direct solutions for job creation and to help the unemployed people.

When we speak about the wider context, it is important to point to the question of investment and the situation in the real economy. I fully share the views expressed by Ms Harkin on the importance of investment, and on the importance of industrial policy by Ms Schroedter and Mr Paška. The Commission is working on reinforced industrial policy and, indeed, the human capital dimension of industrial policy, the capacity of regenerated industry in Europe to create and sustain jobs, is absolutely fundamental.

The employment package should be seen as a building block of a new economic paradigm. If you look at how wages or the role of demand is put forward in the employment package, or to give another example, the role of employment governance in the EU with the involvement of the social partners, I believe these open up new opportunities and the capacity to focus better on all levels and more efficiently on job creation and quality jobs.

Many of you – I do not need to list all the names – underlined the importance of helping young people, and we had a separate discussion on this last time here in Strasbourg.

I can tell you there is a lot of action taking place. I was in Italy last week where Structural Funds have been substantially reallocated in order to benefit young people just in Sicily, which is one region. The size of the reallocation exercise is close to half a billion euro, and this is not for the entire country but just for one of the regions where the situation is most serious.

At the same time, we in the eight Member States where youth unemployment is the worst are working on reallocation.

The recent ongoing work to prepare the youth guarantee, on which I had the views of Ms Berès and others, should indeed produce a result in close coordination with the Council before the end of this year. We will have opportunities to see whether our concrete solutions can match, to produce the best and most effective outcome.

Also before the end of this year, as envisaged in the employment package, we should produce the quality framework, on which there is ongoing consultation with all the stakeholders.

The role of enterprise and micro-finance was rightly stressed by Mr Bennion and Ms McIntyre. This, too, is indeed a possible direction that is often forgotten because the young generation may not be aware of the real opportunities in countries – let me mention Italy again – where the previous generation was successful in running SMEs. This knowledge does not necessarily transfer to the new generation.

Once again, this is a task for human capital building. Once again, the task is to spread the knowledge of enterprise and to support micro and small enterprises directly through better access to finance.

Within the world of enterprise, I think there was rightly an emphasis on the role of social enterprise. Ms Göncz, for example, stressed this in the context of social inclusion.

I fully agree with making progress in this area in close cooperation with Michel Barnier, who spoke before me in the Chamber. Our DGs also work with the representatives of the Member States. Last week, there was a seminar in Brussels for Member State representatives to promote social enterprise and the social economy in the general context in all Member States; this also has a capacity for including disadvantaged groups in the labour market, such as people with a disability.

Finally, to support all these measures, whether for youth or for the social economy, we cannot avoid the question of the financial instruments. There is an ongoing debate in Parliament and in the Council on the next MFF. We should not focus just on the current reallocations. We should also focus on secure funding for the financial instruments that can directly help the people. This is primarily the European Social Fund, which needs its secure minimum share, as you saw in the Commission’s proposal. And I could not agree more with Ms Harkin concerning the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF). I think discontinuing the EGF would be really problematic and I hope I can rely on the support of this House in the struggle to save the EGF for the future.

  President. – I have received one motion for a resolution⁽¹⁾tabled in accordance with Rule 110(2) of the Rules of Procedure.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow, Thursday, 14 June, at 12.00.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Minodora Cliveti (S&D), in writing. – With EU unemployment hitting record levels and forecasts of a dramatic economic outlook for the months ahead, we, as socialists, should come up with a set of concrete measures to boost jobs for the citizens of Europe.

The EU needs a dynamic and inclusive European labour market and we need investments for job creation, mainstreaming of the ILO’s decent work agenda, protection of labour law in SMEs, combating of illegal work and forced self-employment, and minimum wages to fight in-work poverty and social dumping. Moreover, we should continue to fight to obtain some other important aspects which are essential for the wealth of the citizens like: solidarity in taxation systems, coordinated collective bargaining as a factor for social cohesion, and the fight against in-work poverty through living wages.

To accelerate job creation, we need proposals towards a European Investment Plan, a coherent European industrial strategy and investment in public services, based on new sources of revenue, including a financial transaction tax and eurobonds, giving priority to investments that promote a sustainable economy, quality jobs and social justice.

Finally, I appreciate that the EC sent a strong message to governments to lift restrictions on labour market access for workers from Bulgaria and Romania.

  George Sabin Cutaş (S&D), in writing. – (RO) Referring in its communication of 19 April on employment to the importance of the minimum wage and decent working conditions, the Commission distances itself from the austerity strategy and deregulation of the labour market which certain European states continue to pursue. The austerity meted out to workers, as we have regrettably seen in Greece and Spain, has only had disastrous results, causing unemployment and poverty. The proposal tabled by the European executive can also be improved by introducing more specific aspects with a political direction. The European Union needs to draft urgently a common investment plan in which priority will be given to investments generating high-quality jobs and to those made in the education, health or research sectors. In order to support these investments, Member States have no other option but to show their solidarity. The financial transaction tax and pooling part of the public debt are a must in order to prevent a repeat of the tragic story of a Europe torn asunder.

  Monika Smolková (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The draft resolution of the EP – Towards an Economic Recovery –is highly specific and describes all aspects and problems of unemployment and the possibility for economic development and growth. The problem is that we are describing the problems very precisely; we know about them and are even proposing solutions, but it is taking us a long time to implement the solutions in practice. If we want to solve unemployment, we cannot continuously come up with solutions on our own initiative; rather, the Commission should propose across-the-board legislation that would allow us to address the areas of education, employment, support, mobility, productivity, and the use of unused funds from the Structural Funds. Joint assistance to States whose economies are in trouble is necessary, but it is very difficult to explain in, for example, my country, Slovakia, where the minimum wage is EUR 327, that we must help, say, Spain, where the minimum wage is twice that of Slovakia. Therefore, the measures for economic growth must be adopted rapidly and applied in the individual Member States.

  Jutta Steinruck (S&D), in writing. – (DE) I expect the European Commission to finally learn the lessons of the crisis. There are some good ideas, but there is a lack of commitment. I welcome proposals such as support for start-ups, the overdue consultation paper on the quality framework for internships, or the youth initiative to give young people some career prospects. However, well-intentioned proposals do not reduce youth unemployment. Improving the quality of work and strong codetermination must remain key elements of European policy. I reject the idea of the uniform contract of employment, which is another attempt to erode protection from termination of employment. I also take a highly critical view of a new tripartite pay monitoring committee at European level. The EU Treaty excludes the possibility of intervening in wage setting. It must stay that way. Along with the trade unions, we in the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament would warn against using the crisis to undermine the autonomy of the social partners.

  Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR), in writing. – I am perplexed by the title of the Commission’s report: ‘Towards a jobs-rich recovery’. I ask the Commission: is there such a thing as a jobs-poor recovery? Governments, not least the European Commission, cannot create jobs. They can only create the conditions which allow jobs to be generated. And it is patently obvious that the EU is not doing this. By diverting energy towards ‘creating a jobs-rich recovery’, the EU is heading towards a ‘jobs-poor spiral’. It should focus its effort on cutting red tape and on strengthening the single market. Only when it is easier for companies across the EU to do business shall we shall see a turnaround in the recent shocking EU unemployment figures. The Commission must learn that regulation is a barrier to growth and jobs, rather than a catalyst. I take, for example, EU rules on the sugar industry, which – because they are so inflexible and applied even more inflexibly – have already cost jobs in my constituency of London and are threatening a further 4 500 highly-skilled jobs across the European Union. The Commission should stop strategising on how to legislate more and focus on how it can legislate less and – with any luck – better.

(1) See Minutes

17. Major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances (debate)

  President. – The next item is the report by János Áder, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances (COM(2010)0781 – C7-0011/2011 – 2010/0377(COD)) (A7-0339/2011).

  Richard Seeber, rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, today I have the honour of representing our former fellow Member, János Áder, who dealt with this report. I should like to take this opportunity to thank him and to wish him all the best in his new job. As you know, he is now the new President of Hungary. It is particularly important for Hungary that we have someone who has such strong ties with the European Union and here in the European Parliament.

This directive is an adaptation of the Seveso II Directive, and it is concerned with preventing major chemical accidents, such as have occurred here in Europe in Seveso, Schweizerhalle, Toulouse, and so on, or if accidents do occur, initiating appropriate protection measures for the population and the environment. The Seveso II Directive has been very successful. It now needs to be aligned with the regulation on the classification, labelling and packaging of dangerous substances and mixtures, known as the CLP Regulation, which will enter into force on 1 June 2015, and with it its Annex I, which lists the relevant dangerous substances for the establishments. That is why this adaptation is now necessary.

In Europe, we have around 10 000 chemical establishments that directly produce these substances and are affected. At this point, I should like to add that it is important that we keep our strong chemicals industry in Europe. We have just been discussing jobs. We need this industrial base if we are to be able to offer jobs long-term. At the same time, we must naturally ensure that the environment and also people are protected from the dangers that such establishments present.

The revision should also serve to enhance the level of protection, not decrease it. That is why we must work to improve implementation and, naturally, also to enable the establishments to compete on equal terms.

Our approach to harmonising the terms on which the establishments compete was, naturally, to try to reduce the overall administrative burden as far as possible in all the Member States. This is indeed a major challenge for us Europeans. Many of our global competitors have very lax regulations and, of course, this makes things very difficult for our enterprises.

Another reason for the adaptation was the Aarhus Convention. As you know, this is a convention that the European Union has also signed up to for improved public access to information on access to the judicial system. In this area, we have been able to make substantial improvements that will give people living in the immediate vicinity of such establishments better access to justice and also enhanced information rights.

The main problems have been with the Council. In particular, we tried to have inhaled substances included. In the main, this was accepted. There are time-limited exemptions only for seven substances. In the case of substances that affect the skin – or toxicity category 3, to put it in technical terms – we succeeded in getting three substances included, while the rest are not. Nonetheless, as part of the agreement, the Commission will investigate whether they can be included in the future.

Parliament also considers it important that we prevailed in respect of the alignment of Annex I. The ordinary legislative procedure will be used here, not the delegated act planned by the Commission or the implementing act planned by the Council.

At this point, I should like to express my heartfelt thanks once again to all the shadow rapporteurs that our strong position in Parliament has enabled us to assert ourselves against the Council and the Commission. We have achieved significant improvements. I would like to thank all those involved once again, and repeat my good wishes to János Áder as he takes up his new position.

  John Dalli, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, we stand on the threshold of a first reading agreement on the revision of the so-called Seveso Directive on the control of major accident hazards involving dangerous substances.

I would like to thank and congratulate the rapporteur, Mr János Áder, who is today represented by Mr Seeber, as well as the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, for the excellent work carried out on this proposal; and, in absentia, congratulate Mr Áder on his new responsibilities at the very highest level in his home country.

Industrial accidents often have serious, even devastating, consequences: workers are killed; the public is exposed to chemicals resulting in immediate injury or long-term health impacts; water sources are polluted; companies may have to close. Some well-known major accidents like Seveso, Bhopal, Toulouse and Buncefield have taken many lives and cost billions of euro.

The Seveso II Directive, which dates back to 1996, addresses this by setting rules for operators and competent authorities of Member States. Rules focus on accident prevention, through safety management, inspections and land-use planning. When accidents do happen, Seveso seeks to limit the consequences for man and the environment, through appropriate information and emergency planning.

The Commission is satisfied with the compromise text on which Parliament is invited to vote, which aligns the directive with the new international rules on the classification of chemicals and significantly improves the EU rules on accident prevention and control.

Let me explain why. Firstly, the rules on inspections are far more detailed and effective than before, imposing inspection action plans covering all establishments and ensuring follow-up by operators. Secondly, the rights of citizens are better guaranteed. Citizens will have easier access to more information, including on inspections, and their participation in land-use planning projects will be better guaranteed by strict procedures. Finally, in case those rights are not respected as they should be, citizens will now have the right to go to court, in line with the EU commitment under the Aarhus Convention.

I am convinced that this will allow citizens to exert the necessary pressure on operators and competent authorities to implement – in the best way – the Seveso legislation.

The way the scope of the directive has been defined was a major issue in the negotiations, and will now reinforce the level of protection of citizens and the environment as the rules will now also apply to establishments handling substances with inhalation vapour toxicity, which were previously not covered. However, we consider that there is a need to deepen our knowledge regarding substances displaying dermal toxicity. The Commission is therefore making the following declaration, announcing its intention to further analyse the consequences of accidents involving such substances: ‘The Commission acknowledges that the compromise reached on its proposal implies an improvement of the level of protection of human health and safety and of the environment as compared with that provided by the current Seveso II Directive 96/82/EC. The Commission intends to undertake a further analysis of the likelihood, risks and potential consequences of major accidents involving dangerous substances classified acute toxic 3 dermal. Depending on the outcome of the analysis, the Commission may present a legislative proposal to also include this category within the scope of the directive’. This may lead to a legislative proposal to amend the scope of the directive on this point, if deemed necessary.

In conclusion, the European Commission can support the compromise package in order to reach an agreement on this directive at first reading.

  Jacky Hénin, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy. – (FR) Mr President, is this nothing more than a facelift? Or, given the accidents and natural disasters we have experienced since 1996, are we progressing towards greater safety for people, the environment and society, without pointlessly encumbering industry? It was to try to achieve this goal that I agreed to be rapporteur.

After listening and exchanging opinions with others, we were keen to propose amendments which, without calling the industrial process into question, would bring about greater safety for citizens and the environment and give new rights to those who are the first to be exposed –the employees of companies in the chemical and transport industries.

Quite frankly, our views were given scant regard. Once again, money overrode the human aspect, and progress will be marginal.

The problem is that there is still a gulf between the lofty principles discussed and the harsh daily reality on the ground. This is true of industrial installations and storage facilities and for the transport of dangerous substances. To evade the so-called Seveso legislation, companies have chosen to reduce stocks of products classified as dangerous, leaving in storage tanks these same products which, maybe tonight, will sleep somewhere near you while waiting to be delivered tomorrow morning with all the risks that that entails. This cannot be allowed to happen. Meanwhile, we were being led to believe that we would be better informed and better protected!

In addition, major contradictions emerge. How can security be strengthened when, day by day, employees are being placed in an increasingly precarious situation and are not always trained as they should be? How can security be guaranteed when some countries use their laxity to carry out environmental dumping?

  Małgorzata Handzlik, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection. – (PL) Mr President, the amendments to the Seveso II Directive stem from the need to align it with the regulation on the classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures, and not from an increase in the number of major accidents, so I most definitely agree that there is no need to change the Seveso II system.

As rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, I do, however, consider the addition and clarification of provisions relating to providing information to the public, public consultation and participation of the public in decision making to be of particular importance. It is very important that this information be complete and relevant. We do not want to overwhelm the public with unnecessary information, but we do want the information to be clearly worded and easy to understand. Keeping the public informed is vital in building trust as well as in raising public awareness of the correct action to take in the event of a major accident.

Annex I is a key element of the Seveso II Directive and is essential for setting the scope of the directive. Therefore, amendments to Annex I should be adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure, and here I agree with the principal rapporteur.

  Zofija Mazej Kukovič, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (SL) Mr President, I will never forget the disturbing sight I once witnessed of dead fish in a river. It was a consequence of a fire and a discharge of hazardous substances.

We are living in a time where we have the knowledge and the skills to prevent such accidents with the best available technologies. We can also support safety with the use of powerful information technologies.

Are we sufficiently aware of all the ways in which we can prevent accidents? It is for this reason that I welcome this report and congratulate the rapporteur. It might be appropriate perhaps to flag up the clear impact of accidents on animal health.

Legislation by itself does not bring change for the better. We need to focus more energy on communication concerning prevention methods and emergency situations.

Inhaling vapours and aerosols containing hazardous substances may cause serious long-term consequences but, in the short term, we may not even notice them.

Environmental health, human and animal health, the health of nature, once lost is lost forever, and we will know it when we lose it. It is very difficult to restore something to its original condition once it comes into contact with harmful substances.

  Åsa Westlund, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (SV) Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Áder, Commissioner Dalli, the Danish Presidency and all of the other rapporteurs from the various groups for their excellent cooperation.

It was important to my group that we maintain, and preferably increase, the protection of people and the environment when revising this directive. I think we have succeeded in that aim. All Seveso facilities are required, under the Seveso III Directive, to develop a Major Accident Prevention Policy (MAPP), which is to be implemented by means of a Safety Management System. This applies unless the Member States decide differently on the basis of a risk analysis. This is a step forward.

This agreement tightens up the requirements relating to internal and external emergency plans, the requirements relating to the carrying out of inspections by the Member States and the requirement to take into account ‘domino effects’ – that is to say, external circumstances that could aggravate the accident – and it improves the information provided to the general public somewhat. Certain information concerning the establishments is to be available electronically at all times, even for those establishments with the lower safety classification.

My group would have liked to have gone a little further when it comes to protecting the environment and people, however, by extending the scope of the directive. We would also have liked to have improved the information provided to the general public. The fact that ordinary legislation will now be required in order to amend the criteria that govern which establishments are covered by Seveso III is not an optimum solution, either. However, in view of the fact that the Council was not able to agree to amend this via delegated acts, this was the only option.

Nevertheless, we think that, overall, this is a good agreement and we will vote in favour of it tomorrow.

  Vladko Todorov Panayotov, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (BG) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it took us long enough to finally manage to agree on a more ambitious Seveso III Directive. However, we can be pleased overall with what we have managed to achieve in the agreement at first reading during the Danish Presidency.

The tragic experience from major industrial accidents in the last few decades, such as Bhopal in India in 1984 and Toulouse in France in 2001, highlighted a pressing need to revise and update European Union legislation in this area.

Although the Council was not as ambitious as Parliament on the issues concerning the scope of the directive and public access to information and justice, we managed to stand up for the need for higher standards of access to information, including online information. We also successfully reached agreement on exempting certain substances so that they are managed using the codecision procedure and not by delegated acts.

Mr Áder also introduced greater flexibility compared to what was envisaged by the Commission with a prerogative for Member States. The final report has provided major improvements regarding the scope of the directive and the provisions on exempting substances, although I personally regret that we were unable to go further on the requirements for access to information and company inspections.

We can be pleased, on the whole, that this new, improved directive reinforces a few important proposals for protecting health and the environment, as well as for transparent information and the rights of European citizens to have access to information. I would like to thank my colleague, János Áder, for his magnificent work on this directive.

  Carl Schlyter, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (SV) Mr President, I would like to thank Mr Áder and wish him all the best in his new role as President of Hungary.

I think it is unfortunate that the Council is not here, as I think it ought to have tried to defend publicly what it stood for in the negotiations, namely, a cynical zero sum game in which the reclassification of chemicals will not result in any increase in protection. Instead, we have a zero sum game concerning the number of facilities that we want to be covered by the directive, rather than considering the health benefits and protection against accidents. It was unfortunate that the Council took that attitude. In the end, however, we obtained an agreement that will, in fact, work better in many ways, as Ms Westlund and others have mentioned. It was particularly important that we did not exclude whole categories of chemicals, as the Council initially wanted to do.

On the other hand, there are a number of tasks that the Commission still has to do, including investigating the requirement for insurance. This is something that I think is extremely important for the Commission to get on with now. It must not be the case that the costs are passed on to the general public when these companies cannot manage to keep their facilities intact, clean and in good condition. Instead, this is something that they must insure themselves against. This must not be a burden borne by taxpayers.

  Anna Rosbach, on behalf of the ECR Group. – (DA) Mr President, Commissioner, more and more people live close to factories and businesses that work with dangerous substances and chemicals. That involves risks to their lives and health and irreparable damage to the environment.

From 2015, there will be stricter rules for the roughly 10 000 businesses that are subject to the new Seveso Directive. The object of the directive is to prevent and control accidents involving dangerous chemical substances and provide citizens with information. That is a good thing. However, as a result of the opposition in the Council, the opportunity to protect citizens and the environment in the event of an accident has not been exploited to the maximum extent. Our populations must be kept safe, even if they live close to a business that uses substances that are dangerous to inhale or that can be dangerous in some other way in the event of an accident.

The most positive thing with the proposal, however, is that the citizens of the EU now have access to more information. All high-risk businesses must draw up a prevention policy and continuously improve their level of safety and make this publicly available on the Internet. I therefore support this proposal.

  Oreste Rossi, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we agree with the rapporteur that parts 1 and 2 of Annex I cannot be changed through delegated acts. We want to ensure that the scope is not excessively widened without adequate counterbalancing exemptions, for the result would be a disproportionate increase in costs given the likely environmental and health benefits. Moreover, a significant increase in administrative costs due to the need to align with the Classification, Labelling and Packaging (CLP) Regulation would especially affect users downstream and small and medium-sized enterprises.

We are therefore well aware of the concerns expressed by the European industrial associations that are calling for option B to be selected. This would involve leaving the scope of the Seveso II Directive virtually unchanged, for it is well established and has been shown to work effectively. The broad-scope or open approach has been used for every new environmental regulation affecting industry. We believe that it is a poor way to legislate, because ideology ends up predominating over practical realities. We support the idea of extending the directive’s scope – in Article 2 – to offshore platforms and the associated oil and gas pipelines, along with carbon capture and storage (CCS) plants and salt cavities.

  Alda Sousa, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (PT) Mr President, industrial accidents with dangerous substances are, unfortunately, a reality of our times. Information for the public and their participation in decision making is not just a right, it is a necessity: only an informed population can limit the dangers and only a population that decides to do so can protect itself from abuses. Prevention and limitation of the consequences are the first priorities, so I welcome this proposal. However, when we see that even recently, in Hungary, the poorest of the poor were abandoned following the toxic sludge spill, and when we see that, in the chemical accident in Bhopal, India, hundreds of thousands of victims were left to their fate at the same time as the company was operating and making a profit in Europe, we cannot remain ignorant; we cannot forget. There is also a need for these companies to be held financially and criminally responsible, and for even more transparency.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE). – (LT) Mr President, unfortunately, the development of environmental policy is often such that new environmental requirements are only adopted when there is some sort of major accident. The aim of environmental legislation should not only be about response but, above all, prevention, in order to stop such accidents. In future, we must go further and apply the so-called precautionary principle. The directive being debated today is especially intended to ensure that legal requirements are in line with technological progress. Sadly, it is regrettable that we are not ambitious enough and are so far trying to catch up with reality. For instance, offshore hydrocarbon exploration, extraction and transportation do not yet fall within the scope of the directive. It probably makes little difference whether a tanker is carrying oil or gas or, for instance, ammonia. In every case where there is an accident, the damage is significant. However, I am very pleased about the inclusion of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention in this document. In my opinion, citizens have the right to obtain information, participate in decision making and have access to justice. I believe that all of this will ensure a high level of environmental protection. It is important for citizens to receive information about actions in the event of a possible accident and for them to receive information about the date objects are inspected. I would like to give my congratulations to the rapporteur Mr János Áder, who I believe has done a great job and would like to wish the Hungarian Presidency good luck.

  Matthias Groote (S&D). – (DE) Mr President, Seveso, Enschede, Toulouse – these places are synonymous with major disasters that result not just in environmental disaster, but also in loss of life and the destruction of private property. That is why we must do everything we can to reduce the risk, as well as the likelihood, of such accidents being repeated.

How do we do that? Firstly, we must allow even unscheduled inspections, and it must not be simply routine. The people who live close to such industrial establishments must be very well informed of what is going on there, what happens there. In the event of an incident, we must make sure that the situation is clarified promptly. This is very important, because it can save human lives.

I think the Council has not done itself any favours here. I also think the Council should be here for this debate in Parliament. Apparently, however, other things are more important. I think the Council might have saved face if it had explained why this legislation has been watered down. That is what I would have liked to see. However, strong legislation in this area will also create confidence. This confidence is needed when the Member States plan large infrastructure projects. At such times, there are always major reservations among the population. Strong legislation here, such as we have achieved today, creates confidence; and that is only possible where there is the greatest possible degree of transparency. It also requires authorities to be better networked with each other, to cooperate more with each other; we also need more communication, and dealing with such large, dangerous establishments must never become routine. We must not allow that to happen.

IN THE CHAIR: ROBERTA ANGELILLI
Vice-President

  Julie Girling (ECR). – Madam President, of course we all actively support the aim of preventing serious accidents involving quantities of dangerous substances. I know this has not been an easy dossier to bring to a satisfactory conclusion and there has been lively discussion on the scope and the legal basis of access to justice and information for citizens. So I am very happy to congratulate the team involved on their patience and tenacity.

The principle of creating a tiered approach for the tightening of rules as quantities increase is very welcome. I know it has been a real challenge to align this new Seveso package with the existing CLP regulations. It is not a straightforward task to ensure that the environment and citizens are protected without being disproportionately restrictive, and there was always a chance of double regulation, which I believe we have now avoided.

I would like to particularly thank the Commissioner for his additional declaration today. Investigation and analysis of real-time information is always welcome to facilitate evidence-based policy making and legislation.

  Bogusław Sonik (PPE). – (PL) Madam President, amendment of the Seveso II Directive is an essential step towards being more effective in preventing disasters such as those which occurred in Italy, France and Japan, costing many lives. They destroyed public and private property and damaged the environment, resulting in costs of the order of billions of euro. The directive is important because it places obligations on operators and on authorities in the Member States to prevent accidents and limit their consequences. The European Union should systematically tighten legislation on inspection and risk analysis. Revision of the directive will improve coordination of legislation and will therefore put an end to the unnecessary duplication of inspections. It should also be pointed out that sub-contractors should be subject to special supervision, because it is often they who are negligent, as we saw in Hudson Bay. The European Parliament, which represents the citizens, should be able to play a full part in this decision-making process, so I support the view of the rapporteur that amendments to current legislation should be made under the ordinary legislative procedure.

The Commission should also keep Parliament regularly informed about industrial accidents and the responses made to them. Public opinion must also have easier access to transparent and reliable information about possible dangers and what to do if an accident should occur. The Internet is an effective tool for making people aware of these issues. It should be put to use as quickly as possible, starting with an information campaign regarding the new classification of toxic substances and the hazards they pose to life.

  Judith A. Merkies (S&D). – (NL) Madam President, Commissioner, there was a major fireworks disaster in Enschede in the Netherlands 12 years ago. It claimed the lives of 23 people and made the headlines all over the world. Last year, we had a major fire at Chemie-Pack in Moerdijk, a company that had long provided insufficient information. It was all simply down to inadequate enforcement. Also, when it comes to the fireworks disaster in Enschede, people knew for a long time what was going on in that company; they had been given free rein for a very long time.

Every time a disaster of this kind happens, we go modifying legislation. However, we first of all need to properly supervise enforcement, because that is the most important element. I think it is a good thing, though, that this directive has now been revised because, indeed, transparency for the citizens, knowing what happens within a company, is extremely important and does, indeed, inspire confidence. In particular, the fact that such information is now also available on the Internet is very important right now. It provides our citizens with easy access to this kind of data.

However, the fact that a single body is not in charge of the provision of information and that the municipalities or authorities do not always have the expertise to carry out proper inspections continues to be a problem. We really have to work on that. We need more support for the authorities to carry out inspections properly and we also need to inform the emergency services thereof. We need to ensure good provision of information for the citizens so that their faith in us can be justified.

  Kriton Arsenis (S&D). – (EL) Madam President, Commissioner, we are debating a very important directive. Accidents involving dangerous substances are rare occurrences. However, when they do occur, the repercussions are tragic for citizens in the area and long-term and affect numerous generations. We have managed to improve the legislation; however, there are issues which we did not have the courage to address. We did not have the courage to include, for example, oil drilling platforms, despite tragic experiences in numerous countries of the European Union, despite the tragic experience from the accident in Mexico and despite the tragic repercussions on the economy, marine life and citizens. I think that citizens often expect more from us, from all the European institutions, and I truly hope that next time, we shall include platforms and be more responsive to public demands.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Karin Kadenbach (S&D). – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, we Austrians were indirectly affected by the toxic sludge disaster in Hungary in 2010. The population was extremely concerned and felt very insecure. I therefore welcome the Seveso III initiative, even if, like the previous speaker, Matthias Groote, I agree that some Member States tried very hard to water it down.

I would really urge you to be responsive to the population here. We need this transparency; we need the information. What we need, above all, is to be covered financially. We cannot allow all these precautions and, in the event of a disaster, the costs of that disaster to be passed on to the public. I really feel we need emergency plans that involve the population; emergency plans that really deal with the concerns of those living in the vicinity. In conclusion, all life is chemical, but dangerous chemicals need to be kept under control. Seveso III could have been an opportunity to take somewhat more stringent action in this regard.

  Michèle Rivasi (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Madam President, I would like to thank my fellow Members, especially Mr Áder and Mr Seeber, for their valuable work on the revision of the Seveso Directive.

As we debate the Seveso Directive, my thoughts turn to the accident that occurred in France, AZF – you will recall – in Toulouse. On 21 September 2001, a stock of ammonium nitrate exploded killing 31 people and wounding a further 2 500, who are still traumatised to this day. The damage caused was unbelievable. This was not due to the lack of risk assessment management. It was due to the subcontracting of subcontractors, that is to say, untrained people. The training of employees is also the best form of security.

In any event, give or take a few minor details, I am pleased with the final result, in particular, the essential advances in the management of industrial risks, against which we need to protect our citizens in the race to underinvestment in safety features by integrating the requirements of the Aarhus Convention. This is very important for informing citizens in the interests of transparency, and it is a sine qua non of the organisation of an effective risk management plan.

I have one reservation, Commissioner, which is that there is no assessment of the financial consequences of a major accident and proof of the capacity of companies to address them. That, in my opinion, is a shortcoming of this directive.

  Jaroslav Paška (EFD). – (SK) Madam President, the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council was the main stimulus for the revision of the Seveso Directive. Although, in the revision of this directive, the Commission introduces a new, more sophisticated classification system that distinguishes three categories of toxicity and differentiates between five possible routes of exposure, and proposes a tightening of the existing rules for inspections, some areas of safety protection are not adequately covered in it. In particular, regulation of accountability relationships in the use of subcontractor services is missing, as are provisions on the transport of hazardous loads and their temporary storage in areas which are not covered by the directive. Another serious deficiency of the draft is that there is too much scope for granting derogations to Member States. A number of disasters in recent years have drawn our attention to the fact that, in order to guarantee the safety of equipment, it is necessary to take account of natural risks that are not included in the draft, in addition to the technological risks. I therefore consider it highly necessary to support all the draft amendments of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy which address the shortcomings of the draft submitted by the Commission.

End of the catch-the-eye procedure

  John Dalli, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, it is appreciated that there is agreement on the need for this package, which Parliament will be voting on tomorrow.

This package of rules will allow Member States to ensure better implementation of their policies to prevent and control the consequences of major accidents involving dangerous substances. These substances are now defined by reference to the new international chemical classification and are therefore fully in line with this classification.

The Commission is greatly satisfied with the outcome of negotiations, and I wish to thank the House. I will also inform my colleague, Mr Potočnik, of the comments made during this debate.

  Richard Seeber, rapporteur. – (DE) Madam President, I believe that the debate has made it clear to us that while we are not happy with this compromise, that is the nature of compromise. Perhaps we could have gone further, but it was mainly a case of blocking by the Council. The debate has also clearly shown that we have to pay attention to good implementation. I believe it is one of the main problems of European environmental legislation that we sometimes create very good law, but that some Member States are very slow and lax in implementing it. That is worth drawing attention to here, in the case of Seveso III, because it is specifically concerned with human lives that are put at risk if they live close to such chemical establishments. There is a certain danger potential, and that needs to be properly managed.

It has also been made clear that the instruments available, such as emergency plans and so on, should be as precise as possible and should involve the public, so that every citizen knows how to react in the event of a worst case scenario – if such an accident occurs. Well thought-out plans can save a great many human lives. We all know that time is of the essence here; as is, of course, the training given to safety personnel, both those in the establishment itself and those from the area affected.

It is also key that trust is built up in the population, so that the population feels included, and, of course, prevention is also important. In the case of prevention, too, the management of the establishment is key, as is the local management in the area concerned. We may consider ourselves lucky that, with the ordinary legislative procedure, we have ensured that Parliament is fully involved in the adaptation of this Annex I. We have to make sure that we are not pushed aside here. We have succeeded in that. I would therefore like to end by reiterating that overall, I believe the compromise is in order. Naturally, we might have wanted to go further, but for the sake of agreement with the Council and the Commission, we can accept it.

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

  Matthias Groote (S&D), Blue-card question. – (DE) A blue card, because we have now heard a great many critical voices. I know that Mr Seeber has dealt with the procedure in Parliament very well, having taken this over from János Áder. My question is simply: we are now concluding this at first reading, as we do for as much as 65% of our environmental legislation. My question to the rapporteur is whether we might not perhaps have been able to achieve greater transparency, even though the Council took a blocking attitude, if we had taken it to a second reading? This is a fundamental issue. Richard, I realise that you took this over. However, I would like to hear the current rapporteur’s view on this.

  Richard Seeber (PPE), Blue-card answer. – (DE) Matthias, you yourself are Chair of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety. It is also under your auspices that we carry out the work properly here. For this dossier, in particular, a second reading would not have achieved much. I do not think that it would have strengthened our result. The rapporteur’s overall assessment that we should take the Council along with us here straight away was the right one. The agreement of the shadow rapporteurs also demonstrates that we have, in fact, achieved the best compromise.

However, I am particularly pleased that the Commission has undertaken to check regularly which substances should also be covered. We can continue to push for that. In this respect, I am counting, in particular, on Commissioner Potočnik and his team, that he will apply the proper pressure and expand the scope as we wish.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Thursday, 14 June 2012.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Alajos Mészáros (PPE), in writing. – (HU) Entering into force in 2015, this directive will increase the safety of the operation of plants working with hazardous materials, thereby ensuring better protection for citizens and the prevention of accidents. I supported the approach advocated by the rapporteur in the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, namely, that the level of health and environmental protection should be at least equal to or higher than the current level. To achieve an equal level of protection and prevention throughout Europe, Member States must arrange for the exchange of best practices and the sharing of necessary information. This would allow for a quicker identification of the causes of accidents and the mitigation of negative consequences. It is important to note that in the future, any extension of the scope of the directive must be preceded by impact assessment. The stipulation that amendments to Annex I must be made in an ordinary legislative procedure is an important aspect with regard to the role of Parliament in the legislative process. In the interest of citizens, operators must inform and cooperate with local authorities and must assume liability for any accidents. A reduction in the administrative burdens of small and medium-sized enterprises in the sector can be implemented only if an appropriate level of protection is maintained. In the interest of preserving the health and safety of citizens and preventing disasters, facilities covered by the Seveso Directive must, without exception, comply with the best available techniques.

  Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) History provides us with too many examples of devastating industrial accidents involving hazardous chemicals, which claim lives and destroy the environment. Although EU legislation has progressed, in order to reduce the frequency and impact of these accidents, the accident which occurred in Hungary in 2010 made us all realise that improvements and revisions to EU regulations are still required so as to reinforce the protection provided to communities and the environment against these potential disasters.

I have been opposing for several years a mining project in Romania which, in the event of an accident, would affect, through cyanide pollution, a vast area which is valuable in terms of both the environment and biodiversity, and of its culture and history. The general public are quite rightly concerned by the fact that initiators of such projects refuse to be transparent and give the public access to objective, balanced information. They must be bound by law to provide accurate, complete information, thereby guaranteeing transparency.

I welcome the fact that this report emphasises the point about informing the public and the rights of citizens to know about the potential hazards on their doorstep. I will continue to promote transparency and public debate with regard to other projects as well, such as shale gas or mining projects.

  Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (S&D), in writing. – (HU) The 2010 red mud spill in Hungary demonstrated that no matter how strict the rules for hazardous establishments are, negligent operation and inadequate state monitoring can still allow accidents to happen. It also proved that compensation for accidental damage is only guaranteed if the operator has comprehensive environmental insurance. I welcome the fact that in his report, Mr Áder proposed the introduction of mandatory insurance in the European Union. Depositing industrial and mining waste cannot be considered a final solution. The amounts deposited should be reduced to a minimum, and efforts should be made to recycle the waste generated. Red mud could yield considerable quantities of iron ore, as well as chromium, copper, nickel and other valuable metals. The available procedures to extract these are not yet economical. The European Union should therefore support research into more efficient and more economical ways of recycling industrial and mining waste, including red mud.

  Claudiu Ciprian Tănăsescu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I would like to welcome the outcome of the negotiations with the Council and the compromise package achieved. This legislative update adds that extra modicum of safety which the European Union’s citizens needed. The legislation in question reinforces the policy not only for preventing chemical accidents, but also for the manner in which the responsible operators and authorities respond in the event of accidents, so that a high level of protection is ensured for human health and the environment. Apart from operators having to implement a number of measures with the role of continually improving the activities preventing major accidents, tighter standards are also being introduced for carrying out inspections at industrial installations. It is of paramount importance for the general public to be able to access information about their legitimate concerns over the safety of the environment they live in, as well as information about the nature of the response in the event of accidents involving hazardous substances. In this regard, I am pleased that the compromise package includes these rights mentioned above, as well as provisions about the general public’s involvement in the decision-making process.

18. Female genital mutilation (debate)

  President. – The next item is the Commission debate on female genital mutilation.

  John Dalli, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, all forms of gender-based violence constitute an unacceptable violation of fundamental rights and a clear obstacle to gender equality. Female genital mutilation is one form of violence against women that is particularly unacceptable. It is degrading, it violates fundamental rights, it violates the right to health and it violates children’s rights.

An estimated three million women and girls in the world suffer female genital mutilation every year. Up to half a million women living in Europe have suffered genital mutilation already and many thousands are at risk.

Female genital mutilation can, under no circumstances, be justified by cultural or religious traditions and practices. It has both immediate and long-term consequences for the health of women and can cause death. The Commission is determined to take concrete action and develop a strong policy response to tackle the issue of violence against women in Europe. Female genital mutilation is of particular concern. The Commission has already said so in its strategy for equality between women and men 2010-2015.

The lack of reliable and comparable data is a huge challenge. My colleague, Vice-President Viviane Reding, has asked the European Institute for Gender Equality to assess the reliability and comparability of data available in Member States and to identify data gaps. On this basis, the institute will report on the state of play with regard to this phenomenon, and of the replies drawn up in the Member States. We should get a report in the second half of 2012. Its results will help us to take even better informed action in this field.

In 2011 and 2012, the Commission has made funding available for combating harmful practices through the Daphne III Programme. Financial support will be granted for the implementation of transnational projects to grass-roots organisations working to prevent such practices by raising awareness and changing social attitudes.

Although there is no specific EU-wide legislation on female genital mutilation, it is criminalised in most EU Member States, either through specific laws or under the general criminal codes. A large majority of EU Member States have also included the principle of extraterritoriality in their criminal provisions, thus enabling prosecutions to be brought for female genital mutilation that has been committed outside the European Union.

The Commission is taking measures in the criminal justice area and has proposed legislation on the rights of victims of crime. The aim with the Victims Directive is to ensure that all victims across the European Union have a basic set of minimum rights, that they are treated as individuals and receive appropriate treatment. This instrument notably aims at ensuring that the needs of victims are individually assessed and that the most vulnerable, including victims of female genital mutilation, receive specific treatment appropriate to their needs. The Commission proposal, with changes proposed by the European Parliament, will significantly improve the situation for women as victims of violence.

The EU also addresses the issue of female genital mutilation in its external actions. It supports advocacy and lobbying initiatives for promoting and protecting women’s rights and prohibiting harmful practices. The Commission and the European External Action Service systematically raise the issue of female genital mutilation in their dialogue with African, Caribbean and Pacific countries. In this framework, we underline the need for African states to ensure that female genital mutilation is legally prohibited and that legislation prohibiting female genital mutilation is effectively enforced.

We strongly support the United Nations General Assembly’s planned resolution to ban female genital mutilation. It is crucial that the countries with the highest occurrence of female genital mutilation, in particular, in Africa, take ownership of this resolution. The European External Action Service is currently preparing a campaign, under the EU human rights guidelines on violence against women and girls, to draw attention to the need to step up efforts to eradicate this practice, particularly on the African continent.

Female genital mutilation is an extreme and unacceptable practice. The Commission is determined to combat it and to help empower women inside and outside the European Union through legislation, financial programmes and a range of other means, including support to grass-roots organisations.

  Cristiana Muscardini, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the battle against genital mutilation continues. Politics and civic engagement must defeat this social scourge, which scars millions of women for life. The Union must treat this crime in a coordinated manner with uniform severity and penalties.

Some partial success has already been achieved. The mutilations are, at last, considered a blight, a form of child abuse, a violation of human rights, and a form of gender-based violence. Great credit must go to the women of Africa for their courage in believing in a struggle that is often fraught with danger. Structural changes have now been made in the cultures of origin to recast the role of women. The problem has not died out, however, not even in the European Union, and these clan traditions are still perpetuated in clandestine fashion on too wide a scale.

The institutions must not let up in their campaign against this blight, to eradicate this crime. That is why points 6, 7 and 8 of the resolution call on the Commission to take a series of steps to keep up the pressure in the war against this scourge. A global strategy to combat violence against women must include common actions against genital mutilations, including information, especially in education programmes for girls, in EU countries and third countries alike. We have endorsed this with our support for the resolution on the fight against female sexual mutilations perpetrated in the Union, as voted through with a large parliamentary majority in February 2009. I recall that I was the rapporteur, and I also recall, sadly, despite what the Commissioner has said today, that we still cannot intervene effectively enough to make this offence punishable to the same extent in all 27 Member States.

  Ana Gomes, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (PT) Madam President, female genital mutilation is a vile expression of unequal power relationships between genders; a form of violence against women and of violating their human rights that cannot be tolerated for cultural, religious or any other reasons. It is therefore crucial to incorporate the fight against female genital mutilation into a general and coherent approach to combating gender-based violence and, specifically, that against women, as well as into the struggle for universal respect for human rights. By allocating adequate funds, the European Union, Member States and partners can coordinate on financing innovative programmes and disseminating best practices that meet the needs of young women in vulnerable situations, providing them with easy access to these programmes and services. We also need to support civil society organisations and the awareness raising, mobilisation and training programmes that they carry out in at-risk communities, in Europe and on other continents.

I therefore call on the Commission and the Member States to follow the recommendations of this European Parliament resolution that they incorporate women’s rights and the emancipation of women of all ages throughout European external policy, in line with the 2012 gender action plan. It is crucial to involve national, regional and local authorities, as well as civil society in third countries.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (ES) Madam President, the scourge of female genital mutilation is one of the crudest expressions of gender inequality.

Men own women in some cultures and they maintain that position on three premises: the use of force, their dominant position in society, and superstitions and myths.

Prevention of genital mutilation therefore requires combating the arguments used by men to justify this form of violence, through education. These efforts should focus on the victims.

Women throughout the world should learn that genital mutilation is unacceptable, for basic self-respect, and men should understand that this aberration underscores their insecurities and fear of failure. We must therefore act, Commissioner, in a firmer and more emphatic manner against this phenomenon, to eradicate it through a combination of EU law and continuing to help with education and awareness.

  Isabelle Durant, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (FR) Madam President, this resolution which, I hope, we will unanimously vote in favour of tomorrow because it is so self-evident, forms part of a United Nations-wide strategy of an international call for the prohibition of genital mutilation. It is very important that, through our resolution, we are able to support this international strategy.

Several years ago, a number of women, including Chantal Compaoré, who is the First Lady of Burkina Faso, undertook to make this call at international level. As has been said, other European countries agreed to the ban a long time ago. We must therefore be able to move forward on this matter, and our resolution may contribute to this at the UN General Assembly.

Above all, we have to realise that, although the ban is an extremely important step politically as a signal, this obviously does not mean that we need not work to the full extent with the women and groups of women who employ these practices. This is not a practice employed by men but, unfortunately, by women. We must be able to support programmes through prevention and guidance.

If there is a general ban, taken up by the United Nations, there will be a monitoring and support strategy, as there is in other matters, in the case of anti-personnel landmines and others. It is very important if we are to eradicate this scourge for all women, everywhere, in the long term.

  Marina Yannakoudakis, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Madam President, I am ashamed to say that the number of cases of female genital mutilation (FGM) reported in my constituency of London is rising and that some of these procedures are, in fact, taking place in London itself. So I am glad we are having this debate today, because FGM is carried out on women who live here in Europe. FGM is illegal in the UK and the law extends to protect citizens even if they are taken abroad for this procedure.

All Member States must take firm action to combat this illegal practice. We need to ensure that Europe is doing all it can to safeguard girls and women, thus setting an example to the developing world.

FGM is barbaric. It is fundamentally a violation of the rights of women and girls. It is currently a taboo subject, so I hope that by talking about it openly, we will raise awareness and work towards putting a stop to this terrible practice.

  Mikael Gustafsson, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (SV) Madam President, I am very pleased that, just as my fellow Member said, we will adopt a joint resolution tomorrow that lends explicit support to the United Nation’s work to prevent female genital mutilation and that establishes that this is a completely unacceptable form of violence against women.

I would like to emphasise that the fight against female genital mutilation, both in Europe and worldwide, must go hand in hand with stepping up the work for increased equality between men and women at all levels of society. This also means strengthening women’s sexual and reproductive rights and their right to decide on matters relating to their own body and their own sexuality.

In Europe, we must be careful not to single out particular cultures or groups; instead, we must work at strengthening the position of girls and women within society as a whole, in both majority and minority groups. Targeted efforts to prevent female genital mutilation are also necessary, however, in cooperation with women’s organisations and other key players.

Finally, I would like to emphasise the fact that, in this resolution, we are clearly urging the Commission once again to present a proposal for an EU strategy to prevent violence against women, as a cohesive strategy like this will enable us to take effective and forceful EU measures to combat female genital mutilation in Europe.

  Barbara Matera (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I am voting firmly and with conviction in favour of Parliament’s resolution to combat the brutal practice of female genital mutilation. Fighting this inhumane practice means not only opposing a barbaric act meted out to 140 million women, 500 000 of whom are in Europe, but also battling to end the heinous discrimination to which the female sex continues to be subjected.

Female genital mutilation has irreversible consequences for a woman’s mental and physical health. Infections, the risk of contracting AIDS, birth problems and the compromising of future pregnancies are just some of the consequences of this violent imposition perpetrated using rudimentary, unsterilised instruments. Furthermore, given that the practice is inflicted on girls under 15 years of age, it must be considered no less than a violation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

In conclusion, the European Commission needs to recognise this crime in order that financial resources can be allocated to combating it. The support of all civil society is needed. Thus, Member States will be able to act together in concert against the continuing violence against women worldwide.

  Véronique De Keyser (S&D). – (FR) Madam President, I would first like to pay tribute to all the mutilated women and girls who have had the courage to tell of their suffering.

It is important to know exactly what genital mutilation is. We always think of the excision of the clitoris, but there is also infibulation. Allow me to describe it to you. The labia majora are also removed, the vulva is sutured with string or with acacia spines until scarring occurs covering the vagina and the urethra.

To permit urination, menstruation and the evacuation of vaginal secretions, a small reed stem is introduced during suture, leaving a minuscule orifice in the scar tissue. According to an eye-witness account, the worst thing is menstruation and urination. It takes one hour, sometimes two, to urinate. Later, when these girls have their periods, they have to introduce a small stick into the vagina to open up a passageway to allow the blood to flow out. Young girls squat and contract the bladder to urinate. They roll about on the ground and it is very painful.

I have met gynaecologists in Brussels who discovered women giving birth having been infibulated and the husband refused to allow them to remove the infibulation. That is happening here.

This ownership by men of their wives or, more precisely, of their sexual organs, is not part of Muslim tradition. It is a millennium-long custom which corresponds, in our Christian tradition, to the chastity belt, with which the crusaders girded their wives before leaving to deliver Jerusalem into the hands of the infidels.

However, centuries later, over and over again, the same battle is being fought by women for their freedom. Even today, the same religious obscurantism in cruel patriarchal systems perpetuates, before our eyes, these forms of torture, from which all taboos must be lifted, and I thank the Commission for taking up this issue.

  Cecilia Wikström (ALDE). – (SV) Madam President, female genital mutilation is so horrific that it is almost beyond words. Nearly three million women are subjected to this each year. That is more than 8 000 women a day, 240 women every hour or five women during this minute that I have at my disposal for this speech.

It is difficult to imagine the pain involved in this. The statistics are extremely depressing. According to the data, 180 000 girls in Europe are in the risk zone for being subjected to this barbaric practice. It is now high time the world acted to get a global ban on female genital mutilation in place. This ought to be the common foreign policy’s number one priority within the area of human rights. It is also the aim of this resolution. Many of us who have signed this resolution were involved in ‘The Vagina Monologues’, which was performed here in the European Parliament earlier this spring. This is further proof that the fight against this abuse reaches beyond party boundaries, across countries and beyond ideologies. It is now time to put a stop to this barbaric practice.

  Nicole Kiil-Nielsen (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Madam President, let me tell you about my personal experience in this regard.

In the context of decentralised cooperation, I had the opportunity to work with associations in Africa and came face to face with the reality of female genital mutilation, about which Ms De Keyser has just spoken.

Our resolution stresses the importance of relying on local authorities and NGOs. Taking into account the realities on the ground is essential in the fight against these practices. For example, in any programme to combat female genital mutilation, it must be borne in mind that, for the women who practise it, it is a professional activity. It is sometimes their only source of income, and I know from experience that many of these women are more than willing to abandon the practice if they are offered reintegration into the labour market.

I particularly wanted to share this testimony with you, as it is my personal experience.

I would also like to stress the exemplary value of the delegations we send to third countries, which must ensure equal representation, as this is the best way of advancing the cause of gender equality.

  Emma McClarkin (ECR). – Madam President, as a young woman, I read with horror the story of Waris Dirie and her experience of female genital mutilation. It was not an issue that I had heard of before and it brought me to tears. Her bravery in surviving her experiences and speaking out against this brutality against women deserves all of our admiration, and also highlights the plight of millions of women throughout the world who have suffered this horrific practice.

Sadly, female genital mutilation is not a practice unknown to the UK, where it is reported that some 100 000 women undergo this brutal mutilation illegally, with some victims even as young as ten. It is right that we in this Parliament speak out for all the victims of this barbaric procedure that affects its victims not only physically, but mentally, for the rest of their lives. We must continue to raise this problem and the unspoken suffering, which not only infringes on human rights, but also violates the rights of the child. We need to do all we can to eradicate this brutal practice from the UK, Europe, and beyond, to protect young children and women from this heinous crime.

  Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE). – Madam President, women’s rights are human rights and they have to be respected in all fields of life, with legal protection and certainty.

They are not subject to personal beliefs, or to whether one wants to respect them or not. They are universal. They belong to all women, every woman and every child.

And they are not subject to the subsidiarity principle. It is not up to Member States or some countries to decide how they treat half of their population.

One of the most brutal crimes of hatred against women is genital mutilation. It touches the whole core of gender and sex, of being a woman.

It touches also girls: underage girls and children. It mutilates, it denies their opinion, it denies their untouched bodies and it denies their sexual existence.

Women and girls have a right to independence. They have a right to their own opinions. They have a right to decide over their own bodies and over their own minds and over their choices of life, whatever their preferences and whatever they might be.

The European Union’s institutions have to act – the Commission, Parliament – and especially the Member States, both internally in the EU and at multilateral level, in the UN General Assembly, to adopt a resolution at its 67th session with a view to ending female genital mutilation worldwide, because we have moved beyond this.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D). – (FR) Madam President, I would like to join with my fellow Members in speaking with a strong voice to help put an end to the torture that is genital mutilation.

However, the discussions that will take place at the UN General Assembly must not allow us to forget what is happening in our Member States, and we must remind them of their obligations. I will therefore focus on a particular aspect, which is complementary to those that have been addressed by my fellow Members. It is estimated that 500 000 women and girls living in Europe suffer the life-long consequences of genital mutilation and that 180 000 of them are at risk each year.

Genital mutilation is recognised as a form of persecution linked to age and gender and, on the basis of recent developments in case-law, it has been established that a girl or a woman seeking asylum because she has suffered, or is likely to suffer, genital mutilation may be eligible for refugee status under the 1951 convention.

Yet, a number of Member States sometimes adhere to a, let us say, restrictive interpretation of the reasons for an asylum request. However, Member States must assume their responsibilities, because it is not acceptable for the approaches taken by them to be fragmented. We must all take part in this fight to prevent these acts of cruelty, to ensure that they do not go unpunished and, finally, to provide maximum protection for the victims.

  Teresa Jiménez-Becerril Barrio (PPE). – (ES) Madam President, I have been denouncing female genital mutilation since I became a Member of Parliament. This silent and accepted crime is suffered by millions of women and girls throughout the world: 70 million, I repeat, 70 million. An unbearable figure for those who stop to examine the terrible consequences of these practices, hidden under the guises of psychological, health, and religious reasons, all of which are false. The truth is that circumcision, preferentially practised on 14-year-old girls, and even those aged one year old, can lead to death by haemorrhagic shock and, at best, cause and bring about strong psychological consequences from the trauma.

We should strive with all our efforts in Europe to eradicate this violation of human rights, which infringes on the right to equal opportunities and puts health at risk.

It is, ladies and gentlemen, abuse, cruelty and torture against girls, and this degrading treatment also occurs in Europe. We must therefore activate all the available prevention mechanisms in our legal system and encourage our judges to act to prevent the genital mutilation of girls in Europe, punishing those who carry it out. EU law has to speak with a single voice to combat the mutilation on our soil.

Lastly, I call on civil society and NGOs to become actively involved in education and prevention campaigns. There is still a long way to go, but we are a large group who will not give up, as we owe it to the 70 million mutilated women.

  Michael Cashman (S&D). – Madam President, I wish to associate myself with what has been said already. Female genital mutilation is an internationally recognised abuse of human rights, child rights and women’s rights, but it can only be addressed if we recognise the holistic rights of women. Those include sexual health and reproductive rights, the right of a woman to decide what to do with her own body.

I, too, have witnessed the physical effects on women who have been forced to undergo genital mutilation and it is abhorrent. It is barbaric, it is indefensible. No culture, no religion can defend this practice and I am pleased that the UN General Assembly will consider this vitally important subject at its 67th session.

I am also pleased that the Africa Group will be leading on this, but this is not only happening in Africa and on other continents; it is also happening here, as was said earlier, in Europe.

Some 500 000 women are living with the effects of female genital mutilation and 180 000 are still at risk. Think of that: 180 000 at risk. Women and young girls. It shames us all.

(Applause)

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE). – (FI) Madam President, we received good news last year. The UN campaign against the mutilation of women and girls persuaded more than 6 000 communities to give up the practice of mutilation.

However, the figures are still horrendous. In Egypt, for example, 97% of girls were formerly circumcised, and still the figure is around 72% to 91%, depending on the various sources, although the authorities in the country have been trying to deny that the practice takes place since the end of the 1990s, which leaves open to interpretation the number of operations for reasons of health.

The problem is huge in southern parts of Egypt, in particular. We have to remember that the custom takes place in Christian, Muslim and animist communities across Africa and western Asia. The prevention of mutilation requires comprehensive social change, and the EU must continue to support those who are fighting against it.

It is important to establish a support group for victims, but, in particular, to continue campaigning to prevent mutilation. Mutilation is a crime against women and girls; it is aggravated assault.

  Karin Kadenbach (S&D). – (DE) Madam President, when ‘Desert Flower’ was published in 1998, my eldest daughter was 14 years old, and when I read the book, in which Waris Dirie described what she went through, I thought that surely this was something that happened in the Middle Ages. I could not believe that it was happening in the present day.

I still find it incomprehensible that it is happening in our midst, and that it affects 500 000 women in Europe. Today, 14 years later, my youngest daughter is 14 years old, and I am pleased that she will be spared such barbaric practices. I believe that, now that we know what is going on, we have a particular responsibility to deal with it. We must establish that it is nothing to do with religious practices, but that in reality, it is a gross violation of human rights. On this issue we must adopt absolute zero tolerance; we are talking about causing physical and psychological harm to these women. One task that we should take away with us today is to fight the stigmatisation of the women affected, because it is only if the victims speak out that we have any chance of ending this barbaric practice.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D). – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, too many women and girls still undergo female genital mutilation. The number is currently estimated at 140 million around the world and, every year, approximately 3 million girls are still at risk of becoming victims of genital mutilation.

Genital mutilation, which is generally carried out on infants and adolescents between the ages of four and 14, is also practised in certain African countries on babies under one year of age.

It is high time that the fundamental rights of women and children were respected in all countries of the world and not just in Europe, where we are particularly concerned and where – as Mr Cashman said just now – some 500 000 women have undergone genital mutilation. The physical and mental health of all those who have been robbed of their dignity is at stake.

No reason given by the mutilators can justify such barbarity towards women. It deprives them of their fundamental right to be in charge of their own bodies.

Finally, Europe must therefore do all it can to help every single country combat this form of abuse and, in particular, support the efforts of associations fighting against these practices, which Ms Kiil-Nielsen and Ms Jiménez-Becerril Barrio spoke about before me.

  Evelyn Regner (S&D). – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, the figures are horrendous; it is hard to imagine that 155 million women worldwide are affected by genital mutilation. We in the European Union must ensure that we bring about an awareness that puts an end to these practices. In particular, we must work to achieve the banning of female genital mutilation in third countries and to create awareness there of how inhumane these practices are.

It is important that the victims receive psychological and adequate medical care, and finally – and this is particularly important to me – to make it clear that parents who do this to their children will be given prison sentences that act as a deterrent.

  Emer Costello (S&D). – Madam President, female genital mutilation (FGM) is a dangerous and degrading practice. It violates women’s human rights, their right to sexual and reproductive health and their dignity.

Many of the women who have suffered FGM end up being scarred both emotionally and physically.

In Ireland, we passed legislation recently, just in April, outlawing FGM. This legislation also makes it illegal to aid or abet the procurement of FGM, even outside of Ireland, so nobody can be taken outside of that country.

The campaign to enact legislation in Ireland was very much spearheaded by a young Somali woman who led a group of young women called ‘The United Youth of Ireland’, which organised fashion shows and awareness raising programmes throughout Ireland.

In addition, the ‘End FGM European Campaign’, which is led by Amnesty in Ireland, has called for data collection, the training of health workers – which is really important, particularly in maternity hospitals – educational activities, training of police forces and training of the judiciary.

I hope that the transnational projects that have been referred to may be able to fund some of these projects into the future.

The Commissioner mentioned the directive relating to the victims of crime. I would just like to ask him whether that directive will actually contain a specific reference to the victims of FGM, because I believe that is very important.

Finally, I very much welcome the fact, Commissioner, that you have stated that the EEAS will be raising this in external countries as well, as I believe that this is a very welcome development.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, since 2010, when the European Commission promised to adopt a strategy on violence against women, including female genital mutilation, no coherent, structured attempt has been made to combat this crime.

According to estimates, 500 000 women and girls living in Europe have undergone them, and over 180 000 are at risk every year. The consequences range from haemorrhagic shock to neurogenic shock, and mutilations are carried out mainly on girls from 4 to 14 years of age, although in Eritrea, Mali and Yemen, they are often practised on neonates. The mutilations are often done in unhygienic conditions, resulting in abscesses, cysts, infections and sometimes even death.

UNICEF considers female genital mutilation a violation of women’s rights. I believe that it should, instead, be considered a crime against humanity. I therefore call on the European Union to act with all possible means against the countries that accept or tolerate it.

  Nicole Sinclaire (NI). – Madam President, while I am opposed to this institution, I welcome any forum to discuss an issue that is so repugnant.

Worldwide, it is estimated that well over 120 million women will be subjected to female genital mutilation. The aim of the process is to ensure that the woman is faithful to her future husband. Some communities consider girls ineligible for marriage if they have not been circumcised.

How can you use religion and cultural tradition to excuse child abuse? It has been reported that girls as young as three undergo this process.

Member States must tackle, and take a lead in combating, this despicable crime. Where the crime takes place in a Member State, strong custodial sentences must be passed. When aid is provided to countries where this is prevalent, conditions must be put in place to send a clear message that this practice must stop.

Thankfully, due to health campaigns, female circumcision has been falling in some countries in the last decade. These involve a week-long programme of community education about the negative effects of female genital mutilation, culminating in a coming of age ceremony for young women. The young women are secluded for a week and undergo classes on reproduction, anatomy, hygiene, respect for adults, developing self-esteem and dealing with peer pressure.

All of us here must do whatever we can to stop this barbarism.

End of the catch-the-eye procedure

  John Dalli, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, thank you for this discussion. In the 21st century, millions of young women are still subjected to genital mutilation every year. They risk death and, if they survive their injury, they face the prospect of disability and very risky childbirths.

The EU will continue to campaign for the rights and empowerment of women in all contexts through fighting gender-based violence and supporting relevant initiatives against harmful traditional practices, in particular, female genital mutilation (FGM). By the end of July, the Foreign Affairs Council is expected to adopt the EU Action Plan for Human Rights and Democracy and the EU Strategic Framework on Human Rights and Democracy, where FGM is one of the priorities.

The Commission has been able to finance a number of important civil society-driven projects in the poorest countries. About EUR 55 million have been allocated to projects on maternal health and projects addressing youth and their special health problems and needs.

I believe my colleagues, Cathy Ashton and Viviane Reding, will both work with honourable Members in raising awareness about female genital mutilation.

  President. – I have received three motions for resolutions⁽¹⁾tabled in accordance with Rule 110(2) of the Rules of Procedure.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Thursday, 14 June 2012.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) Violence against women, of which genital mutilation is an example, is a reality and constitutes a serious human rights violation. The figures show that the majority of women will experience some form of violence during their lives. EU legislation needs to be strengthened, ideally with a directive, so that this type of violence is considered a criminal act in all EU Member States. National legislation should provide for legal aid, social and workplace guidance, and access to health care. Only by really understanding the situation in Europe will we be able to combat this scourge effectively. To this end, it is essential that we create a domestic violence observatory. Knowledge of the problem is essential if we are to be able to adopt the best strategies for prevention, intervention, protecting the victims and punishing the perpetrators. Prevention is key. The main challenges are eliminating stereotypes and myths, and changing representations of gender and the values that have been perpetuated by the existence of unequal relations in the family, in schools and in society. Awareness raising and mobilisation by civil society constitute a pivotal strategy for changing practices and behaviour.

  Lívia Járóka (PPE), in writing. – (HU) Genital mutilation is one of the most grievous and harmful forms of gender-based violence affecting more than 140 million women globally and an unacceptably high number of 500 000 women in Europe, with an estimated 180 000 girls being at risk of this destructive practice. Intentionally damaging female genitals for non-medical reasons – performed with primitive tools and without antiseptic precaution – is an obvious violation of fundamental rights and since it mostly affects girls younger than 15, a violation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. No religious, cultural or traditional convention may justify its serious adverse consequences on girls’ mental and physical integrity, including the irreparable damage of affected organs, painful sexual intercourse and childbirth, infection, shock, the transmission of HIV, tumours and complications after pregnancy and childbirth. Effective sanctions need to be introduced against perpetrators, enabling law enforcement officials to mobilise all available instruments for combating this practice. Taking into consideration the nature of genital mutilation, the close cooperation of national authorities and institutions with civil society, women’s rights organisations, and representatives of affected communities – such as religious and community leaders – is essential for eradicating this form of violence against women.

  Filip Kaczmarek (PPE), in writing. – (PL) Female genital mutilation is an horrific tradition. Not everything found in the traditions of any particular culture can be said to be good. Pain and suffering cannot be good. We respect diversity and difference. However, there are areas in which we are compelled by European values to be resolute in protest and in opposition. We do not agree to the mutilation of women. We consider these practices to be harmful, dangerous to health and life, and cruel. We will do everything possible to discourage these practices, and to eliminate them completely in the future. We do not want girls to suffer for reasons which cannot be considered justified under any circumstances.

(1) See Minutes

19. Defective silicone gel breast implants made by French company PIP (debate)

  President. – The next item is the debate on the oral question to the Commission on the defective silicone gel breast implants produced by the French company PIP, raised by Philippe Juvin and Thomas Ulmer, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), Linda McAvan and Gilles Pargneaux, on behalf of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, Corinne Lepage and Antonyia Parvanova, on behalf of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, Margrete Auken and Michèle Rivasi, on behalf of the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, Marina Yannakoudakis, on behalf of the European Conservatives and Reformists Group, Marisa Matias, on behalf of the Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left, and Oreste Rossi, on behalf of the Europe of Freedom and Democracy Group (O-000101/2012 – B7-0118/2012).

  Sophie Auconie, author. – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is clear that the PIP implants affair is not a simple case of national sanitary fraud. Unfortunately, we can see to what extent it is having, and will have, an impact at European and international level.

Allow me to give you some figures to illustrate the point. PIP implants were marketed in 71 countries worldwide. Some 400 000 breast implants were sold, affecting approximately 40 000 women in the United Kingdom, 30 000 in France and 10 000 in Spain. The Medical Devices Directive will be revised this autumn. We, as legislator, must learn from this fraud and strengthen our market surveillance and vigilance system for medical devices.

I lend my support to the proposals made by Thomas Ulmer and Philippe Juvin, the rapporteurs of the resolution on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), who apologise for being unable to be here this evening. I call on the Commission to take the following recommendations into consideration. We must strengthen and harmonise inspection obligations at Community level. Regular, unannounced, annual inspections need to be carried out urgently at all stages in the life of a medical device. The conditions of accreditation of notified bodies must be harmonised and the traceability, transparency and monitoring of medical devices placed on the European market must be strengthened.

Finally, I wish to draw your attention to a fundamental point: the need to find a balance between protecting our European patients and supporting innovation and research. We must bring together safety, transparency, consistency and flexibility. The first consistent approach is not to treat medical devices like medicinal products. There are three fundamental differences: a difference in nature, a difference in time to market, and a difference in terms of market flows.

Consequently, it is clear that the introduction of a market authorisation for the highest-risk medical devices would only result in administrative burdens, additional costs, longer times to market and, above all, it would stifle innovation. That is something that needs to be assessed depending on the case.

  Linda McAvan, author. – Madam President, I agree with nearly everything that is in the resolution before us this evening. I am looking forward to hearing Commissioner Dalli tell us how the revision of the Medical Devices Directive will take on board the lessons we can learn from the PIP scandal which, as Ms Auconie has said, has affected so many women in the European Union and beyond.

But I want to talk tonight about something a little wider than our resolution. It is about my amendment on advertising. We do not allow prescription medicines to be advertised in the European Union, yet we do allow magazines – women’s magazines mainly – to publish adverts like this: pages and pages of glossy, full colour adverts urging women to get breast implants. Two countries have already banned this kind of advertising – France and Belgium – but in the rest of Europe, this is pretty normal stuff. I wonder, Commissioner, whether you could tell us if anything can be done about it at European level.

If you look at the websites of these same companies, they have these frequently asked questions about breast surgery on them. It tells you how much you will pay, and how to get a loan to have the surgery. It does give you some facts about the surgery, but nowhere does it say that 30% of women will have to have a new implant within 10 years, and that nearly all implants have to be replaced at least every 10 to 15 years. In other words, if you go at the age of 32, which is the average age for having a breast implant, for the rest of your life, you will have to have another implant and then another implant, and so on. I looked at three reputable companies. Not one website mentioned this fact – not one. I do not think that is good enough.

When people have major surgery it is a risk to their health and I do not think there is enough information out there. We need informed patients. Commissioner, I do not know what your competence is, but as we have laws on advertising prescription medicines, I consider it about time we regulated this industry, which is encouraging people to take risks. Many women who have been surveyed were not aware that this meant repeat operation after repeat operation.

(Applause)

  Margrete Auken, author. – (DA) Madam President, in this situation, I think it important that we manage to point out that product approval needs to be much, much better in future than it has been hitherto. That is something that we are all well aware of. I would very much like to emphasise that what particularly needs to be the case from now on is that there must be transparency, there must be openness, there must be access so that independent researchers and doctors, too, can come in and check trial data. In other words, it must be impossible, where there are human trials, for the industry to cover up the results. It must be possible, at any point in the process, to come in and evaluate the following questions. Have there been any harmful side effects? Is this actually an improvement? Is there, in fact, no improvement? Are we ripping off society by producing new devices where the old ones actually worked perfectly well already?

I believe that it is absolutely crucial that we should have that transparency and I very much hope that Commissioner Dalli will support the idea of it now being the patient, the people, the citizens, who are put at the heart of things, rather than the industry.

In addition, I hope that we can bring about a situation where, if there is deception with the results, which is something we have seen with the medical industry – and I am not, now, talking about the breast implants; what was done there was illegal, after all, but there can be a great deal of other deception – it must be treated as a crime, not just as something that can be sorted out by means of fines.

Finally, I would like to say to my fellow Members and also to the Commission that, if the industry gets a sniff of the idea that there is a prospect of there being real, actual, true transparency and access to the unprocessed data, it will bring a highly formidable lobbying arsenal to bear against us. We will have to face all kinds of accusations of how we are destroying their opportunities, reducing chances for patients, destroying competitiveness and destroying options for research and innovation. I thus very much hope that we are able to withstand the pressure we are all going to be facing, so that we can actually come up with something about which we can hold our heads up high and that we can show to the Americans (unless we are going to adopt their system) and say that what we have come up with is even better!

  Marina Yannakoudakis, author. – Madam President, six months after the PIP breast implant scandal hit the headlines, the European Parliament is finally getting round to addressing this appalling case of medical malpractice.

It is staggering to comprehend how PIP, once the world’s third largest supplier of breast implants, could disregard the law for almost ten years.

It is important we learn from public health incidents such as this. However, it is also vital that we examine all the facts before drawing conclusions on how a system might need to change to prevent such malpractice happening again.

In addition, we must stress that the PIP scandal does not illustrate a failure of the current compliance system. This was a criminal offence that involved manufacturers placing a substandard product on the market.

Although the committee resolution contains plenty of positive measures that will improve the regulatory framework for medical devices, the text also includes demands for a pre-market authorisation. This duplicates existing laws and standards and is needlessly disproportionate in my view.

Paragraph 22, for example, tabled by the Greens, calls for toxicology assessments on all medical devices. Do we really think that by nitpicking over the toxicity of everything, from elastic bandages to pacemakers, people will stop breaking the law?

Care should always be taken not to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut and I caution against knee-jerking responses that could fundamentally alter a regulatory system that has been protecting patients for more than 20 years.

My group has therefore tabled an amendment and several requests for split and separate votes, in the hope that we can iron out these inconsistencies.

  Marisa Matias, author. – (PT) Madam President, Commissioner, it is true that six months have already passed since the Poly Implant Prothèse (PIP) scandal. The most unbelievable thing is that, for 10 years, a private company could have managed to operate in the market and give women from 71 countries silicone implants that should be used for construction and manufacturing mattresses.

This affected many hundreds of thousands of women, as has already been mentioned: it is estimated at around 500 000. We are talking about estimates because there were failings, serious failings, with this process. We know that what happened with this company was criminal activity, fraud and a matter for the courts. However, we also know that this is a fraud that should be monitored by the courts and the courts will deal with it. Nevertheless, there has been a failure of the law; a legal vacuum that we should tackle. We are responsible for that area.

For 10 years, we did not manage to identify what the criminals managed to identify, so there was a vacuum in terms of monitoring, in terms of traceability, in terms of files, in terms of records; everything failed. However, the people in charge of this company managed to put into practice something that we failed to monitor, so this process does not just concern the issue of the lack of information in this regard and, in fact, all those issues relating to breast implants: those are very important, but there is also the humiliation of thousands of women and the humiliation, in particular, of those women who had to undergo tests to know whether or not they had the correct implants.

We are talking about a public health issue and we cannot be lax as regards public health: we monitor so many unnecessary things – we even monitor the authenticity of replacement car parts – and it is still not long since we adopted a directive on this. We have to monitor that which is essential to people’s lives. The revision of the Medical Devices Directive is good news, but it would be better news if we did not have to do it. However, now that we are going to do it, let us put in place transparency, monitoring and penalties with conditions and traceability because, unfortunately, even if penalties are applied, they will not benefit the women who suffered from this problem, so states should accept full liability.

  Oreste Rossi, author. – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the debate and the vote on the resolution come at a particularly propitious time because, if approved, the resolution can provide useful guidance for the medical device review.

The breast implants issue has highlighted the deficiencies in the current system for certifying compliance with essential health and safety requirements. In my view, the review proposals from the European Commission and Commissioner Dalli rightly seek greater controls on medical device manufacturers and greater rigour from the competent authorities when issuing authorisations. I also agree with the need to avoid creating excessive bureaucracy that might block the use of innovative products for years. I believe that it is important to ensure rigorous, efficient and swift controls at European level.

The thousands of women who have undergone breast implant surgery need to be made aware of the risks that they may face. They should be offered screening and medical advice to check for any damage and to prevent the implants from rupturing. It is important to set up a register to identify people who have been implanted with particular medical devices, so that information can be provided in good time if the devices need to be checked, altered or replaced.

Introducing an ‘ID card’ for implants would enable users to obtain information about all the potential risks to which they may be exposed and which checks are advisable over time. It is vital, within a cooperative EU framework, that Member States make specific commitments to eliminate or minimise the recurrence of such serious events as that associated with the PIP silicone implants.

  John Dalli, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, during the last 20 years, the medical device regulatory system has, overall, provided for safe, reliable and performing devices in Europe and has provided the flexibility needed for the high number of medical devices and the short life cycle of these products. It has also proven to be a system that is cost-effective and SME-friendly. It has put Europe in the forefront of innovation.

For months before the PIP case, the Commission was reviewing the Medical Devices Directive, because we found that it needed quite a number of improvements. The PIP case is indeed appalling. It is a case of fraud which went undetected due to weaknesses in the post-market phase. Nevertheless, the case has highlighted a number of weaknesses in the regulatory framework.

In order to provide a rapid answer to European patients’ concerns, I have identified, and shared with the European Parliament, a number of actions to be taken immediately, together with the Member States, on the basis of the current legislation. This includes tightening market controls, in order to provide a better guarantee of the safety of medical technology, especially high risk devices. I have therefore written to the Health Ministers of all the Member States to ask for their support, and together we are now putting these actions in place.

For the longer term, the revised medical device legislation that the Commission has been preparing – independently of the PIP case, as I said – will also take on board the experiences of this affair. The Commission intends to adopt its proposal shortly after the summer break.

A number of improvements were already foreseen to reinforce the system. These improvements will contribute to avoiding cases like the PIP implant case. To mention but a few: we want to strengthen the designation, monitoring and functioning of notified bodies and ensure that this is carried out in accordance with the same high standards across the EU; and we want a stronger role to be given to competent authorities, both in pre- and post-market phases.

The system can only be efficient if we make the best use of the limited number of experts available. This is why the Commission foresees a pre-market scrutiny mechanism to be put in place for high-risk devices, and other devices where necessary, but on a case by case basis. This mechanism will allow a committee composed of Member States’ experts to check certain notified bodies’ assessments before the devices can have access to the market.

The advantage of doing so will be twofold. First, it will ensure an equal level of assessment by notified bodies, in particular, with regard to clinical evidence. Second, it will allow Member States to be informed of products coming onto the market so that they can ensure targeted controls of these products. This mechanism has the advantage that scarce resources and expertise are used to ensure efficient and proportionate pre-market control and reinforced vigilance and market surveillance. Last but not least, we want to improve the traceability requirements for medical devices, for instance, by means of a unique device identification and a single registration system.

Following the PIP case, the Commission performed a ‘stress test’ of the medical device legislation in order to identify additional possible shortcomings of the regulatory framework and address them in the context of the upcoming revision. As a result of the stress test, additional measures will be included in the Commission proposal.

These proposals will concern the audit activities of the notified bodies. Particular attention will be paid to the obligatory unannounced visits to the manufacturer, testing of products and rotation of auditors. Information will be given to national authorities with regard to negative outcomes of such audits. Measures should also be put in place to enhance the reporting of incidents by health care professionals and patients. Patients’ awareness should also be improved through, for example, implant cards providing appropriate information.

This is where I believe that the transparency of the market should be enhanced, by giving all interested parties the right information not only – as Ms McAvan has said – about costs and benefits, but also about the duration, durability and consequences of the implants or whatever other device they are using, because this is not only a question of implants and there are other devices in use.

I believe everybody needs to know all the implications of using such devices, because some people really do think that once they go through a procedure, it is a once in a lifetime procedure, which, in many instances, is not the case. This has to be continuously put in front of our patients, or our consumers, in the way we are suggesting. These cards have to be given to every single patient who undergoes any type of procedure involving such implants. In this way, patient awareness will be greatly improved.

I do believe that the set of measures already foreseen, combined with additional measures deemed necessary in the light of the result of the stress test, will considerably reinforce the system, favour innovation and ensure that only safe and performing medical devices are placed on the European market, for the benefit of European citizens. I have taken note of the points raised by Ms Auconie and I must say that all her points are, in fact, included in the proposal that we will be presenting, as I said, just after the summer.

  Elisabetta Gardini, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I thank the Commissioner for his important and very welcome comments. I agree with him that it is truly alarming that we have been living with the sheer number of cases in our various countries that Ms Auconie has reported.

Nevertheless, it is equally clear that this scandal has strongly highlighted the need for a careful reappraisal of the current European legislation on medical devices. Unfortunately, this fraud has revealed the deficiencies that we have discussed thus far in this Chamber and that the Commissioner has set out so clearly that I do not wish to dwell on this aspect in the little time I have available.

I believe that all necessary steps should be taken so that we can offer the best to our citizens. I believe that this scandal, which has taught us many things, can also be a springboard for further progress, and I echo what my colleague said earlier. Information for patients is highly inadequate. The emphasis is always, exclusively, on the upside, with allusions to a kind of eternal youth and a promise of beauty, even though no implants are completely risk-free. I believe that this should be clearly communicated to people, especially girls, for we know that some very young girls are seeking this kind of operation, and especially as regards purely cosmetic surgery. Therefore – and I see that you firmly agree – I urge that we move fast, for time is at a premium, and this change is long overdue.

  Gilles Pargneaux, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, we had the Mediator scandal some time ago. We now have the breast implant scandal, which, as you said, Commissioner, unfortunately highlights the shortcomings of health security in Europe.

The breast implant scandal is a case of fraud that went unpunished for 14 years, from 1996 to 2010. During that time, 500 000 implants were placed on the market, 8 000 implants were removed, 48 cases of cancer were reported, and 3 500 complaints were lodged. These are frightening, shocking figures. Commissioner, how, despite warnings from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the numerous complaints and convictions for ruptured implants in Great Britain and France in particular, could national and European agencies miss such a fraud?

This tragedy immediately made us think about improving the European regulatory system for medical devices, as you explained just now. Commissioner, today we must build a system capable of preventing scandal, but it must be a new system. You told us about the new legislation to come into effect this autumn. As co-author of this resolution, I am, of course, pleased with that.

However, Commissioner, you seem to want to take into account many of our concerns, as set out in this resolution. In that case, why make an exception that is unacceptable to a large number of MEPs here in this House? Why not introduce a market authorisation for medical devices in class III, those that are highest risk? Commissioner Dalli, can you explain your position to me?

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (ES) Madam President, I hope that the reform of EU legislation on the control of medical devices and implants is as complete as the proposals contained in this resolution.

We have learnt a lot of lessons from the PIP implant crisis, and a large number of the solutions are on the table. It is imperative that data is exchanged, warning systems are set up for EU-wide notification of any incidents, mechanical and clinical tests on the implants are improved, and transparent and improved information is available to patients.

We need a penalty system that applies to suppliers that sell dangerous merchandise and to professionals along the trade and health care chain who do not collaborate with this effort towards transparency, monitoring and control. They are ethical and scientific demands along the same lines as it being fair to arbitrate compensation for the victims of this episode.

There also things that are not easy to express aloud and to add here in a week in which financial voracity continues to swallow up our efforts to save the European project, which also contributes towards citizens’ well-being through issues such as the one being debated now. Let us remember that the alarming price difference between the products manufactured by PIP and those on offer from its competitors did not prompt enhanced control. The price, however, was the basis for PIP’s success in the implant market, and this had repercussions on the patients, the women.

I am sure that through these controls, European medical organisations will allocate the means to prevent this from ever happening again, but it is the Commission’s responsibility to urgently implement a monitoring and control system, and Parliament’s responsibility to control the content for compliance with this resolution.

For that reason, Commissioner, we hope you keep to your word.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE). – Madam President, this is a very important debate, but while we are talking about this particular scandal, we have to recognise that the European medical devices industry has been very innovative and has helped patients a great deal.

So I welcome the balanced approach of the Commission in relation to improving our regulatory system. I am against paragraph 7 because it will overdo things and take away the possibility of the industry being innovative. What we are trying to strike here is a balance between what is good for patients and improving the quality of life of those who need medical devices.

Could I just say on a slightly different theme, picking up on the point made by Ms McAvan, that we have had a debate on female genital mutilation and we are now having a debate on breast implants. Sometimes these are used by very young girls who chose this process and who, as Ms McAvan pointed out, do not understand the consequences of it. While the debates are not linked, it is interesting that, on this occasion, we are having them both tonight.

My main point is, however, that with regard to the progress made for people who have had hip implants or knee implants, and whose quality of life has been improved by the European medical devices industry, we need to allow this to flourish and grow. We need to better regulate the notified bodies, as has been suggested, and not stifle innovation.

The separate issue of breast implants calls for another debate, about society and pressure on young women. Perhaps we can have that another time.

  Evelyn Regner (S&D). – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, I should like to take the opportunity of this debate to mention a regulation that is currently being revised or, to be more accurate, is about to be finalised. This case of defective breast implants shows that this regulation needs further revision. I am talking about Brussels I, the regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. There are at least 60 victims of the defective breast implants in Austria who have tried in vain to bring an action via their consumer organisation in Vienna. They have not succeeded in doing so because of a gap in the regulation on jurisdiction.

We could improve the situation of these victims and many others if consumer organisations representing the victims were also able to utilise the more favourable consumer jurisdiction. The case of the defective breast implants again shows that the exclusive jurisdictions, such as the consumer jurisdiction, also need to be revised.

  María Irigoyen Pérez (S&D). – (ES) Madam President, we are debating a scandal, a scandal due to the use of PIP implants, which contained industrial silicon.

We are talking about risks, the risks run by the users: patients, many young women who go there without knowing what the implants are like, without any information at all. There are many, many legal loopholes and therefore we need to go further. As well as control, monitoring and protection, of course, more information is needed. The scandal surrounding these implants, which affects over 30 000 European women, teaches us that the suppliers that introduce these unhealthy products need to be punished. Commissioner, the patients that use these implants have a right to be informed, and not run any risks, given that nowadays, people who have implants use them not only for health reasons but also for personal improvement.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D). – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, one might question the apparent inertia of the public authorities in this matter. In such a scenario, the victims have the right to expect real accountability and to be offered real solutions.

It is true that the actions of the monitoring committee set up by the health authorities are far from being beyond reproach.

I also note that the issue of fee surcharges imposed by surgeons who remove defective implants has not really been addressed, which is not acceptable either. Gilles Pargneaux gave us alarming figures for the number of victims of this criminal act perpetrated by PIP.

As regards the question I asked you on 13 January, you told me that the inclusion in the legislation on medical products of injected products or implants intended exclusively for aesthetic use was one of the options proposed by the Commission in a public consultation launched in 2008.

Commissioner, I should like to know exactly, in the context of the proposed revision of the legislation on medical devices, if you intend to extend the scope of this legislation to the aesthetic products in question.

When can we expect to have this legislation?

  Karin Kadenbach (S&D). – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, I would like to follow on from that. We are talking today about medical devices, and I believe we need the strictest approval criteria for these, we need the most stringent checks and we need as much information as possible.

However, I am also convinced that only a minute proportion of the breast implants are actually being used as medical devices in the sense of medical treatment, and that the majority are used in cosmetic surgery. We are talking here about a market worth around EUR 700 million. My question today is therefore – and here I am following on from what Linda McAvan said – to what extent, as those responsible for health, we can justify the fact that a large number of Europeans, primarily women, have such a distorted self-image that they believe they will only really be a woman if they have such implants.

When you look at the fact that around 22% of young people in Europe, primarily women, suffer from eating disorders, and that the image of a young person conveyed to us in advertising and in the media – the image of a proper woman or a proper man – is an image that needs to be corrected if the upshot is that a large number of these people believe they can only restore their feelings of self-worth by means of surgical procedures, then we also need to give some thought to restrictions on advertising for the purposes of preventive health measures.

  Nicole Sinclaire (NI). – Madam President, this issue stems from the failure of the French authorities to regulate its manufacturing industry. Typically, ‘France has a take it or leave it’ approach to regulations that it expects other countries to adopt.

In June 2000, US medical regulators posted a warning letter on the Internet about problems at a breast implant maker in southern France. The French authorities did not pay this much attention. The French health authorities acknowledged as much in a 175-page report published on 1 February this year.

Radical change is needed in Europe to ensure proper surveillance of medical devices. France has shown itself incapable of regulating itself and should have external checks.

Many thousands of women have suffered, and are continuing to suffer, because of French negligence. France should be made to compensate all women affected by this negligence.

In future, there needs to be more communication with the surgeons, the clinics and the patients. These companies must be checked and the findings should be open to inspection by health professionals.

End of the catch-the-eye procedure

  John Dalli, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, I would like to thank all Members for their comments on this very important issue.

We all agree that patient health comes first and foremost in our policy deliberations. This is exactly what we are doing too when we insist that we must continue to have a flexible system that delivers innovation as fast as possible to our patients, because that is also a function of patient health.

Being able to use innovative products at the earliest possible time – and in Europe we deliver innovation about three years before our American counterparts with their own system – is a benefit to patients that we cannot put aside.

So when I was asked by Mr Pargneaux why I would not be pushing for pre-marketing authorisation, this is why: because I do not believe we need it. We do not need to go the way of pre-market authorisation. We have a system in Europe that has worked in the past. We are enforcing this system so it works even better. We are ensuring the competence of all the bodies that are involved in the authorisation process and this is the package that we will be proposing to this Parliament and to Council just after the summer. This, Mr Tarabella, is what the outcome is, and what my position is on this issue.

We have been deliberating, we have been studying and we have been stress testing what we have done because of the PIP case, and we will be coming forward with a formal, concrete proposal in a few months time, around September.

When we talk about authorisation, what we are saying here is: let us continue to keep the flexibility that we have in Europe; let us enforce and make sure that whoever is involved in the process is competent to do so; let us make the competent authorities in the Member States more involved in what is happening in their own countries within this process, and then let us have a Europe-wide expert group that will ensure the consistency, all across Europe, of a standard level of authorisation.

The PIP case is not about authorisation. The PIP case has nothing to do with authorisation. The PIP case is a fraud which could have happened under the most robust authorisation process you could possibly have.

The PIP case is an indication of the weaknesses we have in our processes: not necessarily in the legislation itself, though the legislation will be strengthened as well, but more in the way it was being implemented in market controls after authorisation.

As some of you have said, competent authorities in Member States simply let the medical devices that were in use in their countries not be subject to any kind of controls, and this is what is wrong.

It was unbelievable to hear – and I am an accountant by profession, so for me it was even worse – that all audits held by the notifying bodies on companies were all pre-notified two months in advance! It is unbelievable that this could happen!

This was all due to their interpretation that this was what was required in our legal process – which is not the case. In fact, in the letter I have written to the ministers, I have told them that this is not the case, that non-notified audits are provided for in our legislation today, and they should also be making sure that this is happening with marketing controls today. We do not need to wait two years until this legislative process that we will be launching very soon is finished.

We are pushing for transparency; transparency not only in the information that is given to everybody who might be deciding on making any type of procedure, but transparency also in the vigilance aspect so that all incidents that happen within the medical devices sector have to be reported back. A database will be set up to put all this information together so that we can really take the necessary actions.

The traceability of medical devices, which we are also proposing and will be proposing, as was mentioned here again today – and I am pleased that it was because this is also a very important aspect – and especially of risky medical devices, would also be part of the proposal.

Therefore, we are keeping our word on this. We will be coming back in September with a robust proposal that will drastically improve our safety issues – and without going overboard, without overreacting to an incident and trying to find a way of transmitting the sense that we are doing something by really doing something where it is not indicated that it needs to be done.

The problem of the PIP fraud was not authorisation. It lay in market controls, and this is where we need to really put our foot down and really ensure that we introduce a robust market control procedure.

  President. – I have received one motion for a resolution⁽¹⁾tabled in accordance with Rule 115(1) of the Rules of Procedure.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Thursday, 14 June 2012.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The sale of defective silicone gel breast implants by the French company PIP is an absolute scandal. It is inconceivable that such a situation could continue for several years, that 400 000 breast implants were sold worldwide, without any reaction from the control and supervision chain. In the future, more stringent safety tests must prevent such a tragedy occurring again and help avert a situation where thousands of women are facing difficult situations in which their health is put at risk. European cooperation and the exchange of information in this regard must be strengthened.

(1) See Minutes

20. Agenda of the next sitting: see Minutes

21. Closure of the sitting

(The sitting closed at 21.20)